Meme - iamyesyouareno @iamyesyouareno: "“All the young fit guys stood silent and looked at the ground” Because they know what happens when they do something."
brecht apologist @madisontayt_: "this man on the subway was repeatedly harassing a woman, being disgusting, invading her space, etc tell me fucking why me and the other women around tried to intervene and tell him off but all the young, fit guys around just stood silent and looked at the ground" *Daniel Penny arrested*
Thread by @wokal_distance on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "I can actually explain this: Male physical intervention into conflict escalates the conflict. The man she refers to was being rude and such, if a man intervenes to stop him, the subway harasser likely becomes *violent*. These women do not understand what that means....
There is no "margine for error." Almost nobody (save for pro UFC fighters) has the strength, power, and skill set to easily subdue someone. A man who becomes criminally violent will often not stop until he is stopped by being knocked unconscious or severely wounded. And... The man who tries to stop a violent criminal may be killed if he doesn't use enough force and is overpowered by the criminal. And the gap between "getting killed because you didn't use enough force to stop the criminial" and "using so much force the criminal dies" is small... And no one is smart enough and skilled enough to calculate the exact amount of pushing, punching, choking, etc that will stop a violent harasser without hurting the violent harasser....especially during the chaos of a physical fight when your brain is in fight or flight mode.
This means when a man intervenes physically against another man there is always the possibility of death or that someone gets severely injured. Even a man who wins may be badly injured in the process because the margine for error is so small.... Men know physical intervention might result in injury or death, and they will not donit if it means ending up catching an assault or murder charge. This is why the Daniel Penny trial is such a big deal among men at the moment. If you want men to intervene... You have to tolerate the consequences of that intervention.
What women can't do is demand men intervene, and then empathize with the criminal who gets hurt and demand the guy who intervened go to jail, cause that's how you get good men to stop protecting you from bad men."
wanye on X - "Something that’s poorly understood in the general public is the way that low trust escalates violent situations. You can get in a fistfight with a guy at school when you know with some certainty that as soon as he gets the better of you, everybody watching is going to pull him off and there will be extreme norms against him punching or kicking you while you’re on the ground. But if instead what happens is that onlookers jump in and start kicking your head themselves, then you’re in an environment in which fist fighting basically doesn’t exist. Every fight is a potentially fatal one. In that situation you should draw a gun and shoot anybody who attempts to punch you. There is no honor in squaring up with somebody in that environment. For similar reasons, there is no such thing as fist fighting a cop. The cop has a gun on his hip, so every fight involves a gun. A lot of bad takes about violent interactions can be understood through this “trust” lens, by asking yourself something like, “was the person defending themselves in a high enough trust situation that lesser violence was available?” Quite often, as with fighting or wrestling a cop, one very loud faction believes that to be the case when it manifestly isn’t."
wanye on X - "Yes, it’s right that Daniel Penny is an outlier. Most men will only intervene when there is a credible signal from the other people present that the project will be supported or at least not impeded. On a modern subway train, intervening on your own pretty much means you’re on your own. And, actually, it’s worse than that, because it’s very likely that bystanders will jump in to make what you’re trying to do harder and more dangerous for you. Daniel Penny isn’t the reason the average man won’t intervene. He’s just confirmation that their assessment of the situation — you’ll be on your own, to the extent other people intervene as well it will be to yell at you, and the broader society will not have your back — was entirely correct."
wanye on X - "This is a very funny kind of fight to me, because it’s an example of a case where progressives have a view of the world that most people don’t endorse and there are no institutions to which they can appeal to get their way, which is what they’re used to. So they have to make these arguments about what men should do and then men just say, “yeah, that’s not convincing, and I’m not going to intervene as long as things are the way they are.” You see a similar kind of frustration with arguments about people moving to the suburbs. There again, progressives can control the institutions. They can elect progressive prosecutors, make the police department more progressive, they control the schools, it’s Democrats in the mayor’s office in most big cities. But what they can’t stop you from doing is opting out. And it drives them absolutely crazy. That’s why you see that some of the sharpest invective is aimed at people who move to the suburbs."
