I actually kind of agree with the woman here. As she pointed out, the men could have pulled the safety line when they moved to another compartment even if they were scared themselves, that would...
I actually kind of agree with the woman here. As she pointed out, the men could have pulled the safety line when they moved to another compartment even if they were scared themselves, that would be the least they could do. Getting help doesn't put you in any danger after all. I wouldn't actively blame them, but she does have a point that at least there is more they could have done.
On a side note, I don't think either of these are good sources. The original source of this article, Daily Mail, has a long history of publishing exaggerated and sometimes straight up false stories for clicks, and they're banned from /r/neutralpolitics and/or /r/politics iirc because of it. This youtuber himself publishes clickbait videos with titles like "Men Are The Oppressed Minority" and "I'm Fed Up With The LIARS". I'd give you more leeway with text because at least we can skip or discuss specific points, but being totally honest with you I'm especially not willing to watch a 15+ minute video when I suspect it's just going to be sensationalized and inflammatory nonsense.
I'm surprised by your wording, I guess because I see no reason to not agree with her. I would understand freezing, fighting, or running away - but once they're out of harm's way, it's totally...
I actually kind of agree with the woman here.
I'm surprised by your wording, I guess because I see no reason to not agree with her. I would understand freezing, fighting, or running away - but once they're out of harm's way, it's totally ridiculous to just pretend nothing was happening.
The guy in the video emphasized her blaming them more than the attacker, which I think is disingenuous. She didn't explicitly blame the man who attacked her because it's obvious he is to blame for the attack, and that he has significant mental issues in the first place. Presumably the men who ran don't.
In fact, the way he built that narrative up totally destroyed my trust in the video. It goes from talking about how she doesn't mention the attacker, to implying she doesn't even blame the attacker, to explicitly saying that she doesn't blame the attacker at all, and in fact blames the men who didn't help. I get building an argument, but that was just slowly changing what she said to serve a point, and it was gross. I'm not at all surprised that he would be one of those guys who push men as an oppressed minority.
It's also worth saying that the video is about a subject I suspect the video author would hate. Aggressiveness is seen as masculine, which leads men to want to avoid being aggressive so as to not paint themselves as attackers, or to go too far when defending themselves or others (punching that drug dealer again, when he's already down, is probably why he had so much brain trauma), and so on. Toxic masculinity. 🤔
I am the sort of person who does get involved when someone is in trouble. I've had friends tell me off because I walk towards fights and accidents and other trouble spots. If I can help, I will....
I am the sort of person who does get involved when someone is in trouble. I've had friends tell me off because I walk towards fights and accidents and other trouble spots. If I can help, I will.
When I see someone in trouble, I do not perform the cold selfish self-serving calculations this YouTuber describes. Sure, if there's a lost kid, I'm aware that someone may misinterpret my actions if I try to help them (given that I am a middle-aged man), but that doesn't stop me or even slow me down. That kid needs help, and I can help them.
Same if there's a fight or a confrontation between adults. If someone needs help, I will help them. I have done so. I have stepped in when a group of teenagers harassed a security guard to the point where one of them punched him and broke his glasses. While other people tended to the guard, I faced down the group of teenagers by myself. This is probably a good time to mention that I'm a total pacifist - if they hit me, I wasn't going to hit back. I was at risk of injury, and knew it, but I went in anyway. That's what good people do.
I don't understand the mindset of anyone who can see someone in trouble and just sit silently by - or, worse, get up and walk away. That to me is unfathomable. If someone's in trouble, you help them! Even if you don't want to get directly involved, you can help indirectly. Like in the case of the woman who got attacked on the train, that this YouTuber opens with - if you don't want to get involved in a physical confrontation with a large mentally ill man, you can do other things like pull the emergency brake cord, or push an emergency button to summon the driver, or even phone the police.
Your position is admirable in certain cases. When I was younger and single I acted much the same way. Now I have a wife and several relatives relying on me as the breadwinner. Jumping in to help...
Your position is admirable in certain cases. When I was younger and single I acted much the same way. Now I have a wife and several relatives relying on me as the breadwinner. Jumping in to help someone is no longer an easy decision because it's not just putting myself at risk. Now it's decideing whether the chance of the damage to my family is worth helping this person. When you are in that situation you are choosing to help one person or the other.
