Ah, understood, thanks for pointing it out

So many people trying to say it is normal in the US, but it is the US the one with the rule of having a paper bag to cover alcohol anywhere public. Sure at home it might also be more normal but that is already indicative of a certain point of view which I’m guessing is what OP was talking about.

Accused, but if I remember correctly it didn’t go further than that. And she was by far one of the best PMs I’ve seen working in many countries.

Most likely I’m too specific about it, but I see quite some shows mentioned that I’d not really consider underrated or unrecognised. Firefly is one of my all time favourites but not really underrated or unrecognised. Or Fringe, possibly not even From (of which I’ll just say I very much hope they have an ending planned because I don’t want it to end lost like Lost).

Perfect examples of underrated or unrecognised shows are Galavant and Utopia, mentioned by others, they are brilliant.

In a similar direction I’d say Dead Set, a UK show that really surprised me ages ago but never see mentioned. https://imdb.com/title/tt1285482/

Maybe I should include also Dr Horrible’s Sing Along Blog, but that may be a lot less underrated and it’s a minishow only.

My bet is, for the same reason that the post assumes that people who hate smalltalk can’t have a meaningful relationship

It’s either Matrix or Fight Club, I guess it depends on the day

Very nice write up! Thanks for sharing it and taking the time to write it.

But you are talking about a completely different thing. Here’s what it boils down to:

Obviously, we prefer to exhaust other options first

Does it look like that? Not really… Not when people are cheering for some asshole to be assassinated. This is not about the value of one life, this is not about the use of violence of armed forces to try and save others, this is not about the lives that trump would destroy. This is about people cheering for a murder, this is about a public figure inciting violence publicly… Did you notice the reaction of someone like Biden or Sanders (the two examples I know of, surely there are others)? immediately rejecting the actions of a violent man that decided to open fire against a big amount of people, it’s irrelevant who he was aiming for. The only solution for anyone talking in this thread is killing trump, instead of voting the other (albeit very imperfect) party. It’s still months before the election and everyone is acting like trump has won already and the only solution is killing him. Wtf.

I guess this thread and conversation has shown me why the US has such a gun problem. Why the police is absurdly violent against anyone they consider a threat. Why someone would resort to shooting a bunch of people if they’ve been bullied for years or whatever and feel threatened. Fucking sad…

All of this is not about me wanting trump alive and well, I don’t want the orange turd around, I’d hope preferably that he rots in prison though and that he has very “nice” cellmate with him, but if he’s gone from the surface of the earth all the better for the rest of us. That is not the same as inciting for violence, or approving the assassination attempt that has killed someone else.

And your proposal is that justice should prevail by a public mass shooting to kill the orange turd?

So your thinking is that because trump tried to end democracy, now you have the right to kill him?

The only way to defend yourself is with guns and killing those who attack you? I wonder what group of people keep proposing that…

People like you, already defeated months before the election, saying that voting doesn’t matter, have a lot to do with the end of democracy. Go vote, make it matter.

Shit’s real fucked, you have in the states a candidate for presidency instead of being in prison like he should. And the problem is that no one has killed him yet? No wonder that justice won’t work…

Either you are just trying to help the orange shit posting this kind of defeatist comment on purpose or you are just as bad as a republican that keeps saying those who oppose him should be killed.

Don’t use fallacies to defend violence. Killing trump is not the only way to avoid that from happening. Becoming a terrorist and promoting violence against a political group contrary to your political opinion is not OK no matter how dangerous that group is. You are using the same discussion techniques that fucking maga asshats use. Seriously you don’t see the issue on the way you are defending the idea that assassinating a political opponent is the only way to defeat that opponent?

You are defending the republican gun nutjob that went to shoot trump and accidentally killed someone else? You are saying his decision making was the kind of behaviour to glorify? The same kind of nut job that will happily join in the death squads you talk about? What the fuck, how does your brain work? How can you not see the hypocrisy of what you are saying…

Of course that’s assuming a sincere take and not just some piece of shit bot or account made to increase violence hatred and division.

Sincerely I am baffled at the take most comments have on this… Does this mean that because trump is a fucking fascist piece of shit that calls for violence against anyone he doesn’t like we have the right to call for violence against him? Just because trump is a disgusting waste of biological matter that rapes kids do we have the right to rape his kids? What the fuck is with all these comments calling coward to jack black for pointing out how out of place is such a thing to say… It’s a joke that I could do, in a group of close friends, that I know how they will take it. I’m pretty sure jack black would have found it funny in private. But in the middle of a show? Do we really need to remind people that calling for violence is not OK? Yeah we could take his comment as a joke… But what if some people in the audience are unhinged enough to take it seriously? The comment was definitely out of place. Freedom of speech has limits, and his comment is very much crossing the limit.

