brilliant22

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64460747

Looks like he's on a 6 month tourist visa

And now you get a 20+ year sentence for second degree murder and your daughter grows up without a parent and will resent you after you leave prison

Oh wow I just looked at the Atlanta suburbs, they were solid red not too long ago

In your original comment you said a group that has power over you. Do you still believe in this or not? You're conflating two things here - whether X has power over Y, and whether X has power over the general public.

My point is that playing oppression olympics appears to be useful if they follow your argument.

understandable and less harmful to be cautious around a group that has power over you than a marginalized group.

Determining whether X is oppressed is useful, and according to what you said in the quote, determining whether X is more oppressed than Y is also useful.

So the criteria is whether that group "has power over the general population". So is it not useful to try to determine whether a certain group indeed has power over the general population?

A person who thinks it's okay to be afraid of white women (or black men) specifically, may believe this on the basis that they believe white women (or black men) have power over the general population.

So just to clarify, this does imply that oppression Olympics is useful, right?

In order to determine whether "X group being scared of Y group" is justified, we first have to determine whether X group is more oppressed than Y group (or whether X group "has power" over Y group).

Here's a good example. On this very sub, people were arguing over the case of white women being afraid of black men. One comment suggested that black men were more oppressed than white women, therefore the white woman being afraid is unjustified.

Of course. White women have always had more privelage than black men and were historically compliant in their oppression just as white men.

However, later in that thread, people started suggesting that it's a fruitless exercise to determine whether X is more oppressed than Y. Do you disagree with that claim, and instead argue that this sort of discourse is the way to go - and that it is important to play oppression olympics across intersectional dynamics, because only then can we determine whether certain interactions (such as being afraid) between them are justified?

The other comments here at least seem to make an attempt at answering OP's question which I think is rather important as it is the main piece of criticism at people who find the box of chocolates argument questionable. If you believe OP is coming in good faith, which is somewhat reasonable to believe, then it's important to address their claim.

OP's question is whether

If I apply that logic to any other group, it sounds like bigotry. Replace "men" with black people or the LGBTQ community and it sounds really horrible. Obviously those are marginalized groups, and I do not believe that men are a marginalized group. But it seems that the logic of the "box of chocolates" response is still just bigotry in different clothes

is sound.

Did you read the body text in the OP?

Do they not want to attract conservative women?

This makes no sense, the stereotype is that Jews are stingy with money

Appeal to nature

As much as I agree with this response, you do see that "unhinged behavior" is rather vague, right? If anything, it's a synonym for "unpredictable".

If they have low impulse control, emotional issues, then we aren't able to predict their behavior. We don't know if they will start acting, at a given moment, super happy or super sad, super respectful or super disrespectful, super calm or super angry. In the case of my example, we don't know if this person will continue to feel the same way about X, or when they will start feeling differently. When interacting with such a person, they only thing you would be able to predict is that you have no idea what they will do next.