You can't help everyone when their needs are opposed
I don't like that he spends the rest of the video concerned with anecodotes from dodgy sources and doesn't revisit the idea that the trend is probably imagined. He does say at the end "it's more...
I don't like that he spends the rest of the video concerned with anecodotes from dodgy sources and doesn't revisit the idea that the trend is probably imagined.
He does say at the end "it's more likely than not" good deeds will not be punished, but that just means he considers the odds better than 50/50, which isn't saying much at all.
The whole video stank of sensationalism and a lack of real substance, IMHO.
The two men should have pulled the safety break, but honestly I don't think we can know what was going through their heads during that moment without their input. We are only receiving one side of...
The two men should have pulled the safety break, but honestly I don't think we can know what was going through their heads during that moment without their input. We are only receiving one side of this story. They could have been travelers who weren't aware of the safety break. They could have called the police, but I don't believe we can prove that from the content of the article if they then left the scene of the crime after calling.
We also do not know the age or physiques of the two men who left. Curious is her mentioning of the man holding a briefcase - is she implying that could have been used as a weapon by a man against a 6 ft aggressor in the prime of his life? I also do not believe she should be so quick to disregard the actions of the man who attacked her vs the two men who left. Previous decisions the aggressor took could have led to him assaulting someone in the first place.
It is easy, though maybe not completely disingenuous, to claim you'd jump in and help. That said, we do not know the health/physiques of these two men, we do not know the past experiences they have been through, and we do not know if they would have helped the situation at all and not just escalate the existing tension by stepping in. I do not believe there is enough information available to correctly criticize them.
I'd have chosen a slightly different title for this post, but have been cautioned that editorializing is frowned upon. Right now, it's a somewhat clickbaity title, since it probably could just say...
I'd have chosen a slightly different title for this post, but have been cautioned that editorializing is frowned upon. Right now, it's a somewhat clickbaity title, since it probably could just say what the reason is. From the incidents described in the video, it seems like the reason is that the laws of the areas where they happened made it so that you can be punished by courts for harming someone who is breaking the law - in some cases even more than the originator of the conflict.
I thought about putting it in ~talk, but it's a link, not a text post.... it isn't exactly news since it is a mixture of news and commentary so ~news didn't exactly seem right. Not knowing where...
I thought about putting it in ~talk, but it's a link, not a text post.... it isn't exactly news since it is a mixture of news and commentary so ~news didn't exactly seem right. Not knowing where to put it exactly, i figured ~misc would work as a catchall, and if people wanted to talk about it, they could do so in the comments. >_>
I actually kind of agree with the woman here. As she pointed out, the men could have pulled the safety line when they moved to another compartment even if they were scared themselves, that would be the least they could do. Getting help doesn't put you in any danger after all. I wouldn't actively blame them, but she does have a point that at least there is more they could have done.
On a side note, I don't think either of these are good sources. The original source of this article, Daily Mail, has a long history of publishing exaggerated and sometimes straight up false stories for clicks, and they're banned from /r/neutralpolitics and/or /r/politics iirc because of it. This youtuber himself publishes clickbait videos with titles like "Men Are The Oppressed Minority" and "I'm Fed Up With The LIARS". I'd give you more leeway with text because at least we can skip or discuss specific points, but being totally honest with you I'm especially not willing to watch a 15+ minute video when I suspect it's just going to be sensationalized and inflammatory nonsense.
This is exactly the sort of content I was hoping to avoid on Tildes.
I'm surprised by your wording, I guess because I see no reason to not agree with her. I would understand freezing, fighting, or running away - but once they're out of harm's way, it's totally ridiculous to just pretend nothing was happening.
The guy in the video emphasized her blaming them more than the attacker, which I think is disingenuous. She didn't explicitly blame the man who attacked her because it's obvious he is to blame for the attack, and that he has significant mental issues in the first place. Presumably the men who ran don't.
In fact, the way he built that narrative up totally destroyed my trust in the video. It goes from talking about how she doesn't mention the attacker, to implying she doesn't even blame the attacker, to explicitly saying that she doesn't blame the attacker at all, and in fact blames the men who didn't help. I get building an argument, but that was just slowly changing what she said to serve a point, and it was gross. I'm not at all surprised that he would be one of those guys who push men as an oppressed minority.
