3540
3541

How to get banned from r/feminism (i.imgur.com)

cryobabe が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 434
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]RainbowSith 754 ポイント755 ポイント  (72子コメント)

Uh oh. You told a third-wave feminist that facts, not feelings, should be the basis for public policy. Now you've done it!

[–]Nosrac88 251 ポイント252 ポイント  (25子コメント)

"Facts don't care about your feelings." –Ben Shapiro

[–]thendawg 52 ポイント53 ポイント  (22子コメント)

Ben Shapiro

Every time I see that guys name I always think its Robert Shapiro - one of the attorneys that defended OJ lol. Dont know why I always get them confused lol.

[–]Hitchens_the_God 94 ポイント95 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I bet you do it because of the last name. Just a hunch

[–]cryobabe[S] 107 ポイント108 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Or maybe because of his "internalized oppressive male privilege"...

http://i.imgur.com/7M8grnT.jpg

[–]Nechryael 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I love this graphic. Saving this for some of my "omg cis white male privilege" friends.

[–]systemshock869 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

friends

[–]nofattys 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

some people live where quite literally everyone thinks like this :(

[–]Nechryael 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

eh, not by choice

[–]HelenKellersPubes 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Of course your friends are your choice

[–]Nechryael 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe acquaintances would be better diction

コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

    [–]thendawg 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well yeah that, but, yeah its prob just that lol

    [–]Frankfusion 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Well they're both lawyers.

    [–]fingerrockets 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I do the same. Ben is often on Adam Carolla's podcast so I don't know why I continue to get them mixed up.

    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

        [–]Hitchens_the_God 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (12子コメント)

        Silence the opposition! Reinforce the walls of the echo chamber! So we look completely retarded on a debate stage when these arguments come up in a public forum and no one heard them to even have a chance to defend themselves. So we change the rules and make it so it's just us shouting about how wrong/unqualified/corrupt the other person is and not about policy.

        You know what I hate more than anything though? These same Liberals that want "safe spaces", then turn around and use "safe space" in a condescending manner if you don't blend with their ideas. Like, for instance, if you go into politics and make an argument for whatever (libertarian perspective let's say), they'll turn around and say "this isn't a safe space for libertarians" "oh well this isn't your safe space /r/libertarian", "this isn't a safe space for racists", etc etc.

        To me it's like, could you be more cannibalistic? The safe space you want, you're also going to use as a tool for condescension? Hold on. What? What's wrong with safe spaces then? Oh, they're for pussies? Okay then I think you're on the wrong side of the political spectrum there bud. You belong in the alt. right.

        I don't know. It's one of those things that grates me about the left ideologue. They can't ever commit to something. They'll prattle on about how being gay is ok one day, and the next they'll attempt to insult you by calling you a homosexual, saying you like to fuck guys/girls... uh, so honey, tell me what's wrong with that? You were just saying how being gay is ok, and now you're trying to insult me with that bullshit.

        In fact this is exactly what happened to Tom Cruise, because one time I think he was going to sue somebody for calling him a faggot, or saying he was gay whatever, and he was saying it was slander or defamation or something.. but then I think the counter argument was essentially, "what's wrong with being gay", or "why is it a slur to call someone gay" or something like that, and he got straight called on his hypocritical bullshit and had to back down. I don't know that's how the story goes as I remember it told by bill burr or rogan or someone.

        [–]lossyvibrations 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Idon't know. It's one of those things that grates me about the left ideologue. They can't ever commit to something. They'll prattle on about how being gay is ok one day, and the next they'll attempt to insult you by calling you a homosexual, saying you like to fuck guys/girls..

        I think you're talking to different people and trying to conflate them in to a single ideology.

        [–]drewshavervoluntaryist 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (8子コメント)

        To add on to this, it confuses me that some people use cishet as an insult now and various people blame 'straight white men' for random problems in the world.

        [–]Hitchens_the_God 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

        I don't even know what that word means.

