Twitter and Empathy | Big Joel
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 01. 2020
- Enjoy my takes about empathy and twitter!
Support me on Patreon: / bigjoel
Follow me on Twitter: / biggestjoel
Mothcub's CZcams Channel: / mothcub
Follow Mothcub's Twitter: / cubmoth - Krátké a kreslené filmy
HEy everybody, I misspoke a few times in the video and said that there wrere 8 victims when there were 14. My apologies. I realized this toward the end of production but there was almost nothing I could do. Here is a wikipedia article on the École Polytechnique massacre if you want to know more about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre.
Forgot to blackout the guy's name at 8:09
@@AvilVogel Thank you! I blurred it.
@@BigJoel No problem bb
@@assshoal5793 Except the guy was using a fight against feminism to justify his killing of random women. If someone were to use the Nazis to justify killing a bunch of white people, then it would in fact be a racist mass murder.
Well, contextually right: 8 victims inside the classroom and 14 total of the shooting.
In any case, Big Joel, thank you for spotlighting the Twitter thread! But from looking at the tweet thread, it looks like there's a significant chunk of people with the same judgement as you. No offence, but this video made it seem like Twitter is a cesspool of confused people, but there's still plenty of vocal, critical people on the platform.
To be fair though, if I were in this situation I would have feinted to the right as he aimed his gun at me, drawn my metal ruler then I would have smacked the gun from his hand and put him in a rear neck hold. I would have used this opportunity to lecture my male classmates on valuing their female counterparts and the importance of empathy before sacrificing myself to stop the shooter. Following the incident as I lie dying at the lectern one of the female classmates would confess how she always loved me before gently kissing me on the lips. “Alas I am gay” I say with a solemn expression on my face before passing away.
Amazing.
Rhys Blinco
Tho you would have a happier ending if you train and master ultra instinct.
this is completely unrelated, but
_why is your profile picture off-center?_
+
And the entire room claps and the shooter pulls cuffs out of his pocket and cuffs himself.
survivors bad because they didn't do epic hero move. shame on them
They were going to team up and beat up the shooter, but alas, he was gay
cue what are you doing here
you have good taste on youtubers i see ;)
@762 Goat man, mass shooters 30 years ago were so open minded
@@mattsmith457 They wouldn't have had time to say "No homo" before touching the shooter.
It wasn't worth it.
The video doesn't go so far as to say it, but it's entirely possible that instead of 14 people being dead, if the guys had tried to fight back there would have been MANY MANY more deaths.
“ you have one second to make a decision. Then the public has months to think out wether your decision was right or not.”
"Look, I- I've watched enough wrestling to know a rigged game when I see one." -Bill Burr
You make a decision on the web that best fits the situation you are in then some smartass on the internet taunts you for not doing it his way.
Well, basically yeah.
Even worse is that absolutely nobody agree on anything so you just go round in circles every single time
Correction: "your brain took a decision in one second that you have no control on. Then the public has months to think out wether your decision was right or not."
This dude really said “the men should have treated the women as equals” and “it was the men’s job to defend the women against the shooter” in the same breath
I don't agree with him but I think it was more of a "the people who were allowed to live should have protected the people who weren't". they still can't be expected to have done so though.
@@colorbar.s "should have" is carrying a lot of weight there
In a life or death situation, you cannot blame people for fight flight freeze reactions.
I can taste the irony
@@stratosphere2323 I genuiley love when people get so woke they exhibit exactly what they're being woke about
@@johnsober sometimes I think that they're alt-right trolls because how can someone be so dense
Like it would be so easy to talk about this case and say “we need feminism because this guy hated women so much he murdered them” but instead goes in a really gross direction and victim blames the survivors, needlessly
Exactly. It's unfair to the survivors and it distracts from the main problem: A guy got radicalized on anti-women ideology and commited a misogyny-fueled mass shooting.
Yeah, victim blaming.
I mean, he himself is also a reason we need feminism. Feminism is anti-toxic masculinity. These men are so convinced that they need to be strong and tough to defend women that they’ll tell other men to basically kill themselves for the sake of a woman.
People often forget that Feminism isn’t about men or women, but femininity as a concept, and why it’s not bad. I wish it had a different name, though, because it’s easy to confuse feminine with being female. The word feminine in itself is kind of sexist anyways.
eat hot chip and lie re: your last paragraph. That’s why I prefer egalitarian. I’m a woman myself, but feminism is about the advancement of women, which is totally fine, but should be done alongside men too. I stand for the betterment of humanity, not a certain group.
But at the end of the day, it’s just semantics. What matters most is not the term you use, but the ideals you stand behind when you say you advocate a certain ism. It’s what that ism means to you that’s important, more so than the dictionary definition.
@@bugjams you got the bull's eye. It's a dialectic, and dialectics inherently sit at an antithesis to one another, saying masculine or feminine creates an isolated perception.
I'm personally grateful I read Hermetic texts back when I was like, 14, cause none of this even became part of my identity. The crossroads came and went a long time ago. Love is the Law, for anybody and everybody.
Except the Black Gelf and Royal houses of pedo demons or whatever the fuck they are.
op basically said “rip to all those women but if i were there it’d be different”. twitter was literally a mistake.
No, no quite that. It would be if he told that women had ways not to die
Twitter is genuinely the worst event of the 2000s
Yeah, he's a real man like Rambo and would've back flip kicked that gun out of the shooter's hand while winking at the ladies, thereby prompting the remaining males to break into a choreographed dub step number. Sigh, if only people were more real like him.
No.
Let's just assume this guy has the mental fortitude of a special forces member or whatever and he rushed the shooter while being completely unarmed himself. The only thing that would change is that one more person would have been shot since you cannot outrun a bullet no matter how much naruto you watch.
A guy shot a group of women because he hated feminism and the OP was more mad about the fact that the male classmates' self preservation instincts took over than the fact that *a guy shot a group of women because he hated feminism.* Like, I think one of them is a bit of a bigger issue that needs to be examined.
But they’re both issues tho.
@@NoMoreSuperHero anybody who intervened would just get shot??? Would you rather 9 dead women and 50 male survivors or 9 dead women, 3 dead men who tried to save them and 47 survivors? Or 59 dead and no survivors???
@@user-bo6vy5eg8g I'd rather the men for once not put themselves ahead others just once in their lives and do the right thing.
@@NoMoreSuperHero go fight a gunman bare handed and without any planning before hand, I’ll be cheering you on ☺️
@@fosterrie6435 That's not likely to happen.
Sure, 50 men can definitely take out one shooter. The thing is, whoever makes the first move is almost certainly dead. It's easy to say they should've done it for the greater good, but sacrificing your own life isn't something you can just do on a whim. It's not even that they were incapable of doing it. Some of the people who committed suicide would likely have sacrificed themselves if they knew this would happen beforehand and had time to build up courage. Needless to say, calling any of those people misogynistic is terrible.
And that's presuming it worked. Real life is fickle. Say a group manage to quickly form a plan to rush him, with 5 they think they can take him. Then he guns down 2 or 3 of them. Then what? Going to keep charging him, or run? I doubt you'd keep charging, because if you felt confident enough to charge him alone, you already would have after all. Not to mention he's made it abundantly clear he's not fucking around.
In the New Zealand Christchurch shooting, early on, one of the men in the mosque looks like he charges the gunman. He gets shot to death basically instantly, simply becoming a target first because he's now a blatant threat. It didn't buy anyone time, it didn't save anyone, it simply got him killed earlier than he already would have. Now, this isn't to say he shouldn't have, the shooter was clearly there to kill as many people as possible, so it wouldn't have made a difference really, but my point is that charging someone is merely hypothetical, and even a single person trying and failing can destroy the morale of anyone else who had the idea.
It's easy to say "I would have" when in your mind you're one of the 40 remaining men, with 10 giving their lives to stop the shooter. How about if you were one of the dead? Would you have still felt so confident in it? Giving your life for, in this context, women who you initially thought were just hostages?
It's sort of like the 4th plane on 9/11, where the passengers banded together to fight against the terrorists and crash the plane early, preventing any attack. Except in that case, the people on the plane were likely doomed from the start. Overthrow the terrorists or not, you likely won't get out alive, so it's easy to throw your life away when you know it won't last. But in a case like this where you have a good chance of getting out alive? Whole lot harder to justify throwing yourself against a lethal threat when you essentially are given a free pass to leave alive.
Let's say they have an Ar-15 or an AK-47. 3 hits are a kill and there's 30 bullets in the mag so it's ten. And then,those shots penetrate and get the people in the back.now they're easy kills. If the shooter backs through the door,he can easily kill many men who are rushing the guyy through the door.
@@Remix2366 1 round of any AR would probably floor you, maybe not take your life but your done after the first bullet enters your body
The only bad guy in that situation was the shooter. Those 50 men weren't misogynistic, and they didn't hate the women who were about to die. They were just terrified, and understandably so. What if it was the opposite way around and a shooter was coming into the room and it had 50 women and just a few men, and the women did nothing to help? Are the women sexist? No, they're fuckin scared of a SHOOTER. Tbh in that situation I wouldn't be able to leave the room cuz I'd have already passed out on the floor, nevermind jumping at a dude with a loaded gun and hoping for the best. It was a terrible situation, and the only misogynist was the man who shot all those women because he hated feminism. Why are people blaming the men who left and not the actual shooter? What exactly do people expect those guys to do about it?
fellas, if you dont run unarmed at a dude with a gun do you really respect women?
jackson I guess not, but that won’t stop me from prioritising myself.
Live, or die like a simp?
Oh, yeah. SUPER tough question.
le epic redditor has discovered the word simp
in b4 this guy was actually bi but said he's gay for appearances
That’s why I choose fork
Then run
People will write threads like this and avoid eye contact with the homeless person down the street
So true, I’ve been homeless and you’d be surprised at how many people treat you like a criminal or just another bum. I’m 20 and I have to say, I was lucky I was young because a lot of older homeless dudes who smoked weed and avoided hard drugs, taught me who to stay away from and streets to not walk down at night alone. They just saw me as an innocent kid and told me to reach out to young adult programs and because I listened, I got into a young adult housing program/other things. Sometime people who suffer the most can be far more empathetic to those in needs. The opposite can also be true though sometimes. It all depends on the person.
Oh shit you weren’t referring to me, damn my bad
I h8 Morrissey
I don’t think we can extrapolate that simply because someone had an awful take. I mean you’re technically correct in the sense that I’m sure this is true in some instances but this comment just seems antithetical to the point of the video
Where else are they supposed to look when they piss on them
I'll tell you about the homeless people on my streets, they beg for money and then spend it on the cheapest worst alcohol they can get and drink it on the street before passing out somewhere around
I get it being homeless is harsh, they need help, we should care, but there's a reason people are homeless and it's not (only) because capitalism stole their lives
You see there's a thing with mentality, there's rich and poor mentality, people with rich mentality will make the most of what they have, invest and make sure their resources will multiply, they will make a plan. While on the opposite hand people with poor mentality will just spend on whatever, throw their money away, never care for the future, and this people will lose everything they obtain, now people with poor mentality usually can take care of themselves to a certain degree, but there are some special cases, where their poor decisions or in some unfortunate cases, some other person's decisions will ruin their lives and leave them homeless, but in the end for most homeless persons their state is caused by the culmination of their life choices, and us giving them a home or some money won't change anything because they will just lose it again, because it's in their mentality, if they were able to recover they would at least try, and some people do, but giving free stuff to the homeless won't dmssve them, if I gave a home and money to the homeless in my town they would just end up homeless again in some months
What do I think we should do is send them to some kind of place that would help them change their mentality, teach them to be better, to hold on their own, they don't need us fixing their lives, they need to learn how to fix themselves, but that's too complicated to happen, and not economically viable, so yeah, I don't like the idea of giving stuff to the poor
And I know that you're going to hate me for being this cold, but if you wanted this conversation I don't plan to hold back
You can call it lack of empathy but I call it realism, however much I want to help people I know when it won't work
I'm going to edit to actually say I'm dotty for being way to harsh on people whose situation I don't know, I stand by my point about mentality but if by any chance you're homeless i believe and hope you can get better by getting help from friends or using your mentality to help ourself think of something, yeah I was kind of a dick but the situation in my city (México mind you) doesn't give me a very good image of homeless (and alcoholic) people, sorry if I attacked someone unintentionally
Oh god, this is giving me horrible flashbacks at school, where an older female teacher asked me what I would do if a saw someone getting beaten up by a group of people. To which I replied that I would probably end up freezing in place or running away. She basically said I was a bad person for not trying to “save” the person and that I was part of the problem, while she monologged about how if “she” was there she would save this person who’s getting beaten up by five grown men. Many of these people who think like this tend to have a power fantasy, where they underestimate their own physical and mental abilities. It comes from a good premise of “ you should help people in need” but most of the time it’s to make them feel more morally superior. “Yes, I would run into that burning house to save the baby” or “I would confront that man abusing his wife in public”. Most people wish they would do these things, but your most likely to freeze up or run away.