Emre on X - "Before I actually moved to the suburbs, I thought it was all cul-de-sacs and Chilis/Fridays. I have about 50 restaurants within walking distance, walk my kids to and from school, doctor, supermarket, etc. But no crime and the public schools are great. No progressives though."
Aphasialista on X - "Unfortunately, in California they’ve found a solution: When a city or county strays too far from the preferred policy, they simply rip all local control away from everyone and centralize it in Sacramento."
Jeremy Kauffman ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ on X - "if you ever see a woman in trouble in a public space make sure to ask whether she supported black lives matter before intervening"
Daniel Penny Shows Us The Tragic Cost Of Defending Women In A World That Hates White Men - "Penny is facing the full wrath of our media and legal establishment. Not because he did anything wrong whatsoever—on the contrary, he was far more compassionate and heroic than the average person would be in such dangerous circumstances—but because of the color of his skin and the identity of the man he restrained. He's now facing the possibility of 15 years in prison... What followed was a barrage of headlines framing the incident as a racially charged crime, despite the lack of any racial motivation from Penny. The media quickly likened the event to the George Floyd case, with some outlets calling Penny a murderer, eager to make this a case of white violence against a black victim. Despite Neely's criminal record of numerous violent incidents, the media has largely portrayed him as a victim of racial injustice, preferring the optics of a white man subduing a black man. Penny now faces manslaughter charges, with the potential of 15 years in prison—charges that are more about appeasing political and racial narratives than delivering justice. The case has become yet another battleground for racial politics and the left’s ongoing efforts to dismantle traditional masculine values. As Eva Vlaardingerbroek so clearly stated, "If you are a white man and you see something like this happening, you might think twice before stepping in if the person who is harassing the passengers is black because you might end up exactly like Daniel Penny.” It’s not just that white men are being labeled racists for defending themselves—it’s that they’re literally being criminalized for it. And that's no accident. Take a step back and look at the larger narrative that feminism often promotes today. On one hand, men are constantly criticized for being “toxic,” too aggressive, or too domineering. Feminists push a narrative that men’s traditional roles as protectors and leaders are outdated and harmful. But on the other hand, when danger strikes, who do feminists expect to stand up? Men. When men fail to act, these same feminists are quick to point out their so-called deficiencies. They claim men are no longer equipped to lead, aren’t willing to protect women, and have become passive or cowardly. They bemoan a world where, in their eyes, men are no longer living up to their responsibilities. But isn’t this the direct result of the narrative feminists have been pushing for years? When you shame men for embracing strength, courage, and leadership, don’t be surprised when men hesitate to act—or, in some cases, choose not to act at all. This double standard leaves men in a no-win situation. If they step up, as Daniel Penny did, they risk being demonized, criminalized, and labeled violent aggressors, especially if racial dynamics come into play. But if they don’t act, they’re accused of failing in their basic duty to protect others. Feminism’s convoluted messages, alongside liberal policies that gut the justice system, have backed men into a corner, and feminists have the gall to even blame men for that, too. Feminists love to rag on men for not measuring up, but they’ve helped create a situation where men have every reason to think twice before they act. If you stand up, you might end up in jail. If you don’t, you’re considered a coward. And who benefits from this? Absolutely no one. These same "progressive" types who pushed for policies like cashless bail and slashed police budgets in cities like New York have made the streets and subways less safe and created environments where extremely dangerous individuals are out on the streets, preying on the vulnerable. Ironically, liberal policies and feminists who love to lecture men on toxic masculinity have done more to undermine women’s safety than anything else. Vlaardingerbroek is right when she says we need more men like Daniel Penny, not fewer. Despite what modern feminist rhetoric might say, women have an innate desire to be protected by the men they love and trust. But what happens when the men who would protect them are punished for it? It’s a chilling thought, one that should concern every woman. Do you really want to live in a world where your husband, brother, or boyfriend might hesitate before defending you because he’s worried about going viral for all the wrong reasons—or worse, ending up in jail? Embracing modern feminist ideology has become less about personal conviction and more about survival—an exercise in fear and conformity for both men and women. Women often adopt feminist rhetoric not out of genuine