BambiDiego

That bear didn't do anything that was unpredictable, it did what a bear does. I never said a bear wouldn't maul you, treat it as a bear.

I didn't say women aren't unpredictable, that's a weird take at best, and an argument on a logical fallacy at worst.

I didn't imply that women can't be just as evil as men, they absolutely can, because they're human beings. Same for anybody who's non-binary, they're just humans.

I'm sorry that happened to you, nobody deserves abuse.

I don't understand what you mean by data source. It was an internet trend and some men, not all, got really pissy that some women, not all, chose bear instead of man. A friend explained to me why they might do that and it makes sense, at the end of the day it's people sharing their opinions, and sometimes trying to understand others opinions helps us understand them better.

I don't see how it's sexist, I see no proof, only your opinion based on talking points. Same goes for it being transphobic, it doesn't make sense to me, please clarify.

If anything this is just a conversation, not proof, your word is worth just as much as mine. We're just two people sharing our opinions, that's it.

Tbf a friend had to explain it to me, when the debate went viral at first I was mainly confused. I'm sure when I was younger I would have been one of the men with delicate egos that would find it irrational to not choose a man. It's actually more thought out and rational when women say bear.

The question isn't sexist, it's emotionally driven, and dismissing it outright is narrow minded. That is what I think is dangerous.

The truth is the question reveals that to most women asked the question, men are unpredictable, and women have to navigate the world that way.

A bear is a bear, it's always going to do what it does, and you can work around that. Leave it alone and it will leave you alone, even if you have to work hard to avoid it. If you disturb it, it will kill you. It's predictable.

Men on the other hand are very likely to respect women, maybe even work together. However, there is the small, small, SMALL chance that they will be a terrible person. They could attack, abuse, sexually assault, straight up rape, or even kill the woman; or they could do a disgusting combination of those.

The true root of the question isn't "do you think a random man is more dangerous than a wild animal?" Of course not.

The real question being put on a social scale is "what's more predictably dangerous, a random man, or a wild animal?" And the fact that women almost unanimously have the same answer should be commentary enough on how they have to live their lives.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, I had the same thought

It's a common thing in many countries. It's, among other things, a liability issue.

If your "country #1" company does business in "country #2" then what laws apply to them?

In order to distinguish clear lines what "country #2" requires is a representative for the company to be in the country. If the company breaks "country #2"'s laws then the representative is liable for it.

Generally to be a representative you have to have a measurable stake in the transaction, you can't just be a random Jimbo, so it usually falls to a law firm (or an entity that works with one), mainly because if you need people to help your company follow the law, then they should know the law.

If the company breaks the law, the firm has to deal with that, so it's a risk for them.

In this case, X needed that representative, either they couldn't or wouldn't find one, therefore Brazil said "we can't hold you accountable to our laws, so get out of our country."

I'm super, MEGA, oversimplifying, and I'm no expert, but this is my best understanding.

They require a representative in order to establish a chain of responsibility that deals with crime, censorship, social health (lol), public relations, etc.

It does come down to a combination of size, influence, services rendered, and other factors.

He could put a random kid in charge but it would make it worse, like putting a busboy in a chef's hat during Rush hour.

I mean, you're being facetious, but no, the law being "your company must have a legal representative to be within our borders"

X was told about it, given a deadline, they missed the deadline, they can't be in Brazil

Actions have consequences

Because they broke the law.

Makes sense, the 90's turned everything edgy.

I'm a fan of the third one, 2022's "Piggy"

Lemmy has reminded me that many, MANY people stopped paying attention in class after 5th grade and considered "Animal Farm" a long and confusing read.

Censorship isn't the same as consequences.

Exactly, that's incorrect, it's "I'll take things with me"