things make sense

When Stef published the video about "why you should not date a single mom", he talked about how the majority of single moms being dependent on the state whilst there being exceptions to the rule. I then read some YT comment which stated: "if you are the exception, there is no reason for you to get offended at what Stef said". When I read this, I nodded and agreed with utter certainty while pompously thinking "wow... any single moms who are the exceptions to the rule getting offended at this video is so irrational, I can't believe there are people like this out there". Fast forward to today: I read an article here which said: Now, after reading the "Fox's misogynist audience" part, I was triggered somehow and it may even offended me a little bit. I felt the need to defend myself you know? "misogynist" has a negative connotation and it felt like a threat of ostracism, creeping in the realm of dating and social integration. I tried to apply the exception to the rule argument to this situation and realized that if I assume that the majority of Fox's audience are indeed mysogynists and I happened to be the exception, then there is no reason for me to get offended by this article. Do you catch yourself having these moments? I'm not sure what caused me to have this moment where I caught myself. But I'm sure there are people out there who never catch themselves and always react emotionally. While I'm against reducing standards for rationality (I think that if I can do it, anyone else can), the approach seems kind of unproductive. Hmm it seems like I'm starting to ramble so I will just stop now. What do you guys think about this argument? Is it useful? helpful?

Laws of thermodynamics comes to mind

Hmm yeah, she might not have a lot of empathy for men in generally. I could be wrong of course. But spot on analysis!

I was watching this video: It is about a mom telling a boy he shouldn't hang out with her daughter at school and leave her alone basically. I'm not sure why but after watching it, I had this surge of emotion that emerged out of nowhere and wanting to defend this boy. I felt that she was being condescending and thought she should be talking to the boy's parents. Still trying to figure out why I reacted emotionally though. Anyone else feel the same way?

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. Can you think of an example? I would appreciate it.

I appreciate the responses but can we just ignore the okc part? What if I was talking to this in person and I tell them about my past to "test" their level of empathy and reasoning skills? Does that seem sinister to anyone? To me, it does and it's hard for me to strike the balance between honest communication and having hidden agendas. A more honest approach would be flat out state my agenda so it is no longer hidden. Any other thoughts?

What do you think about the line that separates honest communication and having hidden agendas? For me currently, it's a very thin line and I hope to change that about myself. I was talking to someone on okc, and after several msgs, I asked about their childhood because I was curious. Instead of asking followup questions (the reason is their childhood was good overall), I shared my experiences growing up in an honest and open manner with the hidden agenda of trying to test their level of empathy towards me. I dont know if I'm using ex post facto reasoning to justify to myself that I really was speaking honestly in real-time or not. I don't know if having these hidden agendas imbedded within these "true and honest" statements are considered vile or nefarious. They seem sinister to me. What do you guys think?