        [–]honoredtwig 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        I didn't either, so I looked it up:

        Cishet, used as both an adjective and a noun, describes a person who is both cisgender and heterosexual. A person is cishet if he or she is cisgender, meaning identifying with his or her assigned-at-birth gender, as well as heterosexual, or attracted exclusively to people of the opposite sex.

        [–]potentpotables 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        So 98%+ of the world

        [–]Hitchens_the_God 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        They had to define three words in that definition. Not. A good. Sign.

        [–]2fuknbusyorviceversa 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Normal

        [–]redcell5 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Dunno who down voted you, but if "normal" means "conforms to the majority" then you're absolutely right.

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

              [–]FolkmasterFlex 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (6子コメント)

              The sense of safety is the basis for a ton of policy though. Having a country full of people who feel safe is almost as important as having a country full or people who are safe - ex. that is why we have 90% of current airport security. Not saying we do or should have a right to a sense of safety but it's been a policy basis for at least decades.

              [–]RainbowSith 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

              The worst, stupidest, longest-regretted decisions are those which cater to "feelings."

              I agree with you. I wish more people could be rational.

              [–]masamunexs 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

              The worst, stupidest, longest-regretted decisions are those which cater to "feelings."

              I'm pretty sure that's just how you feel about it, ironically enough, since regret is a feeling, and you're drawing that conclusion on personal experience.

              The most pivotal moments in your life will be your most emotional ones. It's not a coincidence, that is how the brain and life works.

              Logic and rational that doesn't factor in emotions is anything but logical and rational. Emotions dominate the human experience and is not something you have very much control over. To think that you can be a person of pure logic and rational is a self-delusion.

              [–]Finnegan482 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (12子コメント)

              /r/Feminism isn't third-wave. You'd get banned for posting third-wave feminist comments there.

              [–]Pirlomasterfriedmanite 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (3子コメント)

              They seem to be bashing Lena Dunham & Amy Schumer in there, huh.

              [–]Ccffggvv 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              So it's not a complete shithole then

              [–]Bhrunhilda 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              just a toxic sub. Which is a damn shame.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–]RainbowSith 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                So fourth wave, post post modern? 😂

                [–]deaglebro 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                What would post post modern even be? All truths are personal truths but you have to stay within these gender neutral truth bounds

                [–]Ccffggvv 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                They go back to the kitchen and everyone is relieved again.

                [–]Finnegan482 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                No, they're pretty solidly first-wave in there. They claim not to be, but if you actually look at what they're saying, they're fairly first-wave lines of thinking.

                [–]foreoki12 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                First wave feminists, like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

                [–]RainbowSith 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I suspect he means second-wave.

                [–]FarkCookies 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                Facts are not in vogue those days.

                [–]ElranzerYou might think Trump is a libertarian... if you're stupid. 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                And to think that scumbag was almost the Vice President.

                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                    [–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 95 ポイント96 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                    I can't see the rest of thread to fly understand the discussion. But society doesn't equal government. Society is us. And we can strive to make people feel safe. We just don't need laws to do it always. We can behave decently. We can defend the people around us.

                    [–]Xyyz 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    I agree and I don't agree with the phrasing of the post in the image. Everyone being absolutely safe is even more unachievable than everyone feeling safe.

                    That said, it's retarded to ban for that.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                      [–]Wazzzock 137 ポイント138 ポイント  (13子コメント)

                      So by this logic if a society is completely safe but you still feel unsafe, the society is still somehow unsafe... oh dear

                      [–]Xoxo717 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      Feels > Reals

                      [–]geeeeh 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      What is the objective marker for safety? How does one know that one is truly "safe"?

                      Just seems like a concept that's hard to nail down, and wondering how others are defining it.

                      [–]WindWalkerWhoosh 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Nobody is ever safe. Strokes and heart attacks can happen anytime, and you're constantly in a state of decay. Meteors can happen, storms, gas leaks, and a million other things could happen at any moment.

                      [–]murdermeformysins 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                      It really feels like youre underselling the value of feelings and theyre physical consequences

                      You know what happens to a kid who is safe but his parents emotionally underdevelop them?

