>>82801135
>Isn't that exactly what you're doing to the black men who weren't involved in this act of violence?
Good point, but that anon being a hypocrite doesn't justify you being one. You're just as bad as the
>>82801378 having a temper tantrum about how racism towards men from women is somehow different than racism towards blacks.
>>82801378
>You see and treat people as individuals while still being aware of collective trends
We really can't. You know full well how people are going to receive a social taboo assigned to a demographic. When you make NO effort to actually specify what you mean when it's unclear, you're complacent with having people take your message the "wrong" way.
I don't know how stupid you are when I read your post. Maybe you're one of those idiots who bring up collective trends specifically to justify why not treating others as individuals. Or maybe you're one of those midwit pseudo-intellectuals who bring it up and pretentiously assume that it's okay obfuscate your words and intentions when it benefits you.
>>82801474
>This isn't misandry. It's just seeing the reality for what it is.
It is 105% misandry. You're picking a misandrist angle on purpose and obfuscating reality such that people will misinterpret what you're saying and feel angry at men.
>>82801506
>Yes, I think they have a right to free speech and I wouldn't want to censor them for speaking of something I might disagree with. I would not try to punish them for "hate speech".
>And if they didn't want to be subject to violence, then they could pick more agreeable men (most likely, they won't, though)
This is sane, but would you let them punish you for their hate speech when they accuse you of it for centering men? Do you not feel any anger at the gall and hypocracy of misandrists in feminist circles?