It's also worth saying that the video is about a subject I suspect the video author would hate. Aggressiveness is seen as masculine, which leads men to want to avoid being aggressive so as to not paint themselves as attackers, or to go too far when defending themselves or others (punching that drug dealer again, when he's already down, is probably why he had so much brain trauma), and so on. Toxic masculinity. 🤔
I am the sort of person who does get involved when someone is in trouble. I've had friends tell me off because I walk towards fights and accidents and other trouble spots. If I can help, I will.
When I see someone in trouble, I do not perform the cold selfish self-serving calculations this YouTuber describes. Sure, if there's a lost kid, I'm aware that someone may misinterpret my actions if I try to help them (given that I am a middle-aged man), but that doesn't stop me or even slow me down. That kid needs help, and I can help them.
Same if there's a fight or a confrontation between adults. If someone needs help, I will help them. I have done so. I have stepped in when a group of teenagers harassed a security guard to the point where one of them punched him and broke his glasses. While other people tended to the guard, I faced down the group of teenagers by myself. This is probably a good time to mention that I'm a total pacifist - if they hit me, I wasn't going to hit back. I was at risk of injury, and knew it, but I went in anyway. That's what good people do.
I don't understand the mindset of anyone who can see someone in trouble and just sit silently by - or, worse, get up and walk away. That to me is unfathomable. If someone's in trouble, you help them! Even if you don't want to get directly involved, you can help indirectly. Like in the case of the woman who got attacked on the train, that this YouTuber opens with - if you don't want to get involved in a physical confrontation with a large mentally ill man, you can do other things like pull the emergency brake cord, or push an emergency button to summon the driver, or even phone the police.
You don't just walk away from someone in danger.
Your position is admirable in certain cases. When I was younger and single I acted much the same way. Now I have a wife and several relatives relying on me as the breadwinner. Jumping in to help someone is no longer an easy decision because it's not just putting myself at risk. Now it's decideing whether the chance of the damage to my family is worth helping this person. When you are in that situation you are choosing to help one person or the other.
You can't help everyone when their needs are opposed
I like that he prefaces by pointing out that it's an apparent trend, not necessarily a real one.
I don't like that he spends the rest of the video concerned with anecodotes from dodgy sources and doesn't revisit the idea that the trend is probably imagined.
He does say at the end "it's more likely than not" good deeds will not be punished, but that just means he considers the odds better than 50/50, which isn't saying much at all.
The whole video stank of sensationalism and a lack of real substance, IMHO.
I looked up "good samaritan lost child" and there's one story from Lakeland, FL.
The two men should have pulled the safety break, but honestly I don't think we can know what was going through their heads during that moment without their input. We are only receiving one side of this story. They could have been travelers who weren't aware of the safety break. They could have called the police, but I don't believe we can prove that from the content of the article if they then left the scene of the crime after calling.
We also do not know the age or physiques of the two men who left. Curious is her mentioning of the man holding a briefcase - is she implying that could have been used as a weapon by a man against a 6 ft aggressor in the prime of his life? I also do not believe she should be so quick to disregard the actions of the man who attacked her vs the two men who left. Previous decisions the aggressor took could have led to him assaulting someone in the first place.
It is easy, though maybe not completely disingenuous, to claim you'd jump in and help. That said, we do not know the health/physiques of these two men, we do not know the past experiences they have been through, and we do not know if they would have helped the situation at all and not just escalate the existing tension by stepping in. I do not believe there is enough information available to correctly criticize them.
I'd have chosen a slightly different title for this post, but have been cautioned that editorializing is frowned upon. Right now, it's a somewhat clickbaity title, since it probably could just say what the reason is. From the incidents described in the video, it seems like the reason is that the laws of the areas where they happened made it so that you can be punished by courts for harming someone who is breaking the law - in some cases even more than the originator of the conflict.
I think this may fit better in ~talk, is the site set up to move it yet @deimos
I thought about putting it in ~talk, but it's a link, not a text post.... it isn't exactly news since it is a mixture of news and commentary so ~news didn't exactly seem right. Not knowing where to put it exactly, i figured ~misc would work as a catchall, and if people wanted to talk about it, they could do so in the comments. >_>
Not even close.
What do you mean? I've moved quite a few posts.
Oh. I wasn't aware. I knew you hadn't enabled the functionality for this, but I didn't know you were doing it manually.