belief in its principles but to ensure acceptance within their peer groups. In an era where social media outrage can destroy reputations in a matter of hours, many women feel pressured to conform to the feminist narrative, afraid of being labeled backward, uneducated, or even traitors to their gender if they express dissenting views. They do it to fit in, to avoid the judgment of friends and coworkers, and to ensure that they aren’t seen as “problematic” or “internalizing misogyny.” This isn’t about empowerment—this is about fear... Men, meanwhile, have a different but equally potent pressure to conform. In a world where any act of traditional masculinity—strength, protection, leadership—can be framed as “toxic,” men increasingly bend to feminist expectations simply to appease those around them... By giving in to modern feminist demands, men and women alike are sacrificing their true selves in exchange for conditional acceptance that’s based on fear. The more men and women appease these societal expectations, the more they lose sight of who they are, creating a culture where authenticity is sacrificed at the altar of conformity. This dynamic creates a dangerous social environment, too. Women are expected to deny their biological realities, suppressing their desires for strong, protective men, while men are coerced into abandoning their instincts to lead and defend, retreating into passivity. And as both sexes drift further away from their natural roles, the tension between them grows. Instead of fostering healthy partnerships between men and women, modern feminism fosters fear, resentment, and an inability for either side to truly embrace their inherent strengths... everyone is too busy placating the loudest voices to realize they’ve lost their own in the process. If feminists want to pretend that men don’t need to defend women, fine. But they can’t have it both ways."
Alexander on X - "The reason the whole “should I protect women” debate rubs me wrong isn’t even really about women. It’s about the traits that get signaled when people talk about being afraid to protect others, the “risk,” “consequences,” if it is “worth it,” or “what do I get for it.” True if it’s about protecting women or other men. It signals low altruism, which says, “This is a weak person who would be a bad coalition member.” I don’t think I could ever trust someone like that in a hard situation, because they are flat out telling me, “I will avoid the hard decision if it poses any risk to me.” In Western and European culture we have archetypes of heroes and we have archetypes of self-sacrificers. These are viewed positively. Some cultures defer more to self-serving archetypes. They are “clever” and the idea of “smart person who avoided risk” or “benefitted at the cost of others” is valued more in those cultures. They value sneakiness, cunning, lies, deceit, and personal gain. European culture also has these archetypes, but we don’t tend to elevate them as the role model in the same way that we do the heroic archetypes. We value strong people who protect the weak. We don’t value weak people, and we don’t value people who shirk the “duty” given to them by our social norms or by their innate traits. A lot of the discourse on “what do women like” overlaps, because the same traits that women find attractive are also the traits men desire in same-sex peers and coalition members. We have a lot of men who spend a lot of time talking about how to emulate those desirable traits. As much as men seemingly want to be that guy, and spend a lot of time talking about how to look more like that guy in themselves, they really dislike what goes along with that. You will never be that guy if you are unwilling to behave like that guy. This also means bearing any consequences that come from that. So, people like Daniel Penny will be considered heroes to many. Unfortunately they will sometimes face serious consequences. “Bad boys,” insofar as this means delinquency to many people, will reap whatever benefits being a “bad boy” brings, but also face the consequences of having a criminal record. We basically have a lot of people scheming about “how can I be this thing without actually having to engage in the behavior and results associated with this thing.” And because they aren’t willing to do the hard thing, some go further and recommend that others don’t do it either. If people just kept their weak little feelings to themselves no one would care. We don’t expect everyone to be a hero, brave, strong, or altruistic. The problem occurs when people start discouraging others from engaging in virtuous behavior. You “shouldn’t” protect others. Hard to imagine that being good for the fabric of society. You’re no longer celebrating and encouraging the good. Half of the time these are revenge fantasies. They love the idea of men collectively withdrawing and letting women get hurt. So, we also see a lot of vengeful and rancorous traits here. Narcissism and neuroticism; people who seethe and wish harm on strangers - they also make poor coalition members. You have people treating questions of bravery and virtue like greedy little bean-counters: “Well actually the cost and benefit of this blah blah” when what is really valuable is having the moral fortitude and direction to simply say and do the right thing."
