Our electoral system cannot actually accommodate more than two parties on a mechanical level. It has to do with first past the post and our profoundly dumb electoral college.
Any third party in America doesn’t have any chance whatsoever because of the machine.
As a (gay) dude, here’s the piece of the math that’s missing: expected outcome. If a woman (generally, there are exceptions) decides they want to harm a man, that involves planning, a taser, drugs, etc. It can be done, but it’s gonna take effort to not end up on the wrong side of this felony. If a man wants to harm a woman, that often simply involves a dark alley and a drop of patience. Note: this is not to say there aren’t women than can’t harm men in the same manner, simply that they are less common than the opposite case.
So yeah, being cognizant of one’s vulnerabilities is not a bad thing, and when your biological sex predisposes you to certain vulnerabilities (size, musculature, presence of testicles), it isn’t wrong to acknowledge and mitigate them. And when people tell you that they take certain steps to prevent being taken advantage of, it shows a distinct lack of empathy to not realize that maybe they have a point.
Bringing up psychological/domestic violence is a red herring, we’re talking about dealing with strangers for the moment. Lessons here can be applied there, but don’t get off the plot.
People’s fears need to be heard. You talk about communication, but you aren’t listening. You’re dismissing women’s real fears about being raped (1 in 6) because your feelings are hurt that they would rather take their chances with a dangerous wild animal than a random man. So now, you’re subverting a very good conversation to assuage your own ego that feels like it’s being attacked (should probably look into that closer…) instead of listening to them and hearing that they are scared. It’s not “might be scary”. It’s “any day, for no reason, I may be raped”.
When you dismiss them because you don’t like the language, it only makes the language more extreme because they aren’t being listened to. Shut the fuck up and listen. When there’s actually a conversation happening, we can get where we all want to go. But that start with putting your feelings aside and listening. Because between “my feelings are hurt you compared me to a wild animal” and “society at large won’t address how widespread rape is”, gotta say that the hurt fee-fees come in a distant second.
We can have a conversation about being polite to each other when politeness doesn’t get people raped.
Bad actors capitalizing on real things is also a red herring. 1 in 6 women get raped and you’re gonna let a few people who use social engineering in awful ways excuse that?
You know what a man has to do to get his way in public? Wait till there aren’t many people around, cover her mouth and move her out of public.
You know what he has to do in private? Same thing with fewer steps.
None of these things are good, but we’re only talking about one of them at the moment. So again, no one is saying there aren’t other evils, but you’re prioritizing your own feelings over their real rapes by diverting this conversation.
I’m focusing on a specific thing because the thought experiment that brought this whole thing up was about that specific thing. Creating a new conversation is diverting the larger conversation because you’re ignoring the things you don’t like (in before you accuse me of the same).
You are attempting to create a feelings based response using this sentence.
No, I’m implying that the real rapes of 1 in 6 women are more important than the impossible to quantify number of bad actors manipulating people for nefarious ends. Which also goes to your ‘women are lying’ point.
Also, how many of those “1 in 6 women” managed to get away with lying? I’m not claiming rape to not be a problem (as you might want to state)
You are implicitly doing so by saying this in the first place. The issue of bad actors of all kinds (both liars and rapists) need addressed, but the conversation that the thought experiment has dredged up is focused on one of them. We can talk about those other things when they are a widespread societal problem that a significant proportion of the population decides to ignore because they don’t like the way the ignored are discussing it.
This is a well reasoned argument. I apologize for being over inflammatory and ill effective at making my point.
You’re right, a conversation can’t happen with people being shushed. The issue is that when these red herrings come flying out, it has the same effect. When we expand the topic, the core thread gets lost in the noise and the people that are harmed notice that everyone has run off with their herring and we’ve lost the plot again. And then extreme language pops out (such as my telling you to shut up and listen) because the important part was drowned out by perfectly valid and tangential things.
Yeah, it sucks that men are compared to animals (because women never have been, but I digress). But I personally think that we can suffer an unfavorable comparison while we deal with a much larger issue. We can recognize that people do see us that way and that, instead of getting hurt over it, we can listen to them, see what they are saying, and demand better from ourselves and other men so that the bad comparison goes away naturally instead of trying to force it down. Telling women that your feelings are hurt by their words tells them that you stopped listening to them.
And yeah, I recognize that there’s a thread of “suck it up” in here that also isn’t good and should be addressed as a society. But I think it can wait till after we’ve dealt with the rape.
I’m not leading anything. I’m saying that addressing rape is more important than people’s feelings being hurt.
I’m also saying bad actors are the minority case of take and are traditionally brought up as a red getting.
Finally, I wasn’t creating feelings, I was pretty obviously pointing out that one thing is more important than the other to the extent that it should be obvious. If it is not, I’ll be happy to explain because I often don’t get things that are obvious to others and can relate.
If you feel like you are being attacked by rape victims saying they don’t trust men, you should probably look into why.
By no means? “Either you confess to being a monster or your denial is evidence you’re a monster”. I’m saying that I’m not a monster, but there are people like me that are. Those are very different statements.