                      Feeling safe is important. Mental health is important. A society that makes people feel safe (and is actually safe) is going to be better than one that is only safe

                      [–]malstank 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      Have you ever met a germaphobe? You know how, even though you've cleaned the door handle in front of them 4 times, they have to go back over it one more time themselves to make sure it is clean enough for them to touch?

                      That's what trying to please a diverse population about "Safety" would be like.

                      [–]cryobabe[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      It's feminist logic :)

                      http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0UW0iHUsAE3g_F.jpg

                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                        [–]MasterTeacher88 312 ポイント313 ポイント  (138子コメント)

                        I had a debate with a feminist in college and she told me if a job doesn't provide birth control for their female employees they are being denied access to it.

                        I said what about food, my job doesn't provide me lunch, would it be fair to say I'm being denied access to McDonald's?

                        She walked away

                        [–]uttuck 239 ポイント240 ポイント  (134子コメント)

                        The counter to your argument is that the current system of healthcare is tied to the job, and birth control is expensive outside of a healthcare plan and cheap within it. So if you got a job at a company and later found out that everyone but that company subsidized food (because it is govt mandated) and you paid ten times as much for bread because your company believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster who was against bread, you'd be upset as well.

                        As long as a company makes it known that their healthcare plan won't cover certain medical situations because of religious reasons, the market can correct for that.

                        The bigger issue is that healthcare is broken and the consumer has no access to price until after the service is rendered and so they cannot make an informed decision and allow the market to work.

                        That and the fact that emergency services, like healthcare and fire protection, are more apt to extortion (if you are about to die, the first ambulance could charge you everything and you'd gladly pay it, only because there isn't time to make an informed choice from the market if potential providers).

                        [–]sagefrogphotography 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (42子コメント)

                        This is a huge part of the problem. We don't have (and AFAIK really never had) a free market healthcare system. Further, healthcare coverage systems are not based in practical logic. Coverage for birth control is limited, despite the fact that it is far more expensive for the insurance company to cover prenatal care, delivery and well visits.

                        [–]sohcgt96 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                        See that's what I never understood: Its way cheaper for the insurance company if you don't have a baby. They should be helping you in this regard. There is no logical reason other than the morality police that this is even up for debate.

                        [–]KingDragonlordantifederalist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                        Insurance should be free to provide whatever product they want as long as they're honest about what they're providing (and there is nothing stopping insurance from providing that service which, as you pointed out, is in their best interests financially).

                        Consumers should be free to purchase whatever product or service they want (as long as its not a direct harm to someone else). Nothing is stopping a consumer from purchasing this service except price.

                        But insurance is paid for by the employer to provide as a benefit to the customer. So a law that requires birth control to be covered by insurance, together with a law that requires employers to provide health insurance effectively requires certain religious employers to buy something that is against their religion. You're abridging the freedom of religion of the employer by telling them to violate their morality or go out of business.

                        If I were running an insurance company, I'd provide an alternate no birth control plan to these employers and offer employees with this plan the option for a few bucks a month/quarter/whatever to opt into birth control coverage. That way, the employer could provide the benefit and not be a party to providing a benefit that they don't believe in.

                        The free market can solve these problems.

                        [–]SebastianMaki 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        I would probably charge more for the no birth control option to cover expenses. Depends on what the data says.

                        [–]KingDragonlordantifederalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Either way works. But I think the key would be to require a separate purchase from the consumer, even if its only a dollar a year, to say that its the employee, not the employer, paying for the benefit. And its not a fig leaf. As you say, it brings the cost down.

                        [–]murdermeformysins 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        as long as its not a direct harm to someone else

                        But NOT purchasing insurance causes harm to other people by increasing their premiums. Should you be forced to participate if its to prevent harm of others?

                        [–]KingDragonlordantifederalist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        You have no moral obligation to subsidize others.

                        [–]murdermeformysins 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        But i have a moral obligation to not harm them right?

