this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
738 points (92.8% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2622 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

To be more accurate, your analogy should actually read something like this:

Origionally you give raises to your employees based on performance.

Then one of them says "fuck you".

After that point giving a raise to any of them has a 5% chance of killing you, per raise.

How many raises do you now give?

There is no retaliation or punishing involved at all. Just a healthy respect for the consequences, however unlikely.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

How it's presented has zero impact on the actual result. That is to say 'Risk Abatement'.

Some women might intend this as punishment or revenge on an individual or society at large, but that is also irrelevant.

It stems from a conscious ~or~ unconscious understanding that the risks have changed. And so must their decisions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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?