It's human nature to avoid situations that are dangerous or could result in bodily harm. There is a reason why we feel fear and get stressed, its our bodies way of telling us that we probably shouldn't be in a certain situation.
It's also so rich for the older woman to be saying that. The risk (or, at least, perceived risk) of her getting beaten up in that hypotethical situation is much smaller than it would be for a young man, because of shitty societal conventions that say you can't hit women (and also older people), but young men are fair game.
Edit: I just noticed that your name is Emily. Welp, the age argument still stands I guess.
@@Kickiusz that's just not really true tho. domestic abuse statistics aside i hear so often about women being violently beaten up on streets in my country by violent men. there is a good chance they would beat up the woman and maybe do worse if she intervened. the idea of five men who beat up one man (which already shows they don't exactly care much about "fairness") being like oh ok can't beat up a woman, we're gentlemen just... does not ring true
@@roza2633 that's why I wrote "perceived risk". Also, judging by your name, are you Polish and if so, are you talking about police brutality? I'm asking because authoritarian regime using force against protesters is not exactly the same as common people hitting women. I'm Polish myself and I vividly remember being taught many times as a kid that "you can't hit girls even with a flower", with no such rules extending to boys.
@@Kickiusz yes i'm polish, but i wasn't thinking of police brutality here. also speaking from the perspective of someone who, as a girl in primary school, was physically bullied by boys my age. and again i feel like while sure it's possible that some grown men who are so violent that 5 of them beat up one man could be against hitting a woman.. the chances aren't all that high. my point was really just that it does not feel safer to try to intervene as a woman when women are afraid of regular looking dudes if it's dark enough outside.. and for a reason
people who call themselves "empaths" like it's some kind of magical superpower are the least empathetic people i know.
The "empath" superpower is basically mind-reading. There's nothing that says you have to use what you learn that way in the person's best interests, in fact you're probably using it more effectively if you use it to manipulate people.
Im a empath😎😎😎which means i have a special😯😯 sooperpower🤩🤩🤩that makes me so much better than those narcissists😠😠🤬🤬🤬with their delusions of grandeur😤😤😤😤😤
(/s if it wasnt obvious. I know it isn't really relevant but "narcissists" are the people that self proclaimed empaths go after the most and I think it's really funny)
@@Quazex Are narcissists the ones without empathy? I thought that was sociopaths.
@@Tzizenorec yeah I'm pretty sure you're right, but I wanted to make the delusions of grandeur joke. Empaths hate them all anyway so either would work.
Yeah, empaths are a ridiculous concept. You can't just directly feel someone's emotional state. You need to recognise it. If you misidentify a serene person as being troubled and sad, you will feel troubled and sad. Empathy is the tendency to feel the emotions you think the other person is feeling. But being empathetic does not in any way make what you think more accurate. The belief that it does will always make you absolutely awful at reading emotions. Hence why self-identified empaths act the way they do.
“it’s not about shaming, it’s about empathy,” the twitter-man exclaims, outraged, as he berates and condescends to the victims of a mass shooting.
@@aidanquiett668 (those men are victims too)
Jennifer Zhu That’s because twitter draws the most sociopathic people together in order to congregate in their filth. I have no clue what it is about Twitter that makes it that way, but it’s just gross
@@aidanquiett668 Jennifer Zhu agrees with you. She's making fun of the person who made the tweets that Joel is talking about - she is mocking the idea that "saying the men abandoned the women" is about empathy, because as she correctly observes, there is nothing empathetic about Twitter Guy's treatment of the men, who were also victims
@huong ma I did read, I just misinterpreted it
@@aidanquiett668 What was your original tweet? I'm "curious", per se.
I just have a feeling people would have indeed intervened if they knew what was happening.
In Wikipedia:
After approaching the student giving a presentation, he asked everyone to stop everything and ordered the women and men to opposite sides of the classroom. No one moved at first, believing it to be a joke until he fired a shot into the ceiling.[4]
Lépine then separated the nine women from the approximately fifty men and ordered the men to leave.[5] He asked the remaining women whether they knew why they were there, and when one student replied "no", he answered: "I am fighting feminism". One of the students, Nathalie Provost, said, "Look, we are just women studying engineering, not necessarily feminists ready to march on the streets to shout we are against men, just students intent on leading a normal life." Lépine responded, "You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists." He then opened fire on the students from left to right, killing six, and wounding three others, including Provost.[1][6] Before leaving the room, he wrote the word shit twice on a student project.[5]
So the men didn't know it was an anti-woman attack.
"Male students and staff expressed feelings of remorse for not having attempted to prevent the shootings,[5] but Nathalie Provost, one of the survivors, said that she felt that nothing could have been done to prevent the tragedy, and that her fellow students should not feel guilty."
This shooting was before Columbine, before western mass shooter culture became pronounced. The historical context is indeed very important, because many recent shootings following this one DO have men intervening. Examples include one man in the Umpqua school shooting, and two men in Christchurch Mosque shooting, who knew what was happening and had time to plan out their responses.
That being said, unarmed civilians regardless of gender identity should not be expected to intervene.
Some of that sounds made up
The accounts by the surviving victims? Maybe I'll take that over what someone on Twitter claims happened.
Or are you talking about the men who stopped or attempted to the Umpqua and Christchurch shooter? There's clear evidence for that as well.
@@zzkzkzzkzkzk8945 No, this:
"Look, we are just women studying engineering, not necessarily feminists ready to march on the streets to shout we are against men, just students intent on leading a normal life"
Sounds like an 'and whole bus clapped scenario' - cant imagine someone saying all this coherent jargon while a gunman is pointing a gun at their head. Doesnt sound like something that would actually happen.
@@danb4900 I can't say for sure, but since the event happened at a French-language institute in Montreal, it's possible the account was originally in French. It does seem to have that rigidity of a translated quote.
I'm hyperempathetic due to being autistic, and it is not at all desirable. I'm too easily swayed by one point of view, then someone else says something different, and my viewpoint immediately does a complete 180. It makes me feel really easily manipulated, and my thinking is really black and white.
Having a lot of empathy does not magically put you on the right side of an issue or make you superior. You can have zero empathy and still easily do the right thing through sympathizing and listening to other perspectives. Excessive empathy just makes me more passionate about things, and it's unfortunately not always in the right direction.
Dont worry about changing your opinion like that its just human nature the tweets didn't give you a full picture and said things that when seen as numbers make sense but when someone shows you more it's normal to change your opinion and good it means you are open to discussion and changing if you are wrong
Yup. Like if I was in that situation, that I knew that the shooter was a misogynist and only wanted to kill women and would let me go...
I ain't a navy seal. I'm not a hero. But I really fucking would like to be in that moment. But I'd be too scared. Angry and scared. Angry that I'm scared.
This isn’t an attempt to discredit you, just genuine curiosity: how does being Autistic relate to being very empathetic? I’ve only heard of the opposite.
@@trumpeterjen Honestly, I'm autistic and I have a massively hard time with empathy. I do not understand the idea of thinking/feeling like someone else, like, how would you even do that? They're a different person! Also, neurotypical people are so weird about so many things that there's no way I could ever "put myself in their shoes" for tons of things.
But like Joel said, people are strangely obsessed with empathy. Just because I can't put myself in someone else's shoes doesn't mean I don't feel oodles of sympathy or compassion for people. When someone is sad I am also sad, because I don't like it when people are sad - being sad sucks - not because I'm 'feeling their sadness' or something. I do think I get more emotionally invested than normal, but that's despite not being good at empathy.
@@Zorae42 I'll take a sympathetic person like you over an empathetic person who won't bother to help anyone any day of the week. It doesn't matter which characteristics you do or don't have. It's what you do with them that counts.
Implying that men are required to be big and strong and heroic is an anti-feminist take. Men are allowed to feel fear, especially when faced with an active shooter while unequipped to face them (I.e. no training, no protection, no weapons, etc.). Men are allowed to feel emotions.
the funny thing is this is just a bigger underlying issue with how society views men showing itself in full. Life or death situation? Its a cultural attitude that men have to die first. We think their lives are worth less, not letting them feel emotions is only a part of the problem. It's all over the place once you know to look, why no one is talking about the male suicide epidemic. Why no one is talking about the fact that men make up the majority of homeless and incarcerated persons. Why no one is talking about the death gap in general.
The answer is simple, our culture simply does not care.
That’s why we have to have these conversations. Men’s spaces on the internet is consumed by the man-o-sphere, which shuts down these conversations by reiterating that real men work without emotion, aren’t allowed to have emotion except anger and can’t “be weak”. Other spaces, while they can be open to men’s issues, aren’t focused on them. Men are robbed of a safe space to express their emotions and discuss real issues like the suicide and homelessness’s epidemics. By having more discussions about it, we can slowly build a new community.
it's very prominent in american culture. i broke my femur 3 years ago and sometimes i experience pain. it can be at random or due to overextending. i need to sit down otherwise im miserable.
my boss took away my stool because "he doesn't like that i sit down." i would still continue my work while i sat. it did not impede my ability to do my job at the same rate if i were standing.
it's because I'm a man and i have to just "deal with the pain" because men aren't allowed to be comfortable. my pregnant coworker was provided the stool and she said i could use it.
why was she not punished? men are expected to work hard and when we show fatigue, it's seen as weakness.
I don't think men are allowed to. I see many comments from liberal pink/purple haired women that they get triggered whenever they see men being angry. Raging over why this new table is so hard to assemble genuinely has these women, who espouse open-mindedness, running for the hills. We are not allowed to express anger (liberals), not allowed to cry (everyone else) and not allowed to have a breakdown (society).
@@madmintentertainment6268 men make up the majority of incarcerated persons because they commit the majority of the crimes. maybe drop that one from your list.
Still can't believe I drew all these pictures blindfolded!
very impressive for a wamen
Wait, blindfolded!?
I can.
(Nice job.)
This art is adorable, love the work you put into this. Thanks for doing this!
Idk why you decided to do Patrick Star dirty
Thank you for this video. That thread made me so mad lmao, and your point about how misplaced empathy can accidentally validate survivor guilt was really good
I, too, was disquieted with the tweets, but for a slightly different reason.
The problem I had was the obviously fallacious logic that the author indulged in: it was an obvious “post hoc ergo proctor hoc” situation, implying that the women died because the men were forced out of the room; or, in other words that the women would have lived if the men had not left the room . The author put the blame on the male victims of the attack and by some brilliant oversight exculpated the shooter.
And somehow, a quarter of a million people didn’t notice this fallacy.
But, alas, I am straight.
@@warlordofbritannia Totally agree. When he was reading the tweets I was like"what kind of shit take is this???" It made no sense and that guy was clearly trying to manipulate people to make himself seem morally superior, whether he's aware of it or not.
Kino
Not everyone needs to respond to every bad tweet they see, much less respond with such detail as in a CZcams video
@@MKallleet I was going to tell you to just shut the fuck up and stop being a dip shit lol... But thankfully warlord spoke to you the correct way and not the way that I feel you deserve. Ya weirdo.
I really want to accept feminism. I really do...... but shit like this tweet just constantly dive me away..
Trust me, BS like this is slowly growing frequent among the feminist community, and it's as sickening as it sounds.
I’ll be honest, when i first saw this tweet it was in the context of it being attacked by in the MGTOW subreddit with all of the men in the comments glorifying the shooter and making jokes about trans women “deciding whether or not they’re woman enough to stay” to the point all of the vitriol for all the wrong reasons in response made me feel that the tweet must have some intrinsic merit or make a good point because it was being criticized for so many of the wrong reasons.
When I heard it retold I sort of nodded my head and was telling myself “okay, I’m sure Joel is going to react to vitriol in response to the tweet” because in my mind I didn’t think critically, I thought it was “fine” because so many people found vile reasons to criticize it, I assumed there was nothing to criticize despite the tweet making absurd claims
This video has made me deeply uncomfortable with what I am capable of rationalizing simply because it is reviled by those who I revile.
Thank you
Those mgtow do not care about make issues. If they were they would figth for boys on war , men rape victim , male domestic violence ( whether straigth or gay). They would enchance male on male relationship, figth their depressions and such. What they care is getting a women. I assure once they get the lady they drop the label. Red pill, MRA and do not care about men at all. If they did they would actually those problems ñ.
It’s okay bro, it happens to everyone.
There is, unfortunately, a problem in some political spheres where their ostensible political enemies say something demonstrably untrue like "The Sky is Green!", and they themselves, knowing their enemies are nearly always wrong, confidently assert "You are a liar, and therefore, I know with confidence that the Sky is actually Red!"