                        [–]headpsu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        It is not the choice of the insurance company (at least in the scenario that prompted this discussion) whether birth control is covered. The choice to not cover birth control is made by the employing company (and typically for religious beliefs).

                        [–]revolved -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        I don't see how you could fail to understand this. The insurance company wants people to have children, they get tons of money in doctors visits and eventually a new insurance customer. It's "cheaper" for them sure, but they reap far more profits from you if you have one.

                        [–]iTotzke 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        car·tel - /kärˈtel/: an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.

                        [–]DeeJayGeezus 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (29子コメント)

                        Free markets don't work with inelastic goods. I didn't think I would need to tell someone in this sub that.

                        [–]KingDragonlordantifederalist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        Not all health care products and services are inelastic. You can get different procedure, different pills, different prosthetics, you can choose between glasses and LASIK.

                        Yet the current health care system and proposals like Bernie Care would destroy the market for things that could benefit from market pressures.

                        [–]DeeJayGeezus 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        In order for the free market approach to work with those elastic aspects you speak of and have a noticeable affect on the price of healthcare, you would need to show that the elastic services make up a significant portion of the cost of healthcare. Otherwise it is the inelastic, unresponsive to market forces aspects that will drive costs, and a free market solution will be negligible.

                        [–]KingDragonlordantifederalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        For my part, I'm an antifederalist* these days. Minarchist federal government (military, foreign relations, liberties [negative rights] protection, third party in state arbitration) while the states would do everything else.

                        And before you whip out the economies of scale argument, I would propose that states could opt to pool resources for multistate programs, social services being an example.

                        Statists carp about the social contract but its really invalid if you never opted in and have to choose exile to opt out. An antifederalist system would make it truly your choice. For my part, even if my state was halfway to socialism, I'd be satisfied just knowing that I COULD move to a more libertarian state, that it was my choice if I wanted it. America is a place of freedom. It is of supreme importance given how pretty much the rest of the world behaves, that we regain maximum freedom from government so that there is at least one place to be free. (and don't start with Somalia, its a BS argument and you know it.)

                        *Confederalist might be a better term but opponents will disingenuously hammer on the slavery argument and never stop. As I pointed out above, the federal government would still be a last line of defense for liberties [negative rights, freedom froms].

                        [–]RamboManfist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                        /s I hope?

                        Markets can fail (more than most people here care to admit) for a variety of reasons, none of them having to do with inelasticity. Also remember that just because the markets fail in a certain area doesn't mean the government can't fail in that area either.

                        [–]DeeJayGeezus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                        Then you don't understand markets. Inelasticity can cause market failures incredibly easily

                        [–]RamboManfist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

                        Maybe, god forbid, you don't understand markets. Just because something is inelastic doesn't mean there's a market failure going on.

                        [–]DeeJayGeezus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                        The solution to providing inelastic goods is almost always some sort of natural monopoly, simply due to inefficiency of a multi provider approach. With inelastic goods, the information that providers should be looking at from consumers simply isn't there; all the provider sees is that consumers will purchase at any price, so providers charge whatever they want. This almost always results in suboptimal results for the consumer, the opposite of what a free market is supposed to provide. I consider this a fairly obvious market failure

                        [–]RamboManfist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                        Customers will still purchase the good at a lower price if they see two different prices. There's no reason that just because something is inelastic it would result in a natural monopoly.

                        [–]DeeJayGeezus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                        Yes, but why would a provider service that good at a lower price than what the market will bear?

                        [–]geniel1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                        Food is pretty inelastic, yet the free market works pretty well for that sector.

                        [–]DeeJayGeezus 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                        Food production is ridiculously subsidized by the government, not exactly a free market

                        [–]MikeAndAlphaEsq 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        I don't understand what you mean by that. It certainly does work... the price point just moves up on the demand curve.

                        [–]enyoron 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        "Free" markets don't work because of monopolistic behavior, which is typically reinforced through rent-seeking government regulation.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                          [–]RainbowSith 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (53子コメント)

                          Birth control isn't expensive.

