I mean, coyotes can’t catch roadrunners despite having access to unlimited Acme products. They’re no match for humans.
Most car accidents happen within a mile from home
…because that’s where you’re driving most often
90% of fatal accidents occur in the northern hemisphere
I bet that last commenter studied boolean math
Good thing shaking babies doesn’t kill you then, or that stat might be even higher
Well there was that one time the vending machine decided to attack, but in general, it’s a human causing it to fall over.
sometimes humans cause me to fall over, but you don’t see me going around killing people
No one shakes a vending machine. Its part of gen-x schooling to learn you rock the machine back just a bit and then let it settle back on its feet.
What are they teaching kids now, if not that?
Um, there were more than a few Gen X that got hurt by vending machines. We didn’t have an immunity to that.
However, a skill we did have to exploit vending machines in the pre-digital age was to learn which alternating buttons you could press rapid-fire to get two sodas instead of one.
I know some (genX) people who discovered a neat trick to dislodge all the contents of a vending machine. Involves at least two people and a 2x4. I wouldn’t call what is done “shaking” per se, but you can be sure when the vending machine gets set back down, it feels mighty shaken up. And also empty.
But that would be dangerous, so don’t do it.
Why would smashing the glass require two people?
Its not glass, it’s typically acrylic and doesn’t shatter easily. And no, the machine was typically left unharmed, if bereft.
I get it, but the joke was right there and I had to take the swing.
I only know Vending Machine lore from Hollywood because they’re a lot rarer where I’m from so in my head “vending machine = shake” checks out.
My GenX uncle broke his shoulder checking a vending machine over a Snickers bar
The people pointing out the women killed by bears vs men stats a few months ago need to understand this as well lol
Like I am fine if you want to meme or dunk on men but once you bring bad stats into it that’s when I get serious.
yeah I think the way I always read that question was in the hundred duck sized horses vs one horse-sized duck sense. The average woman passes by, say, in public, hundreds of men per day in a city, right? I read that question (and the implication) that they’d prefer from a safety standpoint if each one of them was a bear, which is more of a video game premise than a situation anyone would survive.
The first time I saw the man or bear question, I assumed it was a setup for victim blaming. Neither choice is going to be a win for the woman.
Based on experiences, she doesn’t trust men so she picks bear? How dare she judge all men. So illogical!
Or she picks man? Then she should be prepared for an inevitable assault because eventually the man in the woods will be one of the bad ones and she should have known. She should have been more careful or just stayed home!
The whole thing was never a maths question. It was a rage bait question to rile up men who hate women and to give women an unwinnable binary choice. The only “winning” answer is to decline to play this stupid game.
The new women in mens fields trend is the same thing. Its there to agravate people by doing the thing people claim to hate just to a different group. Equality does not mean every one gets a turn at being the opresser and I can see why young people start to consider themself anti feminists if these two trends are the most interaction you’ve ever done with feminism. Which is likely since I don’t really see any other big social media movements for it.
Maybe its not my place to critisize the way they choose to operate but all im saying is if you told me both of those trends were Russian plots to stoke anger at feminists I’d believe you easily.
All good points I hadn’t considered! However, some people did try to turn it into a math problem which I had to object to at that point, since they were doing it wrong.
I assume that part of the intent with these type of scenarios is to draw attention to toxic masculinity by baiting out toxic responses, which is fine and obviously it’s effective if that is the intent. However, any attempt to respectfully disagree with the premise was also treated as toxicity and that just made me not want to engage with feminists or the discourse at all, which seems counter-productive.
no, it was a question to illustrate how women feel about safety around men. the rage came from male fragility. the refusal to understand a simple premise doesn’t make the “game” stupid.
This too is Not A Pipe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
It’s obtuse to treat the bear metaphor as a math problem. It’s doubly so to correct the work.
But would you rather be alone in the woods with a statistician or a bear?
Men kill more women than bears even adjusted per encounter.
I’m not here to argue about the bear metaphor, but this claim seems spurious at best. Even if there’s only 1 fatal bear encounter per 10 years, the number of bear encounters is so low that I don’t think this statistic can possibly be true. Do you have anything to back up your claim, or is this just a gut feeling sort of thing?
This seems to be comparing percent of women who’ve been attacked by a bear to the percent of women who’ve been attacked by a man, which… I mean, I guess? But a more fair statistic would be comparing the percentage of bear encounters that result in an attack to the percentage of man encounters that result in an attack. This is also comparing fatal bear attacks to non-fatal man attacks. Not to mention, their conclusion that a woman is safer in a forest with 260 bears than with one man assumes that the man is with them, and the bears just exist somewhere in the forest and may never see nor even be aware of them.
I agree with the conclusion that a woman has a greater chance of being victimized by a man than by a bear, but this whole argument just feels like it’s designed to not stand up to critical analysis with the intent of labeling whoever tries to call it into question a misogynist, though, and I’m not going to get into all of that again.
That was an interesting read but it’s not the math per encounter. They strangely used lifetime stats and ignored number of encounters so it doesn’t answer that question.
Some of the other commenters who point out flaws in the math seem to get their comments deleted or downvoted so that doesn’t help. It’s a controversial topic which makes it really hard to just crunch numbers without being accused of picking a side or trying to skew the results.
Coming up with the stat that 10% of men will commit a rape in their lifetimes is wild though, and super sad if true.
Wait why are we killing bears?
Fits of jealousy.
Do they? That’s hard to believe but if they did the stats right then feel free to share. How do you even measure the number of encounters?
Unfortunately, Steve’s data is wholly anecdotal. He’s killed 8 of the 10 women he’s ever met, see…
If vending machines ejected their beverage as vigorously as coconut trees, people wouldn’t put them on the same category on those statistics.
Getting an error message and a tiny thumbnail.
edit =finally appeared. My life’s dreams are fulfilled and joy reigns in the land.
At least it didn’t kill ya
It came up this time. It’s a good post and I’m glad I waited.
Having grown up around coconut trees, and gravity, I’ve long been aware that it’s foolish shake that tree if you don’t want to loose the fruit it holds over your head.
It’s hard to put into words how stupid that original take about coyotes in a corral even dares to be.
