they gave an example like this
if a woman makes fun of a man who is disabled
she deserve harsh insults
if she behaves like a bitch
she deserves harsh insults
like i don't understand this really well
The problem is that for many people (but more commonly with men), it is an automatic (or decided upon) tactic to reply to a criticism with an antagonism. It's quite effective much of the time, so no wonder so many employ it. To do something else, takes restraint, takes an intellectual and/or mental understanding of the ramifications of impulsive behaviour. I am not a violent person. At all. But I *could* go get a weapon and bash violent men over the head, in the stomach, or wherever, with that weapon. Despite what many men think, everyone who does not commit violent, or retaliatory acts, is choosing not to. There is such as thing as 'temporary insanity.' And bipolar disorder, etc. etc. etc. But there are also 'crimes of passion' (one of the most common violent acts between couples) - but in the lead-up to that moment of retribution, there is conscious thought. And therein lies the crux of it all - most people do have control most of the time. But many are choosing not to exert it. I mean this in violent crime, and in seemingly innocuous micro-aggressions on social media or in online gaming, for instance (both extremely common.)
If a pink writes something online, on social media, sometimes a blue account counters her (others words/interpretations: attacks, antagonizes, insults, threatens, etc. - it depends; they are all slight variants); and occasionally a different blue account will publicly agree with the pink (whatever statement she made), and stand in solidarity with her (maybe sometimes aka defend her.) Now blue #1 gets pissed. So he goes on the offence. He calls blue #2 a 'white knight' and the pink the 'snowflake' - all in an attempt to keep the pressure and focus off of him, and twist and manipulate the optics of it, so that he comes out the 'innocent' 'victor.' It's all a manipulation.
She stated an opinion (and I'm obviously talking about a non-provocative/non-controversial topic), and a guy who disagreed with her (also a matter of opinion) aggresed upon her, and anyone else who may have happened to agree. It's a divide and conquer tactic. A predator animal isolates the young and weak prey, away from the pack, and he has a much better chance of killing it.
To address your example again...
Females vote more in favour of equal human rights.
Females vote to include minorities in their political decisions.
Females support social programs more.
Females hold service sector jobs more.
The statistics do not support a high rate of females "making fun of a man who is disabled." I'm not saying it never happens, but statistically, it's questionable to be occurring at any statistically-relevant rate.
Females have lower physical strength and higher vulnerability, and psychological preference for avoidance of conflict (aka avoidant) Females are not all-good, all-saintly, all-moral. What do females do? They reject men. They criticize their men (see how I am writing that in the personal sense, not in the abstract sense.) But they are mostly indirect in their communication, and they consciously choose passive-aggression over overt-aggression. It is part preference, and part survival instinct.
And that begs the question - is the real reason that a man would attempt to justify harassment or insulting of females, what they claim to be as the reason? And for that we must assess every situation as unique and judge all parties involved impartially. But make no mistake, there are prejudices and biases and bigotry all around us. And those people rarely admit that they are factoring in, at play, in influencing their behaviour.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now! the topic here is not rather walk away or insult
i was asking about another thing
AI Bot Choice
Superb Opinion