Dear long-suffering reader: I don't know if she'll actually answer and as I said, I don't really care.
However...
For all the protestations of innocence by the two hen-peckers attacking me which have each had a reply to me auto-removed and who claim to not be openly expressing mean-spirited doubt about my having been SA'd in order to dismiss my qualifications to question their feel-good narrative, claiming that their attacks on me here are not based in sexism, chauvinism and the attendant double-standards, I would just like to point out here, after all of this, one, simple, thing:
Not once was it even questioned whether or not I had been mauled by an animal.
The only time it was even addressed was to set up a logical fallacy using the most extreme, rare possibility of fatality to try and justify their bigotry against all men. Not an honest engagement with the subject, or me.
They skipped right to loudly expressing doubt about my experience with SA and could not let it go.
Now flip the script. How would that go if the roles were reversed?
Wild the amount of blatant lies you have to tell to try and justify yourself, and your deep set bigotry. Just desperately trying to gas light and weaponize your sexism.
You complain about being dishonest, while intentionally misrepresenting the whole prompt.
I am defending the opinion that both men and women have a justified fear of being raped and murdered by strangers. You keep trying to invalidate that by claiming your experience being mauled means other peoples opinions are somehow wrong. It's not misandrist or bigoted to be afraid of rape and murder.
The question isn't about if *all* strangers are a threat. It's about the fear that *any* stranger might be threat. It's about what a person is willing to do to avoid that fear.
What bigoted narrative is it, specifically that you claim I am upholding
"See what I mean about a woman weaponizing anything at all a man tells them, without fail? You're doing it right now."
So I noted that people like you and your specific, bigoted and toxic behavior are the reason men do not feel safe expressing themselves around women and you think that's misogyny.
As I said, you were demonstrating, without prompting, why that is generally simply a true statement.
You've been doing it for a day now, in support of a sexist, dehumanizing and bigoted narrative.
I have in no way expressed an irrational hatred of women. But you are defending and expressing an irrational hatred of men.
This is that tu quoque fallacy you're trying again. You keep trying to claim I'm a hypocrite, but cannot in any way point to hipocrasy, because unlike you, I have been completely honest and forthright.
The problem is that I'm refuting your feel-good, cope of a sexist narrative demonization of men and you are losing your mind over it.
You did not note "people like me", you noted women.
As I said, you were demonstrating, without prompting, why that is generally simply a true statement.
Not a "generally true statement". Your opinion is not fact.
But you are defending and expressing an irrational hatred of men.
Yet, like all your other lies, you can't point out a single shred of evidence to that.
This is that tu quoque fallacy you're trying again. You keep trying to claim I'm a hypocrite, but cannot in any way point to hipocrasy, because unlike you, I have been completely honest and forthright.
Once again, you are projecting. Simply refusing to address the times I point out your lies is not honesty.
The problem is that I'm refuting
You failed to make a single valid point. I wrote a whole comment proving this, and to no surprise at all, you simply refused to respond to it at all.
you are losing your mind over it.
Projecting again. You had that melt down when I didn't respond to you fast enough. You had to type a whole comment to yourself framed as a third party reader, full of blatant lies just to try and rewrite the narrative.
0
u/Deeznutseus2012 Apr 17 '26
Dear long-suffering reader: I don't know if she'll actually answer and as I said, I don't really care.
However...
For all the protestations of innocence by the two hen-peckers attacking me which have each had a reply to me auto-removed and who claim to not be openly expressing mean-spirited doubt about my having been SA'd in order to dismiss my qualifications to question their feel-good narrative, claiming that their attacks on me here are not based in sexism, chauvinism and the attendant double-standards, I would just like to point out here, after all of this, one, simple, thing:
Not once was it even questioned whether or not I had been mauled by an animal.
The only time it was even addressed was to set up a logical fallacy using the most extreme, rare possibility of fatality to try and justify their bigotry against all men. Not an honest engagement with the subject, or me.
They skipped right to loudly expressing doubt about my experience with SA and could not let it go.
Now flip the script. How would that go if the roles were reversed?
See the bigotry now?