Search Results: saying take care

For the most part I care to do right by people including women. That’s not to say I haven’t ever done and said things I regretted. That doesn’t I might have a few personality quirks that women don’t appreciate. But I do know I’ve overall try to do right.

But I also know there are some true POS guys out there. Abusive and violent men. Sociopaths. Psychopaths. I know damn well not every guy would react to a situation as thoughtfully as I would.

However find myself often initially give the other guy the benefit of doubt when I hear an abuse or sexual assault story from a woman. I will however convict the guy mentally if there is actual hard evidence to prove he really did something.

But while just hearing some woman’s verbal testimony I often find myself thinking “what if tha was me” she was accusing? I know I would never in my life do anything like the abuse stories we hear about men harming women. However if I don’t know the accused guy well I often keep asking questions about the incident to gather more info. I want to see if the woman is changing her story or leaving out crucial details (e. g. a woman claims a man hit her. But did she hit him first?).

But again it’s very naive to assume another guy would react and behave the same way I would in a situation. I never rule out he might be a truly violent abusive POS.

But do women second guess other women while hearing abuse claims? When they hear stories is there ever any doubt in their minds about the other woman is saying?

I bet some think twice about it. But from my observations women often immediately imagine themselves being the in the place of the victim in the verbal abuse story. Not all but they seem persuaded very quickly and take the other woman’s story at face value. Sometimes is the complete truth but not always. But are women able to imagine the possibility that the other woman might be malicious and a liar?

I've been saying for a while, especially on this site, that the concept of "BLM leadership" is something that exists pretty much entirely in right wing media. And even floated the idea that "BLM leadership" was actually plants, propped up by right wing billionaires to be the 'animated strawman' they need for their narrative. Turns out that weird theory is likely.

I suppose it makes sense. If a casual observer such as myself can think of it then surely professional think tanks could come up with it. And as they are backed by billionaires, if it is a strategy that can be funded, the question is not if it could be done but why wouldn't they do it? And the only answers that makes any sense are variations of "because it wouldn't work." But looking around it's hard not to notice the lurch to the right in our media, both social and mainstream, despite that same media telling us it actually moved to the left (another strategy that worked). So, something the right wing billionaires wanted has been delivered and any retrospective explanation anyone can come up with likely occurred as long as it would actually work, with preference possibly given to the more cost effective ideas, however that might be measured. Propping up a few "blm leaders" almost no one on the left cared to know about is certainly within the power of the far right.

So, yes, the christian nationalists have been at this for a while and are very close to solidifying their power permanently.

Or No, at some point christian nationalism will require work to no longer take place behind the scenes and when people see it the christian-nationalists-owned media saying that isn't what they are seeing won't be enough (even though they already accomplished that once by telling people 1/6 was a peaceful protest and not an attempt at civil war).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reclaiming-narratives-black-lives-matter-founder-mark-fisher-s-controversial-shift-from-blm-leadership-to-trump-endorsement/ss-AA1iVHq4