                          A box of condoms is $6. Numerous venues given them away for free, most notably health centers and gay bars.

                          A box of birth control pills is $35, full priced.

                          An IUD is under $200 installed, full price.

                          Norplant is around $40, full price, installed.

                          I will bet you that the people who claim they cannot afford a $6 box of rubbers or a $35 monthly box of birth control pills have cable, cell phone and Internet subscription fees that eclipse their total birth control costs by a fact of 3x to 6x.

                          [–]uttuck 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (43子コメント)

                          While you are correct, most healthcare plans have free birth control. $35 dollars is a lot more than free (women don't wear condoms, so that is a different thing).

                          If you want to start debating other people's idea of cable or birth control being a necessity, I think you will mostly find yourself in an echo chamber. If someone disagrees with you, there won't be much common ground.

                          [–]1madeamistakerepublican party 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          There are female condoms and last time I checked you don't have to be a guy to go up to the counter and buy them.

                          [–]RainbowSith 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (38子コメント)

                          If you can't afford a $1 condom or $1.10 a day for birth control pills, you cannot afford to have sex nor deal with its consequences.

                          If those consequences pop up due to your poor choices as an adult, they should not be my responsibility.

                          [–]Balsamifera 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (33子コメント)

                          Having sex isn't the only reason why women take birth control.

                          [–]RainbowSith -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (32子コメント)

                          Sure. But if you're having sex, you should be prepared for the consequences. That goes for all genders and orientations.

                          Too many people want to be able to make big adult decisions, but outsource the negative outcomes to others.

                          [–]Balsamifera 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (25子コメント)

                          That has nothing to do with my point. Birth control is a valid treatment for many medical conditions. Can't really compare that to condoms.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                            コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                  [–]broadsheetvstabloid 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                  The bigger issue is that healthcare is broken and the consumer has no access to price until after the service is rendered

                                  This is indeed an issue. And if you ask a price you are looked at funny, it just assumed the doctor said it you will do it, no questions asked. We. We'd to change this, and all prices should be listed up front.

                                  However I think you missed the real bigger issue.

                                  The counter to your argument is that the current system of healthcare is tied to the job

                                  This needs to change and is a larger issue. Health care should have nothing to do with employment, it should be sold direct to individuals. Right now you choice is employer healthcare or Obama care, not much of a choice at all. Each person should be able to pick from all the insurance companies.

                                  [–]1madeamistakerepublican party 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  I mean technically you can. You just have to pay out of pocket. But it does come off your tax return so you got that going for you.

                                  [–]murdermeformysins 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  You will never be able to pick from all insurance companies without a large unifying force to incentivise competition between markets

                                  Life has a high demand meaning without competition prices can be controlled by the seller. This encourages businesses to not compete. The health insurance industry also has several unique qualities that make competition accross large areas unattractive. I can go into a bit more detail if you want but the brief summary is that even unregulated providers would be unlikely to move out of their region in a pure free market

                                  [–]bb010g 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  If you're going to downvote this, at least post some sort of counter argument explaining yourself. We can do better than just burying dissent.

                                  [–]Bhrunhilda 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  AAAAANNNND this is the point these people miss. If the sub stopped banning and if the girl stopped walking away from conflict, they'd learn from other people how to logically defend their views. Then you'd have more people arguing intelligently and engaging in intellectual debates and actually making a difference.

                                  Instead they isolate themselves and lower the public's view of feminism. Really doing a disservice to their own ideals.

                                  [–]mutantturkeysubscribe to /r/randpaul for more rand news! 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (28子コメント)

                                  birth control is not expensive, and it's not mandatory either. Nobody requires you to have sex. Condoms are free in many cities by healthcare outreach orgs, you can order them cheaply online, and they are very effective. Similarly birth control is not an expensive price compared to that of having a child.

                                  [–]thesilentguy101 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                  Birth control for lots of women isn't to prevent pregnancy but deal with many other health factors. For many people it's like taking regular medicine.