Look, I’m not going to lie, if I hear trump drops dead randomly tomorrow I wouldn’t feel particularly sad (or at all) but I wouldn’t ask for him to be assassinated or call for terrorism against republicans no matter how wrong I think they are and how dangerous they can be. What the fuck… there’s so many people here hoping for a fucking asshole to be assassinated it’s kinda scary even. That’s not the solution against trump or republicans…

Who are you and how did you read my diary?

I’m so glad to see this posted. The whole meme of bear vs man made me feel at odds and while I saw what the point was that it tried to raise it still didn’t really do a great job to me. After a lot of thinking about it and discussing it in other threads I finally understood what I feel is the issue. While the answer given by most (if not all) women is shocking and shows the feeling of uncertainty and unsafeness the question is framed in such a way that it creates division and sexism. The problem is not what women are answering, the issue is that it puts men on the other side without any more thought. It divides us into women vs either men or bears. I’m not a woman, I’m not a bear, and I don’t want to be a man seen as a danger. I understand the issue and I want to be part of the solution and create a safer world for everyone.

This whole topic wouldn’t have made me see the problem if it wasn’t for the effect that other ways to raise awareness have had in the past. For me the greatest method to raise awareness was the #metoo movement. That’s when I could see the issue and what kind of effect it has. It was a movement that didn’t automatically make me feel excluded, it was a movement that raised awareness of the victims, but it didn’t have to be only women, also men that had been victims could raise it if they felt empowered by it. It was horrifying seeing the spread of it, and then there must be all the ones that didn’t say anything. That’s a movement I can get behind, that’s the way to raise awareness. Since then I try to be more aware of the kind of behavior that creates those feelings of unsafeness for women and if I would ever notice something done by others I’d try to step up. The whole man vs bear is terrible at doing the same.

After a lot of thinking and reading a lot of the answers here (only considering the actually serious ones, not the ones dismissing what it means that women answer the bears or the ones that dismiss the answers of men unhappy about the comparison) I’ve come up with what bothers me of the whole situation and since you seemed to actually be really polite in the discussion and spent the effort on giving me a different point of view I wanted to post my realization and thought process with an answer for you but also hoping others will see it.

The issue we are facing with this hypothetical situation and question, “would you rather meet a random unknown man or a bear alone in the forest?”, is that instead of raising awareness of the issue, instead of trying to find a solution, it is increasing the problem, it increases and promotes the fear. Let me explain better.

The issue I feel is clearer if we change the question not to aim sexism and sexual assault, but aim it at describing racism and violence due to racism. If you are a black person (we could simplify by assuming a man, to avoid getting again into the gender differences), would you want to meet a random white guy or a bear alone in the forest? Now, black people can and definitely are suffering racism at different levels constantly, depending where they live we can say that most have been the objective of some racist behavior. If they answer “I’d rather face a bear than a random white guy” because they are afraid they are going to end up meeting a white dude that is racist and would attack them due to race, it demonstrates a big issue that there’s that fear but there’s no way around the fact that the question is racist and pushes the racism forward by increasing the fear of any random white guy when in average no white person would wish any bad to any other race (which doesn’t mean racism isn’t a big issue in society).

The hypothetical question is a sexist question the way it is made that enforces the fear of any man. We need to make this very clear. Men are not rapists by default. Men won’t assault a woman when they get a chance. When a man is not attacking a woman it is not for a lack of opportunity. That’s what this hypothetical does, it tells that the only thing needed for a random man to assault a woman is an opportunity. Way too many women suffer sexual assault, it is a problem too widespread, but not because all men do it, but because most women suffer it. The answer to the hypothetical question should be “a man, because a random man out of the whole population is nearly without a doubt not going to be a rapist”. The fact that the answer is not that, means that we as a society are failing at making half the population feel safe. See, the problem is not the answer of women, the problem is the question, the question causes more damage than anything by enforcing the fear and dividing society between men and women. Instead of dividing society between rapists, assaulters and victims. Most women are victims of sexual assault, but not only women are victims. By setting the question as man vs bear, it enforces a different type of sexism. Men that feel that sexism and raise the issue are being marked as part of the problem, as assaulters. If I feel that the question is sexist and problematic it must mean that I don’t care for women and their safety, I’m a bear too… That’s what this question is proving to me, the amount of sexism still present both ways and how unsafe women feel around unknown men.

I think that this hypothetical is dangerous, it creates division based on gender, it makes sexism a bigger issue instead of fighting it. Instead, better ways of handling this topic could be such as raising awareness of how many victims of sexual assault there are the way it was done with the #metoo tag (if I remember correctly that’s what it was called) in social networks where many victims felt empowered to come out and show how many there are. Independent of gender. Another good way to raise awareness is another thread I saw yesterday asking women what they would do if they had 24 hours where there would be no men around without consequences for them, after 24 hours they are back and all continues as usual. Most were answering that they would dress nice, even provocative, put make up, go out with girlfriends and drink, without the fear of being abused, assaulted or worse. That shows the real problem. That tells a lot about the lack of safety for women specifically without making the men that are also victims feel like part of the problem. We can tell how women feel normally, without muddling the waters by comparing men to bears, and equating victims to women and men as the problem, when men can also be victims. We need to address these issues, yes. But not like this. Not making sexism a bigger issue.

