EatATaco @ EatATaco @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

3,449

Joined

2 yr. ago

I actually just saw this elsewhere in the thread, and it made me think of a good point here that might get you to see my position:

White women voted in favor of Trump. What if I said "That's it, I'm not having sex with white women at all anymore." Racist or no?

How it’s presented has zero impact on the actual result.

Sure. But my whole point is that this is misandry. So if the intent is to punish all men because you blame all men for this, the fact that it minimizes some risk has no bearing on that point.

but that is also irrelevant.

What? It's absolutely relevant. Like if I punch a black guy because they are black that's racist. If I punch a black guy because he attacked me and I was defending myself that's not racist. The outcome doesn't change the intent here.

It stems from a conscious or unconscious understanding that the risks have changed.

Whether the misandry is conscious or unconscious doesn't make a difference. Or do we think that our unconscious racial biases aren't biases?

But your whole point relied on the "promise" aspect of it. If there was no promise of it, only the likelihood of it happening, then it falls under the same thing that there is no crime by withholding it. I agree that sex and money are different, as they are legally held to different standards. But that's a distinction without a meaning in the context of the current discussion.

Let me try it this way.

I suggest that I'm going to have sex with someone. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I'm not going to have sex with them. By your logic, this is not punishment.

I suggest that I'm going to give someone money. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I'm not going to give them that money. By your logic, this is punishment.

This seems blatantly contradictory, even if we maintain that withholding sex is less a punishment. It's still the same thing - withholding something that would likely have been given had there been no reason to retaliate - the only difference is that the state can't do anything about the punishment when it comes to sex.

I actually don’t agree, once you’ve promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn’t what we’re talking about) to give them once you’ve made those promises. I don’t recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn’t like they “were going to get it” already.

I was very careful with my words, and very intentionally avoided the word "promise" because I knew it would be spun this way, even though I would argue that even if one promises to do something, they still have the right to say no (i.e. Is a woman who promises to have sex with a man required to have sex with that man? Or does she still maintain the right to change her mind?)

So can we retry again without putting the word "promise" in my mouth? Am I punishing that person by deciding to not give them a raise as a retaliation of the person saying "fuck you" to me? Or is it because the raise was never theirs, it's impossible for me to punish them by taking it away?

I've yet to see anyone say they are doing this because they are afraid of dying if they get pregnant. The article quotes someone who says it's about respect, and all of the other things I've read are about fighting the patriarchy and men being controlling.

I think you want it to be justifiable, and are trying to figure how to spin it so it is.

This is the world men voted for

No, I didn't vote for it. That's the whole point. Most men who voted did. That's on them, not me. Any punishment directed at me because I'm a male and other males did bad things is blatant misandry: blaming me for my sex.

Sure, if women are not having sex because they are afraid of getting pregnant and they don't have access to abortion, that makes sense. But this is putting words in the protester's mouths in an attempt to justify the blatant misandry. They aren't doing this because they are afraid of getting pregnant, they are doing it because some men did something bad (although, it was certainly not just men) and, because they are misandrists, they are punishing all men.

Say to some male employee, "Hey, at the end of the quarter, I am planning on giving you a raise." Now, I'm not obligated to give them that raise, as I'm well within my power to change my mind. I think it's safe to say we both agree on this.

However, some other guy says to me "go fuck yourself" and so when the end of the quarter comes around I say to the male employee, "Sorry, but I'm not giving you that raise because some other guy told me to fuck myself."

Would you argue that I haven't punished that guy, simply because whether to give you the raise is completely up to me? To me, this is clearly a punishment: they were going to get something, but I decided to not do so in retaliation to how I was treated.

Yes, you are absolutely right that no one is entitled to anything. If they don't feel like having sex, that's their right and no one can force them otherwise. If they want to do this protest, more power to them.

But they know they have this over young men, and they are all but outright stating that the point of this is to punish young men for the shift towards the right. And they are targeting all men, due to the actions and beliefs of some. Ignoring this is just trying to justify the misandry, it doesn't make it go away.

I can't believe someone, here on Lemmy, is actually defending women punishing all men because some are trash. It would be like if white women said they weren't going to date black men because some black men are rapist. They are free to do what they want, but it's racist as fuck. Just like this is misandrist as fuck.

This is what I keep hearing: the drop in turn out proves the previous claims of fraud were correct.

They were so primed to complain about voting fraud that when they never got updated marching orders on what fraud to complain about, they just went back to the well.

I didn't ask for it. I voted for Harris. If what you said they are going to do is the truth, you'll suffer the consequences too, and will be just as guilty as I am.

You really can't think of anything more obviously a case of treason than what you believe trump has done?

The guy is loyal only to himself, no doubt. But, I don't even see how it would fit this definition at all, and I can easily come up with many things more obviously a violation. Also keep in mind that Russia is not an enemy; we are not at war with them. They are an adversary.

I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor?

The definition of treason is very clear and very narrowly defined in the COTUS, and this does not meet the definition.

That's the beauty of not consuming the MSM, it can have said or not said anything to confirm your worldview about it.

it’s going to be funny watching them cry about it once the consequences of their actions start to impact their lives negatively.

Never going to happen. Or at least they will never admit it's a consequence of the way they voted. Either Democrats are Rino's will be blamed.

I’m at work and on my phone so I don’t have the time to prove the 2016 shenanigans.

Nah, it's because you can't. Because what you're claiming doesn't exist. I know it, because I've been down this road hundreds of times in the past 8 years and your parroting the same grievances that I've heard all of those times, and no one has been able to provide anything. Just like trump supporters in 2020.

2020 was a coordinated effort to have all the candidates drop out just before Super Tuesday except no path to winning Warren, to split the progressive vote.

Biden got more votes than Sanders and Warren combined. Yet somehow this means it was rigged against Sanders. Lol

Her economic plan literally led off by saying they know prices are too high for most middle class people. This like that she was saying it was better than ever is just ridiculous.

I'm not as doomer as everyone else for the short term. It's the long term I'm worried about. He might get 2 more scotus members, and he's going to do everything in his power to undercut any attempt to tackle climate change. And that includes his scotus picks who will almost certainly declare any needed attention to address climate change as unconstitutional.

A whole part of it is how they tried to find a doctor, and tried many but couldn't find on taking new patients. To say they've tried nothing doesn't make much sense.