                                  [–]LS6 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  And it's almost always covered for medical reasons, even on plans that won't pay for the same medicine for BC.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (19 返事)

                                      [–]TonyDiGerolamo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Birth control is already cheap outside a healthcare plan.

                                      [–]I_am_Phaedrus 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Condoms are cheap. Free in many places.. sorry their preferred method of birth control is more expensive.

                                      [–]Devilsadvocate1998 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      If she can't wait 5 minutes to drive down to the gas station and buy condoms before she has sex then maaaaybe that's on her, not society.

                                      [–]BedSideCabinet 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      /r/thathappened

                                      [–]beyond_hateDynamist 61 ポイント62 ポイント  (33子コメント)

                                      To be devil's advocate for a minute, the fact that this kind of idea exists does demonstrate, however, that there is a market for the feeling of safety. Statists will always try to get others to subsidize the things they want, but it doesn't mean people "shouldn't" want it.

                                      [–]Fileobrother 45 ポイント46 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                      The feeling of safety is a huge market these days. You wouldn't believe what some people will pay for "peace of mind".

                                      [–]LukPla60 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                      E.g. = gun market

                                      [–]sdubstko 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      What a poor example relative to others.

                                      TSA comes to mind as does that new patriot act rebranding.

                                      [–]JudgeJBS 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      What if someone just enjoys shooting guns for the hobby? Or the sport?

                                      [–]Sporxx 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      What a stupid comment.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                        [–]Muffy1234 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                        I'd say Devils advocate would be more like saying what if your coworker was threatening you or mentally abusing you at work but never actually hurt you. You'd still want management to deal the situation because you don't "feel" it's a safe environment.

                                        I get where both people are coming from in this interaction.

                                        [–]msobelleVote Gary Johnson 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                        That's a great example. Hostile workplaces don't have to involved physical hostility.

                                        [–]tonyMEGAphonevoluntaryist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        My last corporate job brought me into several HR meetings about my "tone".

                                        One of those fortune 100 company's that's all hugs and happiness. If you answer someone with a short direct answer because you're busy, better believe you'll most likely have a communication meeting.

                                        [–]msobelleVote Gary Johnson 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        As someone that fits the definition of an INTJ, I completely understand what happened with you.

                                        I'm thinking more about the office resident sociopath that screws with their coworkers' heads.

                                        [–]willbabysit4ketamine 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                        Although (even if they do nothing), we can argue threats imply action, meaning a situation in which someone threatens to physically harm you would actually "be" unsafe, beyond simply "feeling" unsafe.

                                        Emotions don't have to be logical, so people can "feel" unsafe for any reason. If they were scared of pianos falling from the sky, they might want nets installed over open areas, but until pianos start falling from the sky, while they may "feel" unsafe, we can rationally conclude they "are not" unsafe from that.

                                        Then again, an internet troll saying they'll rape you is far different from a guy threatening to stab you if you don't give him your wallet. There's a lot of gray as this is a very broad topic, and context is extremely important.

                                        For example, some people may want tighter boarder control because they feel unsafe upon reading about terrorist attacks, while someone else may call them racist but say they feel unsafe when they see men on the road as they walk home at night, even if neither of them have been threatened or attacked before.

                                        Of course, all in all, that's why I value my right to bear arms.

                                        [–]Balsamifera 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        we can argue threats imply action

                                        Yes.. exactly the point of this post. People feel unsafe because of a threat of physical violence.

                                        [–]Muffy1234 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        But if the person doing the threatening hasn't done anything, only threatening or other sorts of mental abuse. You're still technically safe but you raise awareness to the situation because you feel like you are in an unsafe situation or feel it might escalate. I agree that it is a big grey area though.

                                        [–]willbabysit4ketamine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        So just to extend this scenario.. let's say some guy is walking behind you as you head home on a dark road with no other pedestrians or cars around.

                                        Someone might already "feel" unsafe even though nothing has happened. Maybe they'd feel safer—or "be" safer—if they had a weapon on hand, if more people were around (then again, it depends on the people), or even if they were a master of combat.