Devon Eriksen on X - "If you are a woman living in or near NYC, or other large cities with significant dark-skinned populations, you need to realize that the city government has designated you to be hunted for sport. With no season, no bag limit, and no tags required. Why? It's very simple. It's because they are more answerable to the people who prey on you — dark skinned men — than they are to you or anyone who wishes to defend you. Why? Because dark skinned members of the criminal underclass have political air cover, and you do not. Why? Because dark-skinned people, including those who are not members of the criminal underclass and would never dream of assault, robbing, raping, or murdering you themselves, will support those who do so for reasons of racial solidarity. If a dark-skinned male is killed or injured by someone defending you, regardless of how feral or depraved he is, what sort of violent criminal past he had, or what he was trying to do to you, the vast majority of other dark-skinned people will riot (and vote) on his behalf. Politicians do not want riots. They do not want to be voted out of office. So, if one of these characters suffers harm while attempting to harm you, the city government will race to throw you and/or anyone who defended you, under a bus, in the hope of appeasing the people with dark skin. Because they have more political power than you. Why? Because they have racial/tribal solidarity, and you do not. Therefore the city government, and other city governments across the nation, is willing to sacrifice an unlimited number of you. They don't care about you at all, because you getting raped, robbed, or killed doesn't cost them a single dollar, or a single vote. Before you vote again, it would be wise to consider whether and how much you contributed to this situation. Did you protest on behalf of George Floyd? Did you believe the press when they told you he was an innocent victim, who died as a result of rough handling, rather than a habitual thug who died of a self-inflicted drug overdose? I realize that it is very stressful for you to appear mean, or to go against popular opinion, as expressed by the television. But men will not defend you physically if you will not defend them politically. Perhaps, once upon a time, the mere fact of being female would have inspired protectiveness from every man except the feral thugs who are attacking you in the first place. But those days are gone, so long gone that most of the adult men walking around today are not old enough to remember them. That privilege that the women of old had was part of a deal. A deal that is no longer in place. You see, I'll tell you a secret about men, which will take you far in life if you are willing to believe it and live by it, which you probably won't. The secret is that men are willing to undergo incredible hardship, risk, and suffering for the welfare of others... but not if those others do not treat them with love, admiration, gratitude and respect. You can express an attitude of love, admiration, gratitude, and respect towards a man, or towards men, at the cost of zero money and very little effort. But you have been taught that it is shameful to do so. Perhaps you might want to begin asking yourself who taught you that, and why. And asking yourself what great rewards you have reaped from treating men with hatred, contempt, entitlement, and condescension. Because if you will not do this, and you need something from men, which you have just admitted you do, your only other option is to try to shame men into providing it. I've seen this before, and will no doubt see it again in the comments, once or twice. "Boo-hoo, are your precious little manfeels hurt? Is that why you sitting there minding your own business like a selfish coward?" It's not a bad line, if not terribly original, and it would have worked just fine for a woman living in an age where men were viewed, by default, with some respect. Problem is, such expressions of contempt and disgust only have any force if they are significantly different from your normal attitude towards men. There is no point in threatening to withhold your love, admiration, gratitude and respect if you are already doing so. This is what men really mean when they talk about Daniel Penny. They may not have the words to express it, but this is the true meaning. It's not about Penny being arrested. It's not about him being put on trial for murder. It's not about anything that the bureaucrats of New York City did. The offense was committed by the women of New York City. Yes, all of them. Every single one. Your grave offense, your sin, for which men may never forgive you, was that you, the women of NYC, did not rise in a single, outraged mass, swearing that no one currently in office, from the mayor on down, would ever receive one single vote from anyone with girl parts, if the charges against Daniel Penny were not immediately dropped. Men are refusing to rise in your defense because you refused to rise in theirs. The only advice I can give you now, is to leave New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston. You should instead move to a small town where the rule of law still exists. Because this is the land of wolves now. And you are not a wolf."