Or, put another way: the Opposite of a Falsehood is not Truth.
The fact that you can acknowledge that uncomfortable aspect of your character and even admit it is something pretty damn respectable, regardless of your views.
I know I'm very late with this, but I wanted to thank you for writing this comment. I had a similar reaction to these tweets for similar reasons, so when Joel zoomed out a bit and turned things around I was rather shocked at how easily I had rationalized the OPs viewpoint. Your comment summarized those feelings well, and I appreciate your conclusion too, so thank you for writing it. It's unpleasant, but I think feeling that discomfort shows that you're willing to grow and that you're in it for the right reasons. :)
He talked about having empathy, while lacking it. He spoke out against seeing some people as disposable, while seeing some people as disposable.
I remember reading a quote from one of those young men saying, (and I'm paraphrasing) "when he singled out the men and told us to get up and step out, I thought it was us [the men] who would be targeted".
If you were in that classroom and the man with the gun had only mentioned the men in the room, his end game wouldn't even be immediately apparent.
Exactly!
@@abroncendrik4923 Exactly. That tweet is very misleading in the way it presents the situation because it makes it sound like the guys had all the facts about the killer's motives which leads to the conclusion that refusing to risk their lives for those women was a decision motivated by misogyny.
@Charlie Freeman How so? I honestly don't think your behaviour requires any justification when you're put on the spot with a gun pointed at you -- no matter how you react.
Eli N.S
Even if the shooter had announced his intentions, would that suddenly mean that the men must put themselves in harm's way to protect the women? And what if it were the other way around? Would the women need to storm onto the shooter and risk being murdered in the process?
Charlie Freeman I don’t think the ‘Compliance’ incident is a good comparison. There are experiments and real events that show people can be dangerously submissive to people they perceive as authority figures. A guy with a gun isn’t an authority figure; he’s obviously a criminal who the actual authority figures will probably imprison later. But right now he’s a massive physical threat, entirely unlike the ‘Compliance’ criminal, who was just a voice on the phone.
Submitting to somebody because you believe they represent law and order, even when they present zero physical threat, and submitting to somebody because they appear to be an armed madman, are two completely different scenarios. It would have been entirely safe for the fast food manager to say, ‘I’m just going to hang up and call the local station to check you’re legit’ - although even in that case, I don’t think we get to judge unless we’ve been in a similar situation and acted differently; she was still a victim. Rushing a gunman ... is not that.
i was going to dislike this video, but alas, i am gay.
I read this comment at the same time that that was read, the stars aligned
alas!
Nothing personnel, kid. 😎
hello gay, im dad
I was going to dislike this comment, but alas, I am gay.
"Those fifty guys should've assembled into a megazord and ate all of the shooter's bullets"
So strange that in a discussion about misogyny, with a story where a man LITERALLY slaughtered women exclusively, that someone would choose to scrutinize the men who also fell victim to this awful event. Like, is there not a BIGGER CULPRIT FOR MISOGYNY HERE!?!?
But alas, the Twitter user was gay, and that assumably makes him free of criticism.
@@soccerruben1 as if not wanting to "score with ladies" makes it impossible for you to have an awful take, idc if the dude was straight, Bisexual or gay. He had an awful take which was also kinda based on mysogyny
STUFF CAN BE TWO THINGS
@@facuuu2809 I agree with you wholeheartedly but that comment was a joke and sarcasm
@@theaveragecomment1014 ik ik, I just wanted to say my opinion about what the dude on the tweet said lol
The fact that some of the survivors killed themselves out of guilt really shows that they wanted to do something. But felt they were too weak or not brave enough to do so. Imagine being a relative or friend of one of these people who killed themselves, reading a post - with _thousands_ of likes and even people supporting it - ridiculing these men and calling them weak and apathetic.
Just... wow. I really don’t even know what to end this comment with. That’s just... wow.
I hope that this video will give the family member who has seen that tweet some comfort
I feel like that twitter thread could easily have played out in one of the survivors heads
I know right? It's ridiculous to put any kind of burden on the survivors let alone going as far as to describe to them as ideological accomplices of the shooter for not fighting a man with a gun. Instead of blaming the victims how about blaming the monstrous person who gunned down innocent civilians? It's no one's doing but their own.
People lack empathy these days I have found.
Because they are very emotional and less intelligent
"Why can’t we have more empathy???" he tweets, while showing no empathy towards a large part of the victims of the shooting and even blaming them for what happened...
Its twitter what did you expect
Its filled with 24/7 outraged liberals circleyerking each other
Many of this kind of videos have been made exposing the hivemind group think and doubble standards of twitter
I agree. imo the problem with the tweets is not "too much empathy," it's the opposite. The OP jumps to conclusions about why the men left instead of imagining what he would feel like in the same situation. He judges the men's actions based on what (on a VERY SURFACE LEVEL) seems reasonable to an outside observer ("there were fifty of you, why didn't you beat up the one guy?") rather than thinking about how the men might actually feel.
I usually agree with Big Joel, but, while I respect the ideas he presents, I disagree that these tweets are primarily about empathy. The OP's argument seems more motivated by a misplaced desire for fairness ("why did the men get to live and not the women?") or duty ("we MUST protect women, regardless of how we feel!") than empathy or care. I don't think the OP empathized "about the wrong things," I think he just didn't try that hard to empathize at all.
@@lucyw4195 I would call it being intellectually dishonest. Does my cynicism lack empathy, or does this guy really just not deserve any?
@@lucyw4195 I think the idea that a man might think "We MUST protect the women, no matter how we feel." is a heroic way to think and wouldn't expect it of any one individual, but things get more complicated when I apply that to every individual of 50 who know of one-another's possible support. I still don't think any one of those people deserves to feel lifelong shame for his self-protection, but that isn't what the central commenter Big Jeol is reacting to says. There's a pattern here with everyone but the most hateful person in the room not being able to protect a minority of very targeted people and the idea that society is responsible for being better in any number of possible ways to avoid that kind of powerlessness against hate is a legitimate one, politically. The commenter gestures toward that. I feel it's pretty snotty for someone in that context to say "I'm right, your wrong" and "Your comment is blaming and hateful", to someone expressing that. The opinion that individual men should not be demonized or blame themselves can exist comfortably in alongside that one without blaming or scilencing the person holding that perspective.
@@lucyw4195 You got it totally right. Your comment needs signal-boosting. Everyone should read it.
I wanted to make a similar point myself, but couldn't find the words.
That thread kinda reminds me of the story I was told when I was in Catholic school, about a mass shooter who went around asking students if they believed in God and if they said 'yes' they were shot. The message was that your faith should be strong enough for you to say you believe in God even with the threat of death.
It's kinda fucked up that we expect children in dire life and death situations to be martyrs.
I believe this is the story of one of the students at Columbine
@@dirkjehovah4731 it is, and on top of that, I think it's pretty fucked up that Christians have used this as an example of anti-Christian violence in the United States. It's not like the Columbine shooters were literally only killing Christians, and it's not like that one girl's life would have been spared if she said no.
Yes and no. While it is bad to shame people for the natural impulse to try to stay alive in a desperate situation. I think one of the problems facing society right now is that people are increasingly unwilling to sacrifice anything for the betterment of their fellow humans or for the betterment of society. It is an awful world we live in when avoiding paying taxes is celebrated as a virtue as "being smart", or where greedy is good, and excess and over indulgence is the dream people should aspire to. If we as people want a more equal society, then those with more than the average person must be willing to sacrifice some of what they have so that those with less can have more.
@@agilemind6241 “The average person must be willing to sacrifice some of what they have so that those with less can have more.”
Like… their lives?
@@aldovesper1362 yeah generally I agree with "the average person should sacrifice a little so someone else can have a lot" but there isn't "a little life" and "a lot of life", there's just life and death.
watching people talk about how they'd handle a shooting better than the victims like they're some sort of action hero always makes me cringe
Reminded me of the mark wallberg 9/11 thing🤢
@@firstnamelastname153
Huh? What was that?
@@d2dar459
Late reply but action-movie actor Mark Wahlberg once bragged that he would have taken down the terrorists that flew a plane into the World Trade Center during 9/11 if he was in that particular flight.
@@d2dar459 Months late but marky mark said something like "if I was on one of those planes during 9/11 it would have gone very different". Heck you can prolly find a vid just by typing in mark Wahlberg 9/11.
He was really just indirectly calling them cowards. His tweets were blatant sexism, plain and simple.
Men are people, not guard dogs.
fr! like, of COURSE they were scared in that situation, implying they were cowards proves nothing because they had a gun to their heads- of course they'd be cowardly and get away. he likes to say he has empathy but there's none here, in fact his wording seemed intentional to put all the blame on the men despite their situation :(
Are you insinuating that it's best for a dog to sacrifice itself for a human, thus making dogs in a sense disposable?
Uh-oh...
@@jaschabull2365 P R O B L E M A T I C
desu38 But twitter aint ready for that conversation
Twitter is a cesspool of stupid folk and degenerates
Mark Wahlberg said if he was on the plane, he would've stopped 9/11. I think we like to imagine we'd be the hero in situations where we couldn't possibly anticipate the full circumstances.
Bob Magyar That’s obviously true though. Marky-Mark would have single handily overpowered multiple men who had trained for that moment, landed the plane himself, get everyone ice cream, and then teleport to the other planes to repeat the cycle.
This is literally the idea of the "good guy with a gun'" fallacy. People think they can be some big action hero, but we're just people. We panic in stressful situations, we freeze when were in danger.
Mark Wahlberg nearly beat a Vietnamese man to death with a baseball bat while yelling racial slurs. He's some hero....
The most offensive thing about this is that the people on those planes did do the right thing, and died as a result
@@jeniferjoseph9200 As I recall, that only happened on one of the planes, and mostly due to having more time to plan and react.
As a woman who gets often confused with a man when people aren't paying attention, I can see myself getting up and leaving with the men if I thought I had a chance of escaping. Solidarity for my sisters would not make a difference if there was a guy waiting to shoot me.
This dude didn't think any of this through before posting
I didn't even think of that dude.
Yeah im ftm and honestly i would gtfo with the rest of the men in an instant, probably just thankful I pass lol. I would feel awful after, but it's got nothing to do with empathy, it's self-preservation.
LOL
Also if you read the timeline of events, the men didn't even know why they were leaving the room. They didn't know if they were going to be targeted out in the hallway or not, they just knew someone with a gun was telling them what to do, and at that point your survival instincts are gonna say "I have a better chance of living if I do what I'm told."
By the logic of these tweets, should the women have just left the room with the men because it was a big crowd, and they theoretically could have gotten out without getting shot? No, because they were also doing what they were told.
As you say though, it was all a matter of self-preservation. Even if these guys DID know, their actions weren't exactly selfish, they were just what any terrified person would do - trying not to die.
I would do the same
I want to live
I'm a woman and a feminist and had no idea where this video was going. When I first read the tweets, I thought "well that's dumb" and also "there's a murdering misogynist right there!" Thanks for illustrating how this was also offensive and inaccurate.
I think people forget that those who take extraordinary actions to protect others are labelled heroes for a reason- they demonstrate a level of courage beyond the ordinary. Something we have no reason to expect from every person. And people deserve respect and empathy for their struggle, regardless of whether their actions were extraordinary or not.
I'm also a woman and a deep feminist; and my initial reaction was actually the exact opposite. I was like "well the men should have done something, and their actions clearly reads as misogynistic".
Not 5 minutes into the video and I had already realized how faulty my original thinking was.
And it seemed so obvious, so why did I get it so wrong?
I think the original tweeter was trying to make a very good point; but used... just the worst example. They were trying to illustrate how not using one's own privilege to help or intervene is actually enabling abusers. Kinda like the quote "evil men can only prevail when good men do nothing" or something like that.
- Ex hearing your fellow male friends make r*pe jokes, or hearing fellow white people make racist comments AND NOT confronting them.
And that is what I initially got from the tweets, sure I was like "maybe a shooting is not the best example" but I was willing to give the original tweeter the benefit of the doubt.
Then as the video went on I realized there was soooo much wrong with the message from those tweets that I hadn't considered at first. Like op was basically saying that all men at any point should be ready to jump in front of a bullet for any woman ever? That's ridiculous.
Like Big Joel said: these men were civilians with an actual gun pointed at their heads, and with only seconds to make their decision. And the women were just their classmates.
@@gryenocson2617 Not to mention this shooting happened in 1989 meaning they had no concept of what was going on. Like Joel said not in the zeitgeist of school shootings. Many people in that classroom had no reason to believe all the women would be shot upon exiting. But even if they did try to rush him he was using at least a 10 round magazine meaning he could have killed at least 5 people at close range. Almost nobody would have rushed them knowing that, likely not even police who we see have been all but inactive in several school shooting scenarios.