                                        But would that mean you're "technically safe" until they actually inflict physical harm upon you? Or do you "become unsafe" the moment they make a threat, pull out a weapon, or stick it in your face? Feelings aside, are some people "safer" than others (even in similar scenarios) because of their physical or mental ability?

                                        "Feeling, being, and safe" are the key words here, because you can feel safe without being safe, vice versa, neither, or both. And if safety is "security from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk," risk is broad enough to the point in which we could include threats as "potential harm," but yes, very, very gray.

                                        I'm just thinking out loud at this point; it's certainly an interesting concept. You could also argue nobody is "safe" from "life in general."

                                        You can only drive so safely until another driver does something stupid, or a car malfunctions, and people die.

                                        Edit: For what it's worth, I do agree with the OP in that seeking to ensure everyone "feels safe" is a hopeless endeavor due to how subjective feelings are. I should not be responsible for others' "feelings" as a taxpayer. That's on them. And if they want government-sponsored "peace of mind" at the expense of individual autonomy, they can try using their power as a voter to get it. Not sure about the specifics that led to OP's conversation, but I can only assume it was something irrational coming from a feministic subreddit.

                                        [–]mrandish 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        an internet troll saying they'll rape you is far different from a guy threatening to stab you if you don't give him your wallet.

                                        We don't have to figure this all out again. There is an enormous amount of highly evolved jurisprudence around determining what is free speech and what is a "true threat".

                                        [–]willbabysit4ketamine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Sure, I just figure it's worth mentioning. You can still receive "true threats" online, but if I call you a faggot and say I'm going to murder your family because your reply sucks then it's obviously not a "true threat" in this particular case.

                                        Which is precisely what I'd want you to think..

                                        [–]Selee 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        I agree with you. I think the general issue with this post is conflating society with government. Where yes a government should only provide protections from bodily harm but as far as societal goals I think thats a far more subjective and harder to talk about topic.

                                        Either way I dont think the feminist here is entirely wrong.

                                        [–]mrandish 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Sure, but true credible threats are already actionable in the workplace and tend to be acted upon by HR swiftly.

                                        I think the example here is more like feeling unsafe when there is no rational reason to, such as a white female complaining of feeling unsafe working next to a black male for no other reason than he's a black male. Should this person be accommodated by the black person being moved just for being black? Obviously not, but there are now examples of reverse discrimination based on nothing more than claims of irrational feelings of unsafety.

                                        [–]nacnudn 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                        it doesn't mean people "shouldn't" want it

                                        Correct. People should be able to think whatever they like. But that doesn't mean everyone's feelings are valid or worth paying attention to. The problem only arises when you start validating these feelings through protection policies. If stupid thoughts and feelings (which we've all had) are ignored/mocked, they tend to go away. But when society tells you that your stupidity is valid, you go further down the rabbit hole of stupidity. It's bad for you, and it's bad for society. No one wins. For example a lot of people have said they feel unsafe around Trump supporters. This should warrant a shrug at most.

                                        [–]Qaeta 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                        Pretty much. I mean, if a Trump supporter is coming at you with a pipe wrench, yeah, feel unsafe. But if they are just talking to you, pity would be more appropriate.

                                        [–]tonyMEGAphonevoluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        Wouldn't a better analogy be the crying child who hurt himself.

                                        If you focus on the tears and pain they seem to bring any similar incident to that level. If you focus on how it's no big deal accidents happen, there's a better chance next time it won't be as emotional.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                          [–]allnamesfckintaken 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          yea there is a market for it but that's not what the responsibility of the government nor is it the responsibility of all men for women. there is no such thing as real safety anyway. anyone can hurt you at any time and the cops aren't going to stop it. they might prosecute afterwards if you're lucky. i'd be surprised if some guy beats the shit out of me at a bar and the cops can find him or even gives a shit. every man must live by those rules and so do women. if i walk alone through a bad neighborhood, i am fucking scared. i try not to do it. i wouldnt walk through it when drunk