Quite the unnuanced words you’re putting in my mouth. Some men are monsters. This is a true statement that you’re degrading for… reasons. I assert that I am not one while recognizing that they exist. Should it be revealed that I am in fact a monster, feel free to shove these words down my throat. I’m perfectly comfortable with women assuming I’m untrustworthy until given reason to do otherwise
Still remains the patently false dichotomy and kafkatrap. It’s a shit rhetorical device that serves no good. This isn’t even careful nuance, it’s pretty obvious.
And now we’ve circled all the way around to be mostly in agreement. Weird.
I pointedly disagree with the idea using statistics as a crutch, but I’m a tad biased being a data engineer. When it’s 1 in 6 (disregarding dark numbers of bad actors) it gets things moving and provides a reference point for when we finally do get off our collective ass and do something. Kinda have to shotgun whatever motivation will get people moving when it’s that severe. There are many kinds of appeals and that one hits some people, much like an emotional argument hits others differently.
And yeah, 1 in 1000 is also unacceptable. And we can fight that battle when we get there. Let’s not borrow problems from a (much better) future.
I feel that you’re unnecessarily blaming statistics (which as someone who does them, doing them well takes work. Though no shortage of people doing them badly, I digress) for a different societal ill: mob mentality.
The ideal solution is to investigate each instance of rape and mete out justice appropriately. Obviously that’s not going to happen. And the current state of affairs is also no good. Obviously, there isn’t a legal way to really handle any of it because everything we’ve mentioned is a crime. It kinda comes down to a cultural shift. People need to be be more willing to accept that rape occurred (because fears of not being believed are pretty valid sadly) and also that justice takes too much time (also a big social problem) and that there should be a lot more stigma about false reporting and a whole bunch of other things. I’m not gonna solve this in a lemmy comment, but I’d hazard that we all need to listen to each other (myself included) to start. I still contend the reason we’re having this conversation is that not enough people listen to anyone that does get raped in addition to a system that hasn’t caught up to the population or the times. I further hazard it isn’t that people are unaware of the horror of being falsely accused, just that it isn’t the biggest issue at hand (though that is a bitter statement for the victim).
There’s no good easy solution, but progress can be made.
How is the dichotomy true? It’s predicated on “all men are monsters” and that’s patently false, thus the arguments proceeding it are false.
I acknowledged an additional outcome (more like two outcomes, one cascading from the other): “some men are monsters and I am not one of them”. With no further statement. Should you wish to brand me as a monster, the onus is on you to prove it.
President Joe Biden announced Thursday $3 billion toward identifying and replacing the nation’s unsafe lead pipes, a long-sought move to improve public health and clean drinking water that will be paid for by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law....
I’ve seen this comment before. My counter: can you assure me that, for example, a new homeowner that doesn’t know better won’t disturb the scale? They won’t have a leaky faucet and mess with the pipes? Or something like Flint doesn’t happen ever again where necessary infrastructure changes necessitate disturbing the scale?
This ‘solution’ only ‘works’ if you leave it completely alone and never touch it. So don’t get new appliances, never have a plumber fix some things, never update that water main that’s gonna break down any time now. It’s a very short sighted ‘solution’ to the problem. I’d hazard it’s a good argument for triage. Cities that need new infrastructure anyway go first kind of thing. But fobbing it off as ‘its fine’ isn’t ok.
Unironically, yes. Big jumps don’t happen without violent revolution and that rarely works out well. Progress happens by baby steps. If you’re waiting for everything to get better all at once, you will be angry the rest of your life.
The first time I saw the argument, it was in relation to pipes in one’s home and I’m not an expert on plumbing. I just felt the idea of “leave it alone and it’ll be fine” is a really bad one and that it should be pushed back. I did acknowledge municipal pipes a bit, but my argument could use refinement.
The qualifier isn’t terribly necessary most of the time. Most people don’t draw a distinction between ag/nosticism because it’s pretty personal generally. I consider myself agnostic given that I cannot know for sure, but ultimately, people that logic themselves into atheism (and thus are gnostic atheists) are no less valid.
That said, antitheism is distinct from the other terms and I contest the generalization that people assume atheists are antitheists, but that’s gonna vary a lot by how religious a region is (the more hardcore a person is, the more they see atheism as being an attack on them). It’s a bit of a bad subsetting issue. All antitheists (excluding the rare individual that believes in one or more gods and believes they should be broght down like an anime or a progression fantasy novel) are atheists, but not all atheists are antitheists.
I feel compelled to ask, but don’t demand an answer: what rules did you break?
I presume you’re outside the US? When I got my license in the US (about 15 years ago now), you needed a pulse and a basic understanding of signage for the written part. One of the few things the US gets right is the ADA, which is why we have things like ‘reasonable accommodations’.
All cats are the same (lemmy.world)
Reminder... (lemmy.world)
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be privileged and safe (lemmy.world)
deleted_by_moderator
Biden unveils $3 billion for nationwide lead pipe replacement (www.cnn.com)
President Joe Biden announced Thursday $3 billion toward identifying and replacing the nation’s unsafe lead pipes, a long-sought move to improve public health and clean drinking water that will be paid for by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law....
Our reasoning is different, but their heart is in the right place (files.catbox.moe)
deleted_by_author