@@nickmickky2714 Exactly. They were in a really shitty situation that they weren't at all prepared for; so the only thoughts on their minds were probably disbelief of what was actually happening, as well as just survival instinct.
I live in a country with basically no gun violence (except like gangs etc) so I have no idea how I would react with a gunman in the room, cause that's not something that I would ever have to be scared of or prepare for.
That's why we can't judge them for their actions; because we weren't there and the circumstances were widely different than most people experience.
Like we don't know, maybe all those men were womens rights activists in reality.
It's kinda like how shipwreck survivors cannibalise for survival even though they're good people. (And yes I know this is a grossly exaggerated and shitty comparison; I'm just trying to make a point about how strong the human survival instinct is.)
No we have reasons to expect it from men. Women die for men all the damn time.
@@heathercalun4919 Would you jump in front of a gun for one of your classmates?
If someone goes into a room and shoots and kills half the people, the reason those people are dead is because the shooter shot them. The fault and blame rests not on the survivors, but the shooter.
I know humanity is progressing, but my God, do we need to grow up already.
But if the shooter is dead, whom do we take our rage out on?
Jascha Bull Hmm. Good point. My instinct would be society? The person was failed along the way in some way, and in a strong and well functioning society, someone would have been more likely to realize something was up. It’s like how various horrible people who do terrible things were once little kids that didn’t have a solid parental figure or anyone who showed them unconditional love. So we may not excuse what they do now, but still have empathy for who they were then when they were failed.
I think it’s why the outrage at shooters in the US in particular gets under my skin. Yes, these people were either mentally unwell or terrible people, and they are the ones responsible. But I think we might shout and point at them in part because we know we have a bigger problem and these people are symptoms of the problem.
They failed to control their urges.
But we also failed. We failed to create a system/society in which people don’t feel the desperation needed to incite them to this level of violence.
So my cone of shame is: shooter, parents (for abusing these young people as kids and/or not getting them mental health help), and then society. You can kinda take your pick!
@@jaschabull2365 thats actually.....a really good question. I think back to the Columbine boys, they both died the day of the shooting, So who did the general public blame?
I mean if u go to the comment sections of any video covering that shooting, most of the comments are along the line of
" I hope they burn in hell"
"They got what they deserved"
"Their not human, their monsters"
And then you'd see a portion of ppl going into their family history, their presence in their community, testimonies from family and friends on what they were like, and as the person above me mentioned, they'd just blame the society that was too "late" on getting those boys help.
I've always found reading those comments a little....weird? I mean why talk shit about someone after the fact? When u type in " I hope they go to hell" do u actually think that'll get them their any faster lol?
I'm not trying to sound big-brain like " Ive never said anything like about a person after they'd done something awful" cause I use to, but Ive definitely stopped, I just see no point in my input? Do I really need to say the same things hundreds of others have already said?
Just something I think about 😳
@@davantiowo6519
My question was a semi-sarcastic trick question. I'd say the answer is probably that taking out our rage on anyone doesn't make things any better, but is very tempting, and satisfying in the moment. It's kind of equivalent to scratching a mosquito bite, or, as I've heard someone else put it, downing a beer when you're alcoholic.
I like all the thought you've put here.
@@jaschabull2365 anyhow I thought that was a very big brain question 😳😌. I'll be thinking about it from now on thanks.
What the poster wants: 50 strangers simultaneously and with perfect teamwork take down a single bad guy before he can respond
What would have happened: A couple of guys rush him, get shot. More dead people.
But *those* dead people would be in the afterlife that awaits heroes. In their paradise with their 72- wait, no, that's objectification.They'd be in Valha- wait, no, that's toxic masculinity. They'd be, uhh, floating in a pool of all the internet likes given to all the people who shared their heroic efforts. Yeah.
Add to the fact that EVEN IF such a tall order was possible and complete strangers band together and form a plan without any sort of communication and charge the guy...
Everyone's gonna scatter once the guy starts firing and the first people start dropping.
If you look at the details of the massacre, the men left the room and were outside the door. The shooter shot the women and announced his thing about hating feminists (I'm assuming this is when they first realized that this dude was killing women) then the shooter wrote some stuff on the board and walked past them. I think the tweet person thought they would conspire from outside the door and tackle him when he was facing away from them and walking into the hallway to shoot more women.
There were 9 women left which outnumbered him, why didn't the 9 women team up and take him down with perfect coordination? SMH.
@@clashmanthethird
Hey, that's victim-blaming. Everyone knows it's wrong to victim-blame women.
Big Joel just explained to me the psychology of victim blaming. It all makes sense now. I've often wondered why women themselves are blamed for their own sexual assault. People point fingers towards her attire, her behaviour in general etc etc. Now I get it. People are empathetic. They look at that woman and they realise that this could have very easily happened to them and/or their family members. And so their own empathy kind of compels them to "find a solution". Just like this Twitter guy proposed a solution.
We've all got this instinct which compels us to stay away from arbitrary, inexplicable forms of hatred that we cannot empathize with-----people genuinely don't want to deal with the r**ist or the mass shooter. Because thinking about them won't lead them to an easy, simple, quick to implement solution. Instead they'll have to think about making true systemic changes to deal with misogyny in our society, which is much much more complicated than asking the "Chads" of the classroom to band together or asking sexual assault victims to put on a longer skirt. People don't want to think about the fact that even if the skirt were longer and even if the men chose to remain, violence would've still ensued. No man or woman stands a chance against a psycho holding a gun and a r**ist really does not care about the length of your dress since even women in diapers and burqas get r**ed just as frequently. But people are still going to back their misogynistic and misandrist victim blaming based hot takes, because it allows them to feel like they've solved the problem.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Very true, this is also very fitting to the idea that victims need to seek justice (which is just retraumatising yourself for no good reason, as we all know how often evidence is pursued, and how horrible the process is either way)
He (the tweeter) conveniently skips over two extremely important points in the tweets, which entirely change the context of the events.
1. The men and women were in the same position until the men were ordered to leave. They had all been ordered to stand up against the wall by a strange man armed with a gun.
2. The killer was also armed with a hunting knife. Anyone who tried to rush him would more than likely have been quickly stabbed.
The tweets are worded to make it sound like the men all calmly walked out past the killer, but this is not even close to being true. They were held at gunpoint to stop them getting close, and even if they had managed to get close the killer was prepared for them.
There is no excuse for his ignorance of these points, since he was actively telling the story to others which indicates he had done some research into what happened. I can only assume these details were omitted because "men chased out of a classroom when threatened with a rifle and hunting knife" doesn't sound as good as "men let women die" to a woke twitter audience.
You forgot to put quotes around the woke near the end
@@pungoblin9377 No I didn't. The term 'woke' is already a corruption of awake, it doesn't need any more dilution.
@@Ivytheherbert no I mean they think they’re woke when they really aren’t
Like the Twitter audience isn’t necessarily woke. They’re more of a fake kind of woke
@@Ivytheherbert It’s not a corruption of anything. It’s aave being co-opted by others
@@DeathnoteBB is that not the definition of corruption?
Those tweets have Mark “If I Had Been On The Plane, 9/11 Would Have Gone Down A Little Differently” Wahlberg energy
I vaguely remember someone unironically saying something to that effect in the comments section of a video clip from the movie United 93. They were basically berating the passengers on every other plane involved in 9/11 for not doing the same thing the passengers on flight 93 did.
I think the United 93 is a good example those people guaranteed their death in order to save the lives of others.
That's part of what this poster was suggesting, that some of those men should have guaranteed their death to save the lives of others.
we celebrated the people on that flight AS heroes and made a movie about it so you can see that our culture does actually want people to sacrifice themselves for others.
There is a thought in our culture that wants us to be brave.
@@omegalazarus this is a really good point. that twitter thread definitely didn’t come from thin air & we’re definitely socialized to admire heroic self-sacrificing behavior from men especially.
If Simeone sacrifices himself for Others the least you can so is treat him as a hero in the afterlife. With that being Said, you should never blame someome for Not sacrificing oneself.
@@omegalazarus well the people in the planes at 9/11 would have most likely thought it was a hostage situation not a suicidal attack so they just did nothing until they were hopefully released. However after 9/11 people now know that it might not be a hostage situation and most everyone is gonna die so they do something about the situation. It’s a similar thing here mass shooting were not really thought of often but now that we know about so many, this situation might not play out the same way today.
Honestly, my sense is that this tweet is more just standard righteous power fantasy "I'd have stood up to the Nazis" type stuff rather than something particularly revealing.
We're seeing in action/[inaction] right now that they absolutely *would not* have stood up to the nazis. People talked a big game but apparently they meant if it were convenient for them.
@dil oreo Uhhhhhh... Where did you get the idea he was talking about Trump? Are you just trolling?
@dil oreo bro are u good where the fuck did you get that from lmao
@dil oreo mfw i see a chance to post aimlessly about my impotent rage at the jews
@dil oreo,
>puppet of the rothschilds
Yep, we got a live one, folks.
I am a women.
I studied accounting wherein most of my classmates were men. There was probably five women in the whole class. If someone had come in with a gun and told all the men to leave I would NEVER expect ANYONE to stand up to them. I would have never blamed a classmate for the actions of a murderous gunman.
Can we please stop victim blaming?
@@cateatpasta5990 Either way, it's still messed up to shame anyone over a traumatic incident.
@@cateatpasta5990 They are wounded mentally, so yes they are victims
@@cateatpasta5990 Pretty sure everyone but the gunman is a victim in a mass shooting situation... Weird semantic game that you're playing here
@@cateatpasta5990 a trauma survivor is still a victim
@@cateatpasta5990 No. You can still be victimized by an experience that doesn't kill you.
Very correct - the people who claim they'd do heroic things under threat of death have likely never felt the sickening paralysis of actually being in that situation.
When self proclaimed hero’s are in that situation they’re always the gunmen
@@insertyourfeelingshere8106
😂💯
@@insertyourfeelingshere8106Really? I always thought those who say that stuff HAVE been in those sorts of situations & had faint in themselves as a result
@@lyokianhitchhiker I doubt any Twitter user saying "if I was there on 9/11 things would have..." has ever experienced violence. Its something you say when you know you'll never be in that situation.
Meanwhile, you give these children a firearm and suddenly they act like they got super powers.
@@insertyourfeelingshere8106 statistically, at least 1 of them probably has.
When I was younger, I saw someone get stabbed to death. They were working at McDonald’s and I walked in while it was happening. I even knew the lady because I worked at the cinema next door. I ran away. And I’ve always felt guilty. Why didn’t I do anything? No one knows what they would do until they are actually in that situation.
You didn't do anything wrong. I'm sorry you went through that. Thank you for sharing.
Bro you did nothing wrong, don't beat yourself up.
People aren't superheroes. You didn't do anything wrong, you were a scared person with millenia of survivor's instinct and adrenaline pounding around their brains. It's sad that it happened, but you aren't responsible.
Berend de Liagre Böhl thanks. You’re right.
You would have ended up dead as well. Knives are dangerous weapons. Even if you have a gun a man with a knife can get to you and stab you before you are able to draw your weapon. Police are trained on that. You can get stabbed over 20 times in 30 seconds. It's really fucked up with what you can do with a knife. You did the smart thing.
I grew up in Montreal. Mass shootings are extremely rare in Canada and the Polytechnique massacre is a tragedy that I grew up with. These tweets, to me, are entirely ignorant, and while I understand your point of deconstructing it in the way that you did while sliding past the historical inaccuracies, I think they’re important.
This was a time when people didn’t know much about mass shootings, they hadn’t really been a thing. Remember, this was 1989, not 2019. And I haven’t been able to factcheck this but I believe it was the first mass shooting in Canada. If not, it was definitely the first mass shooting in the province of Quebec.
There was so much confusion about the entire event while it was happening. Some believed it was a hostage situation. It was also the end of the school year, so some people believed it was a hazing or a prank of some sort. It was MESSY. Most didn’t know what was happening until the door was locked and they heard the gunshots, at which point it would have been too late even if they wanted to try to play hero.
When he killed the women in the classroom, he left and started firing at women throughout the school. Imagine that in action: there would be no way, in the mess, to stop him, and no way to know until afterwards that his motives were misogynistic in nature.
And I think it’s also worth noting that Polytechnique is a school for engineers. These were not men who were necessarily physically strong or athletic, not that there would have been anything wrong if they were athletic and didn’t intervene, but to expect a group of intellectuals to, in a matter of minutes, manage to physically band together and stop this person just because they are men is ridiculous and repulsive
Many, and I mean many, committed suicide later exactly because they put those expectations on themselves: they had survivor’s guilt, they thought there was something they could have done when there just wasn’t.
