Your analogy doesn't include some important details for the subject. In the game, crewmates and imposters are on different teams and only one of them can win. It's not "wrong" for an imposter to kill a crewmate because that's how they play. All players support imposters killing crewmates because it's what they signed up for. But in real life, we are on the same team. We are all crewmates doing our tasks, although I guess we have the option to kill each other. Acting as if someone doing their tasks near you wants to kill you is then a more meaningful personal judgement rather than just the impersonal scrutiny expected in a social deduction game.

More importantly, it's relevant that this is one group of people making a judgement about another group of people based on group membership. So it would be like green crewmates assuming a red crewmate is an imposter on the basis of them being red, not any suspicious activity they have noticed. If crewmates had equal innate suspicion towards each other regardless of color (as should happen in the game) then there is no issue.

This is EXTREME hyperbole like I've rarely seen before.

Is all empathy secret projection for one's own insecurity? Or only when the empathy is for someone who isn't a member of a traditionally/systemically victimized group?

Please forgive me, but I'm going to answer your post in the opposite order it was given.

I completely agree about the comedy and the satire of the original comic, I'm not opposed to it being over the top to deliver it's comedic message. I'll also say that the message is comedic in a dark way. The issue inherent to it is when you have people giving seemingly literal agreement to satirical statements, which is what a lot of these comments have devolved into. Your own post was 659 words, 44 lines, and 14 paragraphs obviously this discussion isn't just about visual shorthand of a comic, it has some amount of real world investment.

As to your first question, I can't give a concrete answer. As with many psychological things I can't tell you what is a reasonable amount of suspicion, but I can say what is an overreaction. Similarly, I can't tell you what a reasonable amount of collecting is, but I can spot hoarding. I can't tell you what a reasonable attention to detail is, but I can spot an obsessive compulsive behavior. I'm not a doctor, and won't pretend to be one, so I can't tell you in definite terms what a reasonable suspicion is, but I can certainly identify an overreaction.

If someone sees an overly dramatic comic about women being fearful of men and their reaction is to defend the over dramatic behavior then that's an overreaction. When men call out this behavior as overly dramatic and someone defends it, and in fact doubles down on it, then it's clearly not just satire or a dark joke.

If we're using the example of the hotel room I would venture to say that a reasonable level of suspicion would be to lock the door, turn the deadbolt, put the swing arm on, and don't open the door for strangers. If you start getting into hiding, configuring contraptions, barring the door with chairs, and checking the mirrors to see if they are see through, that's an overreaction in my book.

Their claim is inherently irrelevant and reactionary. They were reactionary because they felt called out.

I'm apart of the don't be a shithead crowd. Apparently a lot of men in this thread aren't. And you all wonder why so many women are so terrified of men. You can't even empathize with the fear and abuse they face at a systemic level.

How come str8s don't consult with their local LGBTQ+ friendos? I like playing matchmaker.

Gotta have local friendos first...

I do. I empathize with it completely. I'm not even saying that condition is WRONG. But I AM saying that turning someone's lamentation of the situation into an attack on them is crass. It's possible to acknowledge the bad situation one group is in, and acknowledge their actions are reasonable, while ALSO being sympathetic about the collateral damage of the situation.

It's not "wrong" for an imposter to kill a crewmate because that's how they play.

This analogy is specifically from the perspective of crewmates. It is wrong for crewmates to die, actually, because this brings your team closer to defeat.

I think you might also think that I view the crewmates as women? No. The divide drawn here is between cooperative and uncooperative. Citizen and villain. The presence of imposters makes all crewmates less safe to be around. Unless you have ways of managing risk.

So it would be like green crewmates assuming a red crewmate is an imposter on the basis of them being red,

If the game were programmed such that red crewmates were exclusively the ones chosen to be imposters, regardless of how this might damage the video game's fun, don't you think that being near a red crew member would set off some alarm bells? Wouldn't you think of green crew members as more safe?

I've played plenty of RPGs where certain kinds of treasure chest, and certain kinds of treasure chest alone, require a degree of caution because I cannot know if they are mimics.

you’ll end up meeting women

Do I want to?

I'm posing a broader question about society to clarify a general concern with no particular motivation, and you make it about meeting women.
That suggests something about assumed motivations in these discussions.

That's the same logic that has rounding up brown people in the US now. Some of them might be working for the cartels, so better treat every gun as if it were loaded.

Rather than focus on the very real and legitimate issues at hand, they made it about themselves. Complaining in the thread about how they're being targeted as a man instead of having a modicum of introspection about why so many women feel this way. I don't respect or empathize with such a position.

I understand you but I want to continue being grossed out by the idea of people thinking I am a rapist. Purely because I don't want to be desensitized to this subject.

The issue inherent to it is when you have people giving seemingly literal agreement to satirical statements,

I will just take this at face value: what makes this an issue?

I don't know if my neighbor has double-locked their front door, should I go and check?

this discussion isn't just about visual shorthand of a comic, it has some amount of real world investment.

Yes, I am aware that jokes are political.

My reading is that this is yet another rearing of the man vs. bear debate. Our eternal prison.

so I can't tell you in definite terms what a reasonable suspicion is,

I'm not asking for definite terms, I'm suggesting that women have more experience dealing with men and danger and dangerous men than men do. Men do have a lot of opinions about it, though.

If we're using the example of the hotel room [...] If you start getting into hiding, configuring contraptions, barring the door with chairs,

In the comic, she just engages the deadbolt.

It has been some hours since I last looked at this thread, but I imagine that men are not upset she's being overly cautious, but rather that the comic is suggesting that they—they are taking this personally—are scarier people than women are. They are responding to hurt feelings.

Again, you cannot assume that they chose to call it unfair simply as a self-defense mechanism. Imagine someone accused your family of being murderers, then said the only reason you would be upset by that is if you really did have murderous proclivities and felt self-conscious about it.

And frankly, even if that was their entire motivation for calling it unfair in the first place, it does not mean they are wrong.

This analogy is specifically from the perspective of crewmates. It is wrong for crewmates to die, actually, because this brings your team closer to defeat.
I think you might also think that I view the crewmates as women?

No, I didn't think you were making the crewmates just women. My point was, it's not morally wrong for the imposters to kill in the game, because unlike real life, the sides are diametrically opposed and all players want their opponents to earnestly try to win. Crewmates don't want imposters to just let them do tasks because then there would be no game. In that sense, killing crewmates is cooperating by making it a fun challenge for everyone. By the same token, it's not morally wrong for crewmates to make accusations against people in meetings or otherwise treat them suspiciously, it's how everyone wants others to play. But the moral weight to accusations in real life means it's not ok to make them casually. There is a burden of proof to overcome.

If the game were programmed such that red crewmates were exclusively the ones chosen to be imposters, regardless of how this might damage the video game's fun, don't you think that being near a red crew member would set off some alarm bells? Wouldn't you think of green crew members as more safe?

I don't know where you are going with this. I guess my level of caution would depend on frequency of imposters. If half of red crewmates were imposters, sure. If it's 1 in 1000, I wouldn't be alarmed. But that's not representative of real life either. Neither predators nor victims of sexual crimes are exclusive to any group. We could talk about statistics but this is about perception of threat and fear. They're only very loosely tied to reality, especially when it comes to small samples like individual encounters with strangers.

I like this analogy so much and it's so on-point. Thanks writing this up

Huh? This literally what the meme is about and you are having a discussion in it's comment section beneath?

Men looking for women as romantic partners is like searching for potable water in a desert.

When looking for men as romantic partners is like searching for potable water in a SWAMP.