I don't go on social media so I don't really get it but I have seen memes here and there of women getting mauled by bears presented in a "heh, serves her right" kind of way.
So weird that dudes complain that they can't get women when the message they put out there is they hate women and make images of them being brutally mauled. 
EDIT: I did not expect to see people I trust minimise SA here. I'm disappointed, that's something I expect from a random chud blowing in from another instance, not you guys. Most of you were extremely cool in your answers, but to the one or two that weren't. Do fucking better.
Not a bear exactly but the poisoned bowl of candy, which is also referenced a lot, is literal Nazi propaganda.
I've so far only engaged with the meme-question on this thread but haven't seen any reference to poisoned candy other than you mentioning it.
This is indeed shitty Nazi propaganda but how is this connected to the meme?
Good, you shouldn't be so terminally online.
The connection is thus: The bear or Man meme is justified by the logic that a bear is more predictable than a random man. It's not all men, but there exist enough men that are like this that a random sampling of them is untrustworthy. This is the same logic used to justify the poisoned candy analogy which is literal nazi propaganda.
I guess it's not so much the question that is nazi propaganda but the justification of why the bear is safer.
Don't praise me too quickly. I'm just perpetually on Hexbear, not TikTok. Haha
I guess I still don't fully get the connection though because I see a difference in the questions. I can see maybe the connection between the current meme and the candy, but don't see how either connects to Nazi propaganda.
With the man v. bear, it's as you said. With the candy, yes, you would likewise theoretically avoid a batch of candy if some could be poisonous. How would either relate to Nazi propaganda about Jews? Nazi propaganda would say to avoid all Jews. They wouldn't say to avoid them because the rotten ones spoiled the bunch, in the Nazi universe all Jews are rotten but they are duplicitous about it so although they may seem harmless, they are in fact harmful. That's different from saying some candy is poisoned but seemingly harmless but other candy is actually harmless, so better to just avoid all of them.
You're missing the point. There is not literally a nazi book about bears vs Jews in the woods. It is not a direct 1:1 analogy. What is similar is the justification about why you need to fear the group because of the actions of the few and dehumanizing them by saying they're worse than animals.
The entire question is inherently flawed because it's the same question used by neo nazis quoting 13% use to justify their hatred of minorities. My question is why hexbear wants to defend a hypothetical that emulates the logic and thinking of reactionaries.
The answer, as far as I could see, is that they don't actually believe it. They're doing the left-wing equivalent of being an edgy conservative who says racist things to make people mad. That's fine, it's less harmful than the edgy conservative. But I'm not going to ignore it just because they're left-wing.
Nah, I think I get what you're saying now and I disagree with all due respect. I stand by my point in the last comment. I don't think there is an equivalence in the justifications and you're associating things that shouldn't be.
I know that there isn't a Nazi book about Jews and bears in the woods and that you don't think there's a 1:1 analogy but, again, there still isn't an equivalence in the justifications either. With candy and group fear, such as with men, you can say that the few ruined it for the lot. But with Nazi ideology all Jews are rejected in totality. Nazis would say that despite all appearances, all Jews are malicious. That is not the same as the candy/group justification. I don't think you can say these are just Leftists using Nazi propaganda, that's a little bad faith on your part.