The only people who could have done more are the police, who waited an extremely long time to enter. But even that criticism is worth considering in a historical lens. Again, these people did not know how to proceed with a situation like this because they’d never seen anything like it. Their protocols were not built for something like this, and they changed after the massacre. And here’s a question: if police officers didn’t know how to best proceed, and didn’t have the tools to fight this person, how could you expect an engineering student to know what to do?
This was a tragedy. And numerous men who were present blamed themselves for not intervening, but the women who survived were all unanimous in stating that there was nothing those men could have done and that they shouldn’t torture themselves.
So how about we listen to the women who were actually there instead of making up a fake woke point that is so problematic it was brought up by right wing politicians in 1989.
Had me till the end there. A fantastic comment otherwise
Thank you so much for sharing this with us even though it must have taken a toll on you
June Rossaert this was extremely well said, thank you
@@justiceforjoggers2897
You might not like the implied inference that right-wing politicians' talking points are problematic in general, but assuming the declaration that such politicians brought up the same argument as the twitter OP here is correct, that is but one example of right-wing politicians and pundits using their empathy problematically in a manner of misplaced compassion.
I just want to clarify that I didn’t want to imply that the view was problematic simply because it was brought up by right wing politicians (I’m extremely left-wing myself, but have full respect for right-wing individuals as long as they aren’t trying to restrict human rights- though that’s a conversation for another day).
Rather, my point is that it’s preposterous to imply that this idea is a new, “woke” feminist look at the situation when it was brought up by individuals who were distinctly anti-feminist. These politicians specifically implied that these men were weak, and should have stepped up. They attempted to turn this tragedy into a failure for men who were also victims of a traumatic situation. And it seems likely that it was that specific idea and self-belief of failure and weakness (regardless of wether it was brought on internally or from outside sources) that caused some of the surviving men to commit suicide.
Dude really came out and said ‘bro it’s 50 to one that’s an easy win’ like dude this isn’t Starcraft??? Like sure numerically if they all rushed him at the same time they would have probably ran him down. At what cost? How many lives? Human beings are not expendable units meant to be thrown at the bad men until they go away. In real life, you don’t ‘Zerg Rush’ an idiot with an m16.
"Just upgrade your barraks bro"
@@GamStr-xq3vc just get combat shields, it makes your infantry so much more effective
Certainly fewer people would have died. But that's always the case with shooters and has nothing to do with men or women specifically.
If you flee, more people die, but you personally have a higher chance of survival. That's why humans collectively flee while ants collectively attack.
@@MrCmon113 ants are eusocial insects that are more or less incapable of independent thought. I really don’t think that comparison holds much water when extrapolated upon.
@@MrCmon113 no, ants collecticely attack because they are literally nothing without their collective. they have to.
also do you really think the guy wouldnt have killed 7 people if they tried rushing him?
This video was extremely eye opening. As someone who would've initially agreed and taken that thread at face value. I now understand how wrong that way of thinking is. Thank you for putting this out there.
I hope you take this lesson with you, and give things a second thought before you react to them.
"Having sex"- shows picture of holding hands.
I love it.
C M It’s a little too dirty tho, but at least it’s not hugging.
Carl what do you mean hand holding is the most degenerate act
That Guy we go to confession after we do that so it’s ok
Carl good
@@thatguy6577 No. Filthy though it is, there is worse. I have heard tales, faint whispers from faraway places, of a perversion of the most heinous kind. Its name fills me with fear. I dare not know its meaning, lest I be condemned for my promiscuity. But I shall tell you, so that your soul might be spared if a demon tries to force it upon your innocence. They called it a 'kiss.' The word alone sends shivers down my spine. I cannot imagine what horrible acts are deserving of such a name.
"But alas, I am gay"
You are not legally allowed to respond to any of his points and arguments anymore.
To be fair that's not the point he made.
...
Kinda funny nonetheless. ;)
@@SuperElo2008 shut up. Don't respond because I'm gay
"If you have the big gay your are invulnerable to arguements" -bigideas b.c 194
The ultimate cheat code.
“Sir, you can’t become the president of the worl-“
“Yes I can. I’m gay. If you don’t you hate gay people.”
When OP says "those men lacked empathy" it more or less feels like "those men should've thrown their lives away for the good of the collective". Kinda fucked up.
Wait... "good of the collective"... That sounds... It sounds like...
*C O M M U N I S M*
Sounds like evil hive mind space bugs
It also sounds like they should've sacrificed themselves specifically because they're men, as the possibility of women in the room doing the same was never even mentioned. Which makes it even more fucked up.
@@jesustyronechrist2330 🎵 in the soviet Union🎵
Which is funny because the "collective" was the men in this case, there were more of them than women.
I love how he thinks the men in the room are all telepathic super-soldiers that can hatch a plan without the shooter knowing, and then rush him at the exact same time.
I think theese FIFTY MEN should have debated the shooter in the free marketplace of ideas!
underrated
If a knew that I had a chance of not entirely complying with what this type of shooter wants us to do (kill only women and let the men live), I would probably ask him to at least tell me about his ideas, why he wants to do it etc.
Of course, I would only do that if I knew I had a margin of safety and wouldn't push it since my life is on the line.
But his life also is on the line because the probability he will survive against the police is very slim, or he will take his own life at the end like many do.
In the least, I would give some time to the women to pray or something since I wouldn't be able to change what is happening, and I would understand why he is doing what he's doing. And I was very lucky, I may actually give more time to the police to intervene before everybody is dead.
I really want to understand what is going on in the mind of people who commit such acts.
And again, if I felt I wouldn't be safe while asking the person to sit down and talk before they do what they want to do, I definitely wouldn't even say a word.
Forget debating, the fifty men should've used their MUSCLESSSS to deflect the bullets
@@michascigala4045 Why? He was fucked up. He needed help for a long time. He thought being a women in an engineering class made you a feminist worth killing. Weird fantasy.
@@mr.negativenancy5751 "He thought being a women in an engineering class made you a feminist worth killing" that's what I would try to understand. You don't know it he really thought that, I even doubt it was his idea, it's a bit exaggerated. That's why I want to talk to people like that, because if we don't people on the internet make up and exaggerate their motives. And then they don't get any help.
If I understand it correctly, the original tweeter doesn’t even have the timeline right anyway. The men were ordered to leave the room before the gunman mentioned feminism or intending to kill anyone. As Joel alluded to, the men probably thought this was some sort of hostage situation or terrorist attack, they had no way of even knowing the man intended to kill the women or why he was even there.
Yeah the way the tweet describes the situation is vague enough that we can read the least charitable interpretation into it. Which is one of the most insidious recurring behaviours on Twitter, and a big part of why I'm glad I stopped using it.
@@kaitlyn__L same
Excellent point that reads a deliberate misinformation into the original thread, but also it’s important that even if they were aware of the shooter’s motivations, there was still no moral fault in leaving.
@Drake en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre
A close friend of my family was in the classroom in Montréal (where 14 women were killed). He tried to stop the shooter, he tried to convince him that he shouldn't do something so horrible, he tried to convince him that he could get help. The shooter brought his gun towards my friend and threatened him violently until he had to leave. No one in that classroom wanted that. No one in that classroom could do anything about it. My friend has spend all these years feeling awfully guilty. "He's a man, he should've done something". This is fucked up. He already experienced a huge traumatism, and the families of the victims and the medias put so much of the blame on him.
What really bothers me about this video tho, is how little discussion there is of how the dead women probably felt. Almost as if there's a grain of truth to the whole "society empathizing with men over women by default" thing.
@@heathercalun4919 Good god as if women aren’t constantly catered to. What all of this should have been about is society, yes especially feminists and conservatives, need to step away from the “men are disposable” mentality. What caused me to leave a lot of this social justice feminist stuff was A) transitioning to male made me realize how much it sucks being a guy, and B) the most hard core “don’t need a man” feminist would still demand physical labour and shielding from me. No, Becky. You’re all my equal. I owe nothing. Men aren’t human shields.
@BlackSheepNara It seems you’ve had some bad experiences with women, but it’s important to acknowledge that half the population isn’t the exact same person with the exact same beliefs. Just because you’ve met some feminists you don’t like, doesn’t mean that feminism isn’t reasonable
@@BlackSheepNara insane to put the take that 'women are constantly catered too' on a video about a mass shooting targeting them
@@queer-ios3155 It's only an insane take if the counter take is that those men SHOULD have jumped in front of the gunman to save the women in the room. That's why the premise of this conversation is stupid from the outset. A mass shooting is not a blood debt to be repaid. Those women lost their lives for no good reason and nothing can make up for that. Not the guilt, not the shame, not even the empathy. That's why it's so disrespectful for some rando on Twitter to come in decades later and drop the worst take of the century. That doesn't honor the memory of those women in the slightest.
I really hate the tweet that says "women shouldn't be treated as disposable", because while that statement is very true, they're using it to basically say the men should have treated THEMSELVES as disposable. If all 50 had rushed, there's a near 100% chance at least one of them would have been shot, and a fair chance that some of them would die. So why are we allowed to treat men as disposable in the quest to not treat women as disposable?
Soo I’m going to admit something here. I watched this video early in the morning and when I heard the tweet read out I though it sounded kinda reasonable and couldn’t understand why someone would be so upset they’d make a video essay about it. As soon as the flaws in the initial logic were pointed out I understood just how horrible and victim blaming it was but that wasn’t my emotional response. If I used Twitter and wasn’t thinking too much when I read that tweet I might have “liked” it to. Always good to be reminded that my first take isn’t always the right take. As Captain Disillusion says “love with your heart, use your head for everything else “ .
If you're swayed so easily by a very apparent bad tweet, you should leave Twitter For A while. It helped me a bunch to leave it for a bit.
@@x999uuu1 I've never been on twitter, and never intent to.
I've never been on Twiter either, and I actually kind of still don't get the point made in this video. I mean, I get that it's easy to say you would have done something when you're not the one frozen in shock because a gun is aimed at you. I also get that survivor's guilt is a thing that sucks and does real damage. I even get that we should be sympathetic to these people who were scared for their own lives. Heck, if the genders had been switched, would people have demanded the women stay and fight for the men, or would they have sympathized with them being scared, shocked, and uncertain as to what to do other than follow the order's of the maniac wielding a gun? I'm still confused somehow, and I feel like I'm still missing something. I guess it's like knowing the answer to a math problem but not knowing how to demonstrate how you got there. I don't get the internal works. I also was really bothered that the actual facts weren't laid out after the tweet to set the stage. I was wondering for a few minutes if the tweet was describing a made up event in order to troll the world. Stuff like that happens. I hate leaving more confused than I began.
thanks for commenting this cause I felt the same way, watching this video I was a little miffed in the first minute because I initially agreed more with the tweets than with Big Joel, but yeah pretty soon I felt the same way you did & was glad to get the second opinion/reality check.
@@muscularcatholicism honestly the fact that a man who probably thinks he knows it all about feminism and misoginy wrote the thread in the first place says a lot lol, a bunch os gay man think they are in the same place as women in issues like these and that they can speak up about it as if its abou them, the results are... well, what you just saw. The whole situation is just so dumb and shows how twitter and the whole woke culture doesn't actually cares about the people nor the societal issues and learning about them, they just care for the looks of it, its all a competition on who complains about something new first so that they can use against someone else and come out of it looking intellectual
It's anti feminist to believe men should be shamed for not fitting the hero archetype in a situation where they are the victims.
Based comment is based
One can be a feminist and an asshole.
That's just common sense, you dont need to be a feminist to understand that.
@@yvanaluz9994you should be a feminist anyway though because believing in gender equality is best
@@sherrybopcherrypop
No
People tend to forget that people are often killed “trying to be a hero” the amount of casualties could have doubled if they tried to prevent it. Trauma also messes with your decision making it’s a tragedy and it’s never a victims fault.
Absolutely not.
If they had rushed the attacker that would have been the least deaths possible.
People don't do that, because they don't want the least deaths possible, they don't want to die themselves. And for your own survival it might be best to flee.
@@MrCmon113 any evidence for that, rambo? do you even know how big the room was? how much distance between the attacker and the victims? In reality he killed 6 women. You think he would have killed less than that if people had rushed him? Soldiers need months of training just to not instinctively run away from gunfire but these pupils would have rushed him like madmen. You live in a fantasy.
@@MrCmon113 you can make that assertion because of?
@@MrCmon113oh of course the 50 students should have collectively telepathically communicated an offensive rush against a loaded gun.
It's interesting that he espouses treating women as equals, but considers them defenseless, helpless, and in need of saving by men.
