she would never use the same logic against shit like apartheid laws in the 50s
like, if she went to the 50s on a beach and saw a sign that says "no blacks"
would she go
"the government had to put up signs because blacks were harassing white people"
Or if she lived in ww2 germany and saw posters put up by the nazis - the nazis HAD to put up posters warning us of the jews, because the jews were threatening german people!
Posters and signs = not evidence of actual shit. Its amazing that you can train people to believe something by simply telling them like that, but if you told them directly they would not do it, cuz ego.
Like, if I screamed in someones face SALE SALE, THIS IS ON SALE BUY IT YOU CUNTTT
they would be like no, ugh, because ppl dont like being told what to do and think
but if I put up a red sign that says sale, they fucking follow it and buy the product, even though its the same thing, only without a person yelling at you. Someone printed that sign and put it up, with the intention of making your believe a specific thing, and you accept it because there is no person confronting you, so it gets around your ego.
Imagine walking into a forest and there is a sign "bears. be aware."
I could literally just put that into a random forest and scare normies kek.
You can create reality like that for people, its kinda meta honestly.
Thats why I say, in the video, the signs are not evidence for anything. Could be propaganda, could be population control. Or maybe the signs are only in big cities with drunk SEAmaxxing tourists groping foids and dont apply ot japanese men at all. Countless options, yet the foid instantly jumps to the conclusion that "men = evil, men must be harrasing women."
Again, this is why I always say, they prove us right while trying to debunk us. By blatantly assuming without second thoughts that men are willing and capable of harrassing so many women that the government has to intervene, she exposes her innate gynocentrism and hatred of men.
Just genderswap the example, people would think its a joke or public prank. "Signs telling women not to harrass men? SIGN ME UP, i will get on a flight rn hew hew hew!"
Its peoples
presuppositions their innate assumptions that make them interpret raw observations in a biased way. So the way people interpret things always tells you more about the person interpreting than what is actually being interpreted. Hence rorschach tests are a valid tool in psychology to diagnose people. You show someone an ink blob and they go "i see 10 cocks in my ass" well they probably are gay as shit.
As long as people keep interpreting isolated events, raw obsrevational data etc as "misyoginy" and shit, they will keep supporting our cause. As st augustine of hippo said, the truth is like a lion, you just let it loose and it fights for itself. Grant your opposition their claims and see where it takes them, like I did with the nazi and apartheid example.
Or take the bear sign example.
Why would it scare people?
Because they
presuppose that bears are dangerous and scary.
But if I put up a sign that said "squirrels. Beware"
nobody would feel fear, even though, what if "squirrels" means "bear" in my language?
The reaction and interpretation is not inherent to the sign, only to the person interpreting it.