Meme - Jeremy Kauffman ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ @jeremykauffman: "shot // chaser"
brecht apologist: "this man on the subway was repeatedly harassing a woman, being disgusting, invading her space, etc tell me fucking why me and the other women around tried to intervene and tell him off but all the young, fit guys around just stood silent and looked at the ground. this guy was a BIG DUDE and yet we were moving around to try to create a physically barrier bet him and her and there were so many guys who were definitely stronger than any of us just fucking twidaling their thumbs and acting like nothing was wrong"
brecht apologist: "i would also like to add that it feels hollow and selfishI at best and nefarious and exploitative at worst to only be bringing up violence against women at the expense of another marginalized group. especially following the murder of jordan neely, it's propagandistic."
Meme - lil old me ๐ต๐ธ @loseroml: "All the people using that ex marine as a gotcha don’t realize that you can intervene without choking someone to death…literally women are intervening and men just twiddle thumbs because they’re afraid to choke someone to death? Pls you haven’t even lifted a finger"
Dave Parke @Dave_Parke: "Nope. He didn't try to choke him to death. Women don't realize that men can accidentally kill each other when they fight. Weird things happen. This is the world you wanted. Men are unnecessary and masculinity is toxic. You're equal. You handle it."
Kiki @kikisknees: "LOL, "Hey quit it." That should work."
MISINFOSCIENCE @MISINFOSCIENCE: "Sounds like you ladies can take care of yourselves!"
Eric๐️ @ThereWBBourbon: "Does that inconvenient truth bother you back to some sort of primal understanding that men are supposed to be your protector or you do you want “yeah but” your way into whatever pretzel you’re twisting yourself into?"
C/SAR Diver ๐บ๐ธ๐ป⚔ @rstemler1: "Men, who live in reality, cannot compete with women, who just "know better." Enjoy the Hell you created."
Ericus Cartmanicus Aurelius @CartmanAurelius: "How much experience do you have subduing violent criminals?"
BKactual @BravoKiloActual: "Please explain to everyone, step by step, how you would intervene on a large, aggressive man harassing a woman."
Ars Sababa ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ซ๐ท ๐ ๐ @ArsSababa: "This sounds like someone who has never tried to subdue anybody who is extremely dangerous before. Let’s let the girl bosses show everybody how it’s done."
Meme - hoe_math @ItIsHoeMath: "Absolutely infuriating response. Wifejak-tier disconnection from reality. When we day "Daniel Penny," we don't mean "just that one guy just that one time." What we mean is "a very long, very clear trend of white men being severely punished for saving white women (or anyone, really) from non-white (especially black) violent criminals. It happened to Derek Chauvin. It happened to George Zimmerman (not even white, but portrayed as white on the news). There are STILL leftards who think Kyle Rittenhouse is white and shot black people for fun and got away with it. We would gladly jump in to save you from violence, but the culture we live in generates enough retards that there's a high chance we will be arrested, sent to trial, and lose. Chauvin's jury, for instance, was just a BLM rally. Their deliberations were just "white bad black good," so Chauvin is in prison now for doing his job. (No, he did not crush St. Floyd's neck for 8 minutes, and yes, Floyd the Holy took 2x the amount of fentanyl necessary to kill him.) It's because of people like you (mostly women) who refuse to see this trend that it will continue."
Allie @Cluffalo: "A lot of men claiming Daniel Penny are the reason they don't intervene to help women also did not help women before Daniel Penny Quit taking credit for what you never would have done"