And ignoring the biggest problem ; the fact that there are dudes who hate women so much they literally kill them
Having been held at gunpoint before in a much lower stakes situation where all the gunman wanted was the money in the drawer, everyone thinks they know how they’d react in a situation like this but frankly unless you have police/military training you frankly have no idea.
You have adrenaline pumping at 100 mph and you just plain cannot think straight. Assuming that a bunch of untrained individuals could just coordinate and take the person out is a *cough* privileged position taken by people lucky enough to never have experienced something so traumatic. That doesn’t even account for the high likelihood the shooter already anticipated this possibility.
I saw this take on twitter originally and I was horrified how many friends thought it was a good one. It feels like a chance to shit on men because its fun. I wont argue men don’t deserve some of the shit they get, but this ain’t it, chief.
I’ve been in a false alarm school shooting situation before. I was in choir at the time. Our teacher stood between the two pairs of doors leading to the choir room to protect us. He turned off the lights and everyone scrambled to cover. Some went to our teachers office, or the closet, or behind the risers. But at some people, like me couldn’t do that. I just walked to the other side of the room panicked. I had no clue what to do. There were others that didn’t move from their seats at all to avoid making noise (the risers were hella noisy). Everyone reacts differently to high stress situations, very few people can keep their cool in a panicked situation like that. It’s not something we should shame people for.
Can confirm having adrenaline in your veins does weaken logical thinking.
Given how law enforcement acts in some situations (like the stoneman Douglass shooting), I'm not sure law enforcement always reacts responsibly even with training. I definitely don't think arming everyone with little to no training and little to no situational awareness is a better idea, especially when on edge cops will be arriving soon and may see an armed person and may not be particularly interested in asking questions first to be sure that this particular armed person is the shooter or a well meaning person. There is also the possibility that multiple well meaning people will run into each other and none of them actually know they aren't the shooter. Basically, law enforcement may not act great even with training but I don't think it's a good idea to have a bunch of armed people with no training, information, or police knowledge of their presence, either.
@@Callimo Not to mention the possibility of those guns either being mishandled by the teacher or stolen by students. I had a 6th grade teacher in my elementary school break a kid's arm by throwing a desk at them, I don't doubt that teacher would have at least shot AT someone if not outright shooting one of their students.
@@Callimo That's not a very ridiculous idea, really. With forewarning you just barricade the door and plop down behind the desk with your pistol/shotgun/rifle/whatever and have a code phrase for the cops to use. Anyone tries to get in without the code you shoot, no logical thought and only basic training required, you're literally shooting at a framed, stationary target.
It's why every firearms training course warns you about the "Fatal Funnel", doors are so easy to shoot through and so long as there's only one way in and out you can hold the room forever without issue. You don't clear the hallway or whatever nonsense politicians think teachers can do, you just hold the door and let anyone in the hall fend for themselves. It's so easy pregnant stay at home moms can, and have, done that exact thing.
I was half listening to the video at the start and forgot how it had started. Hearing the tweet read in your voice I was one of the people who would half consciously like it. I actually started to wonder if I would response "appropriately" in the situation. Having you come back in and talk about how you were repulsed by the tweets literally took me off guard. I was like "oh yeah wow. He's right. These were bad tweets." I don't think my brain gets challenged enough on its initial responses to narrative and I just wanna say thanks. This video rocked. I like it a lot.
I had the same reaction. I didn’t even think about how fucked up it was that he was blaming the men who left for not wanting to die
Twitter is a disease. Find a different social media platform
Same here. I feel foolish.
@@x999uuu1 I will use whatever social media platform I desire thanks
exactly the same happened to me
I remember the day of the shooting very clearly. Vigils are still held every December. The men who walked out of the classroom didn't understand what was happening. In the following days, it was revealed that the gunman left a manifesto and a long list of prominent women that he also wanted to kill. Newspapers painted it as a lone madman story. It took 30 years for it to be recognized as an anti-feminist attack. In 2009, there was a movie made that showed the events in what seemed like real time. It is chilling and those who are not touched by it should question their very humanity.
I don't care if you're a Tier 1 Operator, if someone has a gun and you're unarmed, the best way to survive is to run away because you're not bulletproof
while zigzagging, I do believe hitting a person running straight in any direction would be pretty easy
That is bullshit, it depends entirely on the situation.
If it's an open field and you're 3 meters apart, your chances of survival are MUCH higher by charging.
When there's a group of course there will be more survivors if the attacker is charged.
The way he worded it, I thought the shooter had a pistol or something.
Nope!
Man had a Ruger Mini-14, a Semi-Automatic gun with a clip of 30. He could've gotten a tactical nuke before anyone got close.
Questionable Logic I thought I should tell you that most pistols are also semi automatic...
@@whisperhawkmoonspecialist9203 there's a difference between .308 and 9mm
Even if what he had was a pistol most people would still be scared. But I agree that the wording of the thread is very manipulative.
see i know i would have froze like a bitch in this situation but i reaally want to see OP of that tweet be in the same situation and live up to his words.
He’s the reason Canada has gun laws as it is.
Yup, a fucking incel ruined life for gun owners
My history teacher from high school was a victim of that mass shooting in Las Vegas. He luckily was never injured, but saw everything happened and can recall it in detail. He retells the story to a lot of his classes and one thing usually is the same. He says that there is no way of knowing how a person could ever act in that moment. He was luckily with someone who was ex-military and actually knew what to do, but everyone else wouldn’t. That is just how it is. We shouldn’t criticize the actions of people who were fearing for their life in a moment, it shifts the blame to the wrong party. This quote from him always stuck with me: “Everyone thinks they will be the hero in that moment, but usually people will act according to their instincts. If anyone talks a big game about how they would stop the shooter, or criticizes people for not, they usually will be the first people to shut down in the situation. Do not judge the victims, be there for them.”
So what should you do in that situation according to your friend?
@@bananian hide under a turtle shell
What people forget is that real like isn't a video game. If there are 50 humans unarmed and one with a gun, yeah the 50 can easily take the one person down.
But the thing is, one of those 50 is probably going to get severaly injured, and nobody wants to take the first step because nobody wants to be shot.
In a video game, you'd do it no problem. Even if you die, at least your team wins. Or you respawn, or whatever. But in reality, getting shot hurts a lot, and humans really hate getting hurt. Especially when it could kill them.
One of them? Depending on how close they were to him at least 10-20
@@aisir3725 only if they're a trained shooter.
Most people can't hit shit if they're not trained, and most shooters aren't trained.
@@Nerobyrne idk, he does seem capable if you read about the shooting
What I want to ask this person is if it were so easy as just rushing the gunman, why are shootings such a problem today?
Even if they have the better numbers untrained civilians can't defend themselves against fire arms. The only chance would be to get the drop on the guy from behind which can backfire.
These things are why we have the concept of police who are supposed to protect us, when we can't ourselves, corrupt as the police system turned out to be.
The problem with his tweet is that he assumed they consented willingly to leaving , but they had a gun pointed at them , they weren't consenting freely , the shooter wouldn't have taken no for an answer ...
It's like saying a woman is responsable for her rape because she didn't resist ...
I really agree. The only way I can imagine the op is un the right is if the men were happy to leave
@@magicdreams1593 Except OP obfuscates how the whole thing went down actually where it makes it impossible to really do anything without everyone sacrificing themselves to maybe take the POS down.
Try taking down someone with a gun on the other side of a lecture hall as he separates people
Reminds me of a video by TheraminTrees about how abusers manipulate empathy. Because some people feel empathy so strongly, they can become blinded to the fact that they are being abused and that they shouldn't just forgive their abuser just because they understand how that person feels.
Hi again, person who looks like my friend
@@jaojao1768 hello there!
TheraminTrees is an excellent content creator!
Great reference! I think I've seen that video too. And yeah, a good point; empathy is a tool in the moral toolbox, not the holy grail.
@@caityreads8070 General Kenobi
The way this tweet was worded, it led me to believe that the shooter had explicitly told the men that he was asking them to leave so he could murder the women, as if the men had all decided "I'm okay with my female peers being murdered as long as I get to live," which did initially manipulate my emotions. I appreciate your elaboration and cultural context explaining that the men didn't know what situation they were in and why they were being told to leave. Upon further thought I realize that even if my incorrect interpretation were true that still doesn't change the fact that the men in this situation were victims themselves and couldn't be expected to act like heroes, but I still think this is important context that is left out of the tweet to make it look like the men in this situation saw their female peers as more disposable.
yeah i was just listening to Joel read it as I drew and that's how I heard it. The tweet deliberately words it so you get that impression.
Even if the killer said 'Leave so I can murder all the women' I would still have left. No reason for suicidal bravery. I would feel guilty my entire life though, but just like Joel said, that's an understandable but not a rationally justified emotion.
ㅤ
OP be like:
iF tHeRe WaS a NuClEaR wAr I wOuLd JuSt CaTcH aLl ThE mIsSiLeS.
Also, that quote that you showed at the beginning, where the guy said that he thought that he would be killed as soon as he got outside means that at least one person thought that they were protecting the women by leaving the room.
There is something I'd like to ask the guy who wrote those tweets:
Imagine the shooter wasn't anti-feminist but chose randomly who could go and who had to stay, without caring about gender. Do you think the survivors would've acted differently? Do you really think the guys in this scenario would've team up to save their male colleagues because they have more respect for men?
Certainly I wouldn't blame them for their, probably subconscious sexism, if so. But, as a feminist woman, it's kind of a question that has to do with my faith in the world. How many people do there have to be in a room before one person can be expected to put aside personal safety and trust in that group to defends a powerless person? And what if that person isn't just any person? What if their a potentially stigmatized, very different and alone person in that room? Would that change the number of people required to ensure heroic group defense? What if that woman is me? What if it is you? I don't think it's productive to blame the individual men, but I don't think that's the point of the tweeter. At a certain point, it's time to start blaming society and asking it to do more and be better.
@@myragroenewegen5426 " _At a certain point, it's time to start blaming society and asking it to do more and be better._ "
I hope you are not implying that we should teach people that it's their responsibility and/or obligation to risk their lives for random strangers in acts of crime/terrorism. Unless you're a cop or a soldier, someone who volunteered to be in that position, no one has the right to expect, much less demand, that you become their meat shield. That is a monstruos twisting of altruism.
If you mean it's time to ask society to be better and take steps to stop sexism and sexist shooters then i agree.
@@SidheKnight Erm . . . Yes and No? For one thing, I now realize the men had far less idea of the moral choice they were making than the commenter (and too many other people) have been taught to assume and it may be that all 50 non intervening men weren't in one room at one time, which somewhat changes the moral reasoning around them, so I'll stuck to talking about the situation as the commenter assumed it and as I ,at first, had been under the impression it was too. I'd certainly defend the instinct of these men he's envisioning not to throw themselves into death. Nobody should have a duty to be heroic-- that's why heroism is what it is. I guess though, the question that the Montreal Massacre makes us grapple with, even if it isn't really as applicable to the actual circumstances as people think is is, "How can we, as a society produce women willing to walk this life path and yet make it nearly impossible for them to get this far. And then when they do produce hateful people who will target them." But this kind of logic can be extended to the men too. I guess then the question becomes, "in that assumed moral situation how many people do there have to be in a room being a sample of society before we kind of expect that they should feel strong enough to show a degree of heroism in banding together against injustice? We generally require that of the part of society at a less high risk first. I guess on a mass scale it's the question raised about capitulation in Germany and elsewhere during the Holocaust. Somewhere between that giant death toll and a single hostage who could risk his life to help another, there has to be a number of people after which we expect people to be brave and risk things when groups of people are subject to injustice, even when there is a risk to life. At what point does a group of reasonable self-protective individuals become a big enough sample of society that their inability to feel safe stopping injustice is no longer a fair rationale? When does it start to be a comment on their values and, far more importantly, a comment on the society they are a sample of. When does it require societal awareness and a societal wake-up call and moral stand? 50 men? 60? 100? If the number reaches that at which the women can just as effectively stand up for themselves anyway, that would kind of imply that a just world for women is solely a priority for women and we have to go it alone. Which is too much for anyone to accept. And the commenter is rightly incensed that 14 highly educated women dead is not enough for people to see "women's issues" as human issues or feminism as a movement everyone should treat as legitimate and key to an identity that cares about justice full stop. What has to happen to vulnerable people before---well in the words of Bob Dylan "The answer is blowin' in the wind". Not trying to be woke there, but the sentiment is the same.
Myra Groenewegen I can understand your point but I feel your comparison to the Holocaust doesn’t necessarily apply to the entire tragedy of the shooting. With the Holocaust, there were no heroes amongst the countless victims simply because they’d be shot dead (or worse), and were held in a position where an act of heroism was impossible because the endeavour would only mean not only the death of the hero but also most likely those who they were trying to save. That is why the vast majority of stories about people that saved Jews from the horrific slaughter *weren’t* victims of it like Oskar Schindler. I do understand your point of ‘how many people do we have to put in a situation until *someone* actually tries something’, but bringing up an example in which the victims in question had absolutely no power to do so doesn’t help your case.