The issue here is the way the message is delivered. We as a society need to bring attention to the issue of safety for women and sexual assault overall and try to find solutions for it. I think there are examples of great ways to do that (bring attention to it I mean, no clue how to fix it), one that comes to mind is the whole movement that I think was called #metoo or something along those lines? I think it brought a lot of attention to this and it allowed me personally to understand better the depth of the issue of safety for women. It made me more aware, it made me reconsider many things and made me want to be helpful.

Today there was another post around where it was asked of women “if all men disappear for 24 hours without consequences, what would you do in that time”. So many many answers were just “go party with my girlfriends and dress however I want and get hammered without feeling threatened” or something similar, and that post alone made the issue of safety for women so much clearer and stand out so perfectly than this meme, and more importantly the original question…

The problem is that this kind of discussion creates a barrier, it divides, it moves the discussion from the real issue, women’s safety, to a wrong topic, are men as dangerous as a bear. In itself it’s a question that promotes another type of sexism, it promotes fear, with the excuse of making a point and raising awareness. Instead of raising awareness it’s muddling the waters in reality which is not the way anyone will be feeling safer in any way.

Damn, a post that makes sense… I guess I found the needle in the hay… Really well put.

I’ve been trying to set my head in between these two opinions, the one being “as a man I’m saddened and unhappy to be included in the category where women feel safer with a bear than with me unjustly” and the other being “women have it so bad that this is the reality for them”.

In such a case I feel like we have a couple of issues to resolve. The first one being the fact that sexual assault of different levels (not everything is rape or not, there’s other ways to suffer it) is definitely a real issue that most women if not all suffer one way or another. The other issue is the fear of all men in consequence of it. This kind of bear/man discussion does two things in my opinion, bring the topic up to a point where it is talked about more openly (which is good) and also perpetuate the fear by generating this constant feel that unknown men equal danger (obviously bad, not only for men, but also removing any possibility of trust from women, one that might be lucky to not have had any sexual assault experience will be afraid of it by default).

This is a problem that we need to resolve together, both men and women of all kinds, the men saying “but I’m not worse than a bear, I would help you get out of the forest without expecting anything in return or attacking you”, would need to bring any sexual assault to attention if they notice it, discourage and negate other men (friends or whatever) from wrong behaviors and help women that would need it. Also women should encourage the kind of men that would do that kind of thing, should help bring the gap of trust closer by thanking the men they know and feel safe with. Making a discourse of them against us would only create a bigger division and more sexism and I feel this kind of discourse gets lost when generalizations like this one happen with the bear and the man, despite the fact that it brings up such important issues as the unsafeness women feel with unknown men.

This is not meant to put down the importance of how women feel unsafe, it is by far more important to tackle the sexual assault topics than it is to tackle the fact that I’m considered worse than a bear by women that don’t know me. And thinking of that is how I ended up siding more with the person that did the comparison, now, how could we do it in a better way, one that won’t automatically move the conversation to “but not all men are bad”?

Edit: I want to point out that I don’t mean now women should thank men for making them feel safe, that’s like the minimum any person should do with others around, but when it comes to this kind of discussion, acknowledging that there are men trying to do good and not all would jump at the chance of raping someone is a good thing to bring up to avoid losing the importance of the topic by going sideways and off topic.

Yeah he worked in Microsoft before that and when he ended in Nokia the path was quite clear what it would be. But I’ve had the chance to talk with many engineers that were working at Nokia back in the day and the problems didn’t start because of Microsoft.

Basically Nokia had the whole management divided between symbian, maemo, and windows mobile, and as they couldn’t agree on a future path all the efforts were divided. Symbian was quite a disaster at the end and it wouldn’t have gone far most likely, those that wanted to continue with it didn’t have a clear view of the changes coming in the mobile world.

Maemo was great, really advanced, based on Linux, and working really well, maybe too advanced even, specially for your common users back then. The whole system was constantly put down and delayed and the first devices sold wouldn’t even work as a phone, only the 4th ended up with mobile connection, which didn’t help at all to make it useful (wifi was not as big as it is now) and sold.

Finally there was Windows Mobile which was still starting basically then and had far less strength, but with the support of Microsoft behind it it was easier to push it out. I don’t understand why it still has such support when it comes to the UI, I personally never liked it and it felt too simplistic and boring, but the more options the better I guess. Of course once Microsoft managed to plant his own guy inside Nokia they managed to favor the balance towards Win mobile and the other two were left behind more and more.

So Microsoft was a key part in what ended happening but they were not the ones that put Nokia in trouble. That was a lack of direction in the management level.

Maemo was so much better than any os coming after it… Meego was in my opinion the wrong path to take. I still miss the N900, what an amazing device it was…

Wow thanks! Really need to try that one! Live tv is not my jam tho, I don’t care much for stuff I can’t choose when to watch.