@@joshuaclare4860 I guess the people I'm gesturing to as being heroic society members in that case are those people who weren't Jewish or other targeted people, but helped save lives, knowing that by doing so they were also putting their lives at constant risk from most of the people who surrounded them, should they be revealed or otherwise caught by just about anyone. I'm thinking of the Dutch Resistance or (if you want a person) Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other people like that. And I'm thinking that here's a much larger situation where anyone can be killed or tortured for doing the right thing, but some people have more political privilege and some are stigmatized with a target on their backs. I would never make a direct comparison between the Holocaust and Montreal Massacre, of course, for about a million reasons, scope being the most obvious. I'm just saying, every citizen who stood up to save and shelter others took that risk and those who didn't often didn't under threat of death, but sometimes their accountability is something that raises big moral questions about them and society. I just really have no patience for the way Big Joel tries to demonize and silence this tweeter and expects everybody to bob their heads along with him. The tweeter feels that the Montreal Massacre became a microcosm of society and that how everyone behaved in it has implications for how we should think about sexism in society and that actually was a very common trauma response of women who heard the story right after it happened. There really was this feeling of "What if this means that even for women who throw their whole lives into breaking into dreams that were only accessible to men in the past, the male hate can only be more and more stirred up and destroy us everyone, particularly the men who live that dream, will leave us to face it alone." I'm not saying that's what happened that day, but it is neither crazy nor heartless for the commenter to begin his mental reaction in that kind of moral place. It's common, grounded in fears that are still highly relevant for women and other stigmatized groups and some parts of it are good political and moral points with bearing on the present. This commenter is quite logical and shouldn't just be shamed and shut up. Big Joel would have been fine in adding to and qualifying what the commenter said, but he's on an intellectual and moral power trip here, so he reads only what he wants to into the comment and misses it's main point and logic in a quest to defend the men from this guy, when they aren't even his primary target--the men of today are and the commenter may well be right that they've learned little that they should have about sexual equality since the massacre. Meanwhile he gets so fixated on the men that he isn't careful about how he deals with women here. To say that feminists politicized this issue is deeply, disturbingly incorrect, not simply a misinterpretation. And he's in such a hurry to fixate on whatever cost there was to men here that he nearly halves the number of women killed by mistake. He doesn't engage with the real politics being highlighted by the commenter and the tragedy. He'd rather characterize the commenter as mean and illogical. But, inaccurate understanding though he has, the commenter's logic is good and his heart isn't so much set against the men as it is pointed toward the women. In a tragedy this bad for women, that emphasis on women creates bias, but I have more patience for sorting that out than for someone rushing to look for an angle dealing with empathy for men's suffering. Of which there is ,of course, plenty (men's suffering, but empathy for men too, come to think of it). Patriarchal society, misogynism and backlash to women's power is bad for all sexes.
The only bad guy in this situation is the shooter. Everything about politics (other than the anti-feminist shooter) is a completely different discussion that this dude is projecting on this shooting, and it sucks. If those boys fought back there would probably have been more fatalities. If the women were asked to leave the room and the guys were targeted (and lets say there were 50 women) they probably would've left the room as well. Life, to most people, is about them, and most people want to protect themselves in deadly moments. I don't find anything inherently wrong with that.
Yeah, its this weird "heroic sacrifice" ideal that people have. Its very dumb exactly because of that.
Exactly, no one should be expected to die for someone else, especially when there is no guarantee of success. They were basically forced to choose between dying in vain or saving themselves.
There’s definitely a political conversation to be had about misogyny and violence against women, a lot of shootings are inherently political and this is no different. But this should be about the shooter, how his upbringing and experiences led to his radicalisation and how his intense hatred of women manifested in such a way.
“dA mEn sHouLdNt hAvE lEFt” doesn’t help anyone.
@paperchasin23 The far more intelligent people of Quebec demanded and received stricter gun laws. Mass shootings are still rare everywhere but in oh so well armed America. Quebecers knew the killers gun was illegal. They were thinking of a safer future and they achieved it. Very few outside of the USA fall for such NRA indoctrination. They idea of an armed student entering a classroom does not go far in Canada. We're just crazy that way.
@@jeikobuappu They weren't even given that choice. Many thought they were being walked out to be massacred. They didn't have enough information to make any such choice.
At my workplace, we receive safety training that includes response to an armed shooter or shooters. We are explicitly instructed NOT to attempt to take down the shooter unless as a last resort. We are to evacuate and find a safe place to hide, alert the plant, and call for help. This advice should be followed in any situation with a shooter, regardless of setting.
So something that could help put things in perspective that Joe didn't mention is that it wasn't like the shooter came in, told all the men to leave at once and these women were left to watch this giant group of men to leave them to die (the tweet implies that's what happened).
The shooter was choosing a few people to leave at a time, which is more typical of a hostage situation. It's likely nobody would've realized he was targeting the women until there was significantly less people in the room, and like Big Joe said, nobody would've assumed he was going to just kill them all once the women were all that was left.
I always carry my katana with me. If I was in that classroom, the shooter would think twice about threating mass murder after I was done with him.
Sure, pal
@@smag3418 its satire
@@rosaparks6479 oh
@@smag3418 'ow subtle
Thank you for studying the blade
I paused my video and when I returned
“Alas I am gay”
“I think these tweets are disgusting.”
Big Joel Says: Nobody should be ashamed of being gay
My take away is that we need to have more empathy for “the gays”
What people need to understand about situations like this is that a numbers advantage doesn't matter to the guy in front. The guy in front is gonna die, almost surely. They have to be okay with that, and okay with not waiting for a safer opportunity, and okay with the very real possibility they'll be the only one to try, and thus will die for nothing. I've done this with pretend fighting a guy with a fake spear, even when the only thing on the line is running back to the respawn point, people still don't want to be the first to run into stabbing range. And when they do anyway, half the time they die for nothing because the people with them were too slow or weren't paying attention.
People call tumblr a hellsite when it was actually twitter all along
Where do you think the Tumblr users migrated to?
Tumblr is a hellsite (affectionate) while Twitter is a hellsite (derogatory)
@@icantdraw3781 tumblr has bone stealing witches and toe jewelry, twitter has the coldest takes on the planet and people who cannot fathom the concepts of nuance or compassion
Honestly, I think that what OP was engaging in in this scenario was not empathy, but projection. Effective, informed empathy requires you to do some actual learning about their situation and what they would have been feeling so that you can model it effectively. It's unfortunately very tempting and easy to skip this step and do a haphazard "well, what might lead ME to behave this way in this scenario?" process and then apply that to the other person as if your position and theirs are remotely comparable. Rather than feeling what the other person felt, you're assuming they felt what you feel.
WRT people liking his tweets - they did sound persuasive, and I think one of the reasons for that is the disingenuous way in which he describes events. He tells us that the shooter was fighting a 'war against feminism', almost inviting us to believe that the men in the room 1: knew that was the shooter's intent and 2: could therefore have concluded that it was their moral responsibility to fight back on behalf of women and feminism in general. The conclusion we're led to then is that the men knowingly abandoned a 'cause' of women's rights and well-being to save their own skin. Of course, this wouldn't be true even if they did know the shooter's intention, but the concept does make the whole argument more appealing to people's inner sense of nobility and Standing Up For The Weak, which makes it all the easier to see that as the obvious solution rather than considering what would have actually been possible.
Yeah.
ngl in order to get through this video without throwing up, I have to repeatedly tell myself that these people aren't me and they don't exist today.
I have to remind myself that in a college near me, students did manage to disarm a shooter by throwing a book at him when he couldn't possibly keep them all in his LOS.
I have to say to myself a lot that maybe they didn't know this would happen.
Because it is extremely hard to keep repeating that the issue and human psyche are complex with my own revulsion at what, to me, is a gross violation of base ethics undulating away in the background. I came down here hoping to find someone else who understands that feeling, even if they choose to look at the situation analytically.
But that's not what was being discussed in the video. The video is about emotional empathy, the primal gut reaction that's the result of brain chemicals, not any philosophy or moral reasoning.
"WRT" is "with regards to"?
@@andrju3916 Yep.
Oh man, as a Montrealer who grew up with talks of the Polytechnique Massacre as soon as I started school and how tragic it was and how it should never happen again and talks of what to do if a school shooting was to happen again here these tweets make my blood boil.
I remember talks of people having survivors guilt, and like you said some taking their life over it. No one can know for sure how they would react in any hypothetical situation. How dare this person say these men lacked empathy when put in a literal life or death situation.
This person talks of empathy, but completely lacks any empathy toward the survivors and that baffles me.
There's no empathy because he's not seeing them as people, but a talking point. He's doing it to get feelgood internet points while not making any real change. Happens all the time. Twitter shitters are going to stay twitter shitters.
Just a Popoto As a habitant, I’m sure you’ve seen the movie Polytechnique. Criminally underrated film.
Vanessa Costa YES!! It really is criminally underrated, it was such an excellent portrayal of the event. You make me want to watch it again x’)
Just a Popoto It had me tore up at the end the first time! Completely emotional. As an american, no one I know has seen it. Nor do most even know the event happened.
Quebecois film and TV is not promoted, nor carried by any stations or studios here. It’s BS that such good entertainment is basically shunned in my country. Bon Cop Bad Cop, CRAZY, A L’Ouest du Pluton, Les Bougons, Fuggedaboutit, Infoman, Les Pecheurs....Americans are missing out on so much and don’t even know it.
Vanessa Costa OMG as a Québécoise I happily surprised to see that you know so much about our movies and tv series it makes me very happy ngl x’)
I do agree with you tho, outside of Canada and French speaking parts of Europe our movie/tv industry is really underrepresented. Which is a shame because if anything you are proof that it can be enjoyed and appreciated Americans as well!
btw I have to say that it’s a funny coincidence that we also share a name, I’m a Vanessa as well!!!
Him “we are too apathetic” “we need to be more sympathetic” “we need to stop objectifying woman as lesser”
Also him: thinks it’s imoral for 50 children to become bullet shields for another 9 solely on the basis of their gender
moral*
30 years ago, a group of Serbian soldiers walked into the village of Srebrenica and murdered 8.000 men in a fight against Bosnians. The group entered the Dutch military base where the Bosnians were hiding, and told the women to leave so that they could kill the men. Instead of teaming up and fighting the Serbian military, all of the women left. [200K Retweets 1.5m Likes]
Girlboss moment
This is why I can never look at twitter for too long. You end finding someone post something toxic, and have thousands of them agree . So you feel powerless to interject and express the other side, since you'll just be attacked by devoted followers.
THIS! THIS IS MY EXACT FEELING
Yes, exactly
I used to feel that in redpill/mgtow/incel rabbit holes on youtube too. Let's be fair... this is with all social media platforms
Twitter and empathy?
Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.
"I hate bigots so much. Like theres no place in the world for them, sit down sis"
>2 tweets later
"FUCK straight white men, they deserve to go extinct for all I care"
I used to laugh, now i just sigh in depression. People legitimately get brainwashed from twitter, and those people are going into society as adults. Isnt that fucked?
I think it is something worth looking into how the Internet inherently radicalizes people, no matter their standpoint
Archlord V what s weird paradox...
@@chickenskink1 i got to see it happen to an internet community and honestly in that case i kinda blame the mainstreaming of memes back in 2010 cause ive no other explanation for how it got so bad so quick
a long long time ago, what the community had it common were memes, it was their in-joke, and they were insulated from the rest of the internet and thus more tightly knit on what was the oldest 'internet' page around. but then memes got mainstream, and there was nothing to fill the void. they'd gone through making fun of religion, to religion hating neckbeards, to feminists and oh no, dumb people exist on the internet and some of them are feminists. in that little vacuum, they pumped in all the worst of the sjw movement and filled the void of funneh posts, i think. and if you're against the sjw movement and theyre liberal then shucks, you're now on the other political team and its a total circlejerk of thumbs up the ass, and guess who is on that other team oh its uhh trump and he's against hillary and hillary is kinda bad in vague and generically corrupt ways, so now we have trump memes and everyones happy and united again and then poes law happened and you can probably guess what its like now. i really think my 12 years of studying and interacting with that site has taught me a lot and what i learned just kinda terrifies me
Having empathy should mean extending it to everyone, not just the people we relate most to. We should empathize with the women, we should empathize with the men, we should even, on a small level, try to understand how and why the gunman was led to feel the way he felt. Just having selective empathy for the people we think deserve it, or for the people we think were the most victimized in a situation, is just making ourselves miserable without solving the problem.
ㅤ
Goddamn this is comment is amazing
@@cateatpasta5990 I don’t think anyone is trying to say that in some possible way what the shooter did had good reason. Of course it was all kinds of bad.
The person’s point about empathizing with the shooter is just about allowing yourself to try and understand their frame of mind. It could be useful. Who knows, maybe the shooter felt like no one understood how he felt and no one cared, which then led to him lashing out. Had people empathized with his feelings, maybe, just maybe, it would’ve been enough to keep him from killing.
Not all killers are sociopaths incapable of feeling.
@@cateatpasta5990 not at all lol. I made no excuses.
You even said it at the very end there, about him needing therapy. I don’t know the best way to word this stuff… obviously whatever echo chamber “support” this guy had was no support at all. I think you and I are more or less coming from this same angle here. If he had therapy from someone who actually knows what they’re doing he might’ve had a chance. Now, imo, that would require some kind of empathy, as simply sitting him down and berating him like people would on social media these days is hardly an effective way to get through to somebody.
I’m not making any excuses for monstrous behavior. I’m just talking about what it may take to actually get through to a troubled person.
@@cateatpasta5990 We should try to understand what might have led them to that point so we can hopefully provent it in the future
The thing that's always bugged me about how empathy is framed in society as the source of goodness is that people with low levels of empathy are often victims of horrible trauma and then get framed as inherently evil because of a mental illness they have. Like you said it is very possible to be a moral person without empathy and a lack of morality is not caused by a lack of empathy.
THIS. i don't know if i'm high or low empathy (autism makes things confusing i guess) but i don't NEED to know. all i need to know is how to be compassionate. i know and am friends with pwNPD and ASPD and it's clear that their lack of empathy doesn't make them bad people
As a Montrealer, I'm baffled that this take is still being spread. This was a prominent talking point in the media right after it happened and, like you said, the trauma led some of the men who were there to kill themselves. Recently, it was the 30th anniversary of the polytechnique massacre and a new documentary was made. It was novel in that it was the first time the attack was referred to as anti-feminist. The documentary also had witnesses and victims talk and "debunks" the idea that the men in that classroom could have done anything. They had no idea what was happening, they thought they might be the ones getting killed in the hallway outside the class. The doc was made by radio-canada/cbc, it's avalaible online. Recommend it if anyone wants to learn more about it.
This is not true. Women and feminists have been drawing attention to the misogynist and anti-femenist underpinnings of the Montreal Massacre since it happened and it has always been framed as a political hate crime against women. What we think of the male students on December 6 is another matter, but we should not erase the women who worked hard to dispel media blindness to bring that political truth about the political hate motivation of the attack into the light.
@@myragroenewegen5426 The way I read sidbecdosco's comment was that it was the first time the media acknowledged the attack as anti-feminist. I think there is a good chance that you and sid are in agreement.
@@tracyh5751 You know, I think you're right and I gave him and you a thumbs up. Sidbecdosco probably means that was the first time he/she noticed that media current and here I am way too prickly about it, because I grew up and never heard that the media had initially spun it differently until I hit university. I really doubt Toronto would have been politicized that way about it longer than Montreal, which is also a major city and where it happened, in any case, but that would be another explanation for the experience gap here is hearing that interpretation, I guess. Thanks. There are some things about this video that make me ragey as I've gone into other places, but I don't want to look for fault where intensions are in the right place, which oddly is a major problem I have with the video in the first place.
I think I Misread what you're meaning here and got wrongly angry and prickly at you. Tracy H set me straight, I think, if you'd like to read the interaction. Anyway . . . sorry.
It’s really important to add that the men didn’t even know what was going to happen, so how could they have stopped something they didn’t know would happen? As Joel said they thought it was a hostage situation, or as you added they would have been the ones who were to be killed. The person did absolutely no research into the events and shared a very hurtful and harmful opinion. My thoughts and prayers are still with the victims and survivors or this terrible tragedy.
I work as a kind of aid at a high school and I've sat in a class during the teacher's mandatory training on what the schools plan is if there were an active shooter where the teacher went off script and told the boys he would expect them to basically sacrifice themselves to help take down the shooter and I was horrified.
Edit: Just thought I'd add that this man was a great teacher and I'm sure would be the first to put himself in danger if there was a threat. My problem is not with fighting back or self sacrifice, only that it should not be an external expectation, especially not one based on gender and especially not one put on children by an adult.
That's horrible. What was he thinking?
C B as long as he’s willing to go first......
(It’s a joke in case that wasn’t obvious. The teacher is an idiot.)
For us, it was usually only about people who were fairly big and strong to help barricade entry points, but yeah... a lot of expectations of men to get their asses shot tend to crop up during these discussions.
If I’m ever in a shooting I’ll use the secret Joestar technique
Hero the n word
*"claims that men should not treat women as disposable.... by disposing their own lives instead to protect them."*
🤨
that twitter thread is a disgrace to feminism and actively perpetrates the idea the victim is to blame rather than the perpetrators. the writer’s savior bullshit is so gross, he has no idea what he is talking about.
the dude: IF ME WERE BIG MAAAN IN DA CLASSROOM, ME WOULD BEAT BEAT SHOOTMAN WITH MY HUUUUGE MUUUSCLESSSS
The tweets give off a "If I was there, there wouldn't have been a mass shooting!" vibe
I would have simply stopped the shooter and also have known his intent in the first place.
@@eratinuwu1952 And I would have stopped him by using my unparalleled martial arts skills (look dad, all those years of paying for my ninjutsu classes finally paid off), and as thanks they would have nullified my tuition fees making me the raddest dude on campus ;)
@@eratinuwu1952 so you are implying that op is a videogame char who died and loaded a prior save?
@Tally Ho also the main char has a gun drawer
@Tally Ho Good recommendation, just watched it. It's a good chuckle
It's crazy how there was thousands of men that literally just watched an airplane attack a building with women in it and did literally nothing to stop them. Cringeworthy tbh
if i was there i would've stopped the bullets with my mind and read feminist literature to the group
These tweets also boil down to an assumption that this dude makes about himself... If he were there, he would have stopped it. If he were there, he could have saved these women. And maybe that's true... But it probably isn't. Everyone wants to think that in terrifying situations they would have done something extraordinary and brave, even though it's not true.
I do this with myself all the time. come up with these "what would you do if scary thing x happened?" scenarios, and I try to plan for them. It eases my anxiety about the world around me. I plan for things based on what I'm most anxious about at the time. Now that's usually climate change related societal collapse? But when I was young, it was usually "what if someone breaks into your house?". I thought I knew what I would do in that situation and I thought I knew the type of person I would be.
But despite all my planning and hypotheticals, one day when I was in middle school, I came home from school and took a nap. I woke up at around 4:30 and it was winter so it was dark outside. In my groggy state, I assumed it was 4:30AM. I heard noises downstairs (which were really just my family getting ready for dinner), but I thought it was robbers. I genuinely thought we were getting robbed. And I decided not to go down and stop them or even to call 911 with the phone right outside my bedroom door. No, I decided to hide under my covers, try to go back to sleep, and pretend to be surprised in the morning when we woke up to find our house was robbed.
... and that was the correct decision
Most relatable comment I've read all year
Waw! That was eye opening! I do the same, I have plans for every nightmare I fantasized about, knowing very well I wouldn't do them, but still manage to be shocked when I actually don't do them, when the horrible situation is up..
I freeze under pressure. I know this about myself.
And maybe it's more important than "empathy" - imagining oneself in someone else's situation - to have the kind of *self-knowledge* (that can only come from hard experience) that allows one to know how one would _actually_ respond in such a situation, by having _actually_ done so. Because without that kind of experience, it's all just fantasy.
dwc1964 That perspective is a big part of human experience that isn’t very commonly portrayed when compared to the presence of hero narratives. I think we need more narratives that acknowledge the overwhelming disempowerment that fear can suddenly impose on ourselves. No matter how much we idealize our sense of control, our desire to do virtuous works, or at the very least, clear-headed choices, our minds can be suddenly plunged into a haze of inaction, of shock & horror, and of absurd perception.
The reality of fear & trauma is hidden by framing it all as a choice to be a coward when the opportunity for valor knocks.
I was part of a very progressive and feminist community in the aftermath of the massacre (I am old lol). And I don't think it even occurred to us that the men should have intervened. But this was long before the "good guy with a gun" myth was popularized.
in this case, the good guys did not have a gun. not to make a political stance, just saying
@D.A. Botos The thing that stops the most shootings is gun control. This is just an unarguable statistical fact. The countries with the absolute lowest amount of shootings are ones like Korea and Japan with absolute gun control, the next step up from that are countries like Australia and the UK where guns are legal but heavily restricted, then you have countries like Switzerland which have some gun control but not realistically enough and finally states like the USA. It's a very strong correlation. "Good guy with gun" requires you to outright ignore reality.
@D.A. Botos It doesn't matter what kind of statistics you look at, the US's gun violence is just worse. There's a frequency of mass shooting and a normalcy to gun violence that just doesn't exist elsewhere on earth. The last time there was a mass shooting in my country (Australia) it was shocking and repulsive, it wasn't normal. Mass shootings are so normalised in the US that most people have no clue when and where the last one even happened, I can't even blame them, it changes almost every week at least.
I've never seen a study that suggests that gun ownership reduces crime. You can feel free to link one if you have one, but I can already see what the flaw in the methodology most likely is. Crime isn't a consistent thing between countries. Different countries report and legislate crimes differently. We can do this sort of report on homicide because there's relatively little divergence on what constitutes homicide. We can't do the same study on crime because, as an example there's still countries that outlaw homosexuality.
Finally, a reduction in gun related suicide and gang violence still seems like a positive to me. Suicide and gang violence are threats to average citizens, especially suicide.
D.A. Botos There is a key emotional element to suicide that I think you are missing here. People who are going to be committing suicide are not very confident in themselves at all, and if committing suicide isn’t a quick and easy option, they might not go through with it. I believe that is why gun suicide tends to happen more than some other methods.
@@nobleradical2158 You almost hit the point here, but I think you're just a little off the reason why guns increase the number of suicides. Suicides are rarely planned. They tend to be sporadic events that happen because a person who's mentally suffering has a particularly bad period of time for whatever reason. What this means is if they have the means to commit suicide they're more likely to do so, if they have to stop and think about it they're more likely not to.
Guns are one of the easiest methods to commit suicide, which means if they're just lying around the house they're a go-to method and they don't give the victim any time to stop and think. If the person has to go out and, say, seek a high place to jump from that could be a few extra minutes for them to calm down a little and start thinking about what they're about to do. That's not to say they'll never think about it then follow through, but it does help to reduce the odds.
Getting mad at people for not employing human wave tactics unprompted is certainly a Twitter thing to do.
Goes on about people needing to have empathy while failing to have any for the men in the situation
I... I think I would've agreed with the original tweeter's take until you pointed out how wrong it is, and now I'm scared of myself.
This guy had successfully misdirected my empathy in a way that would've done harm if I had access to the victim's media presence. I even recognized as I was reading it for the first time that the OP was pushing a narrative, but I went along with it cause it sounded like a narrative I wanted to be pushed. Especially how I took it for granted that the shooter had agency in his actions.
I love your content, and this vid is great, but going through this experience I feel (through no fault of your own) stupid and cruel and weak.
that's alright, the OP was using psychological tricks to get you to believe in the tangled narrative they believe. the ability to take a step back and really look at what someone is saying past the initial impression is what separates you from the chumps.
AndYetNoBananas don’t feel like that. As long as you analyzed why you felt like that and why you changed, that’s all that matters.
I came to the same initial conclusion and also kind of feel bad about it. I think lan on using this as a learning experience
I don't see any stupidity, cruelty, or weakness here, personally. You're clearly self-reflective, open-minded, and willing to adjust when presented with new information. Those are super valuable qualities to have. It's really big of you to be able to admit your experience here, and it really is ok that you had the initial reaction you did. What matters is that you stopped, took stock of the situation, and decided you didn't like that initial reaction. That honesty with ourselves is how we grow through our mistakes.
I felt somewhat similar. At the start it felt weird how he was judging men who had a gun to their head, but as it kept going his arguments dropped my defenses and I think if I had just been scrolling through without thinking too hard I would've agreed too. Like someone else said in these comments, social media platforms are designed to make you consume and engage, not to make you think, which is a big part of the problem here.
Empathy is good. The problem is, the tweets made us stop feeling empathy for the men, when we should never have stopped feeling empathy for the men. The tweets were actually judgemental and accusatory, holding them accountable, that they are seemingly obligated to lay down their lives for the grand idea of anti-sexism. Scared humans don't act on grand ideals like that.
facts
The surviving women from that classroom emphatically state that they DO NOT blame the male survivors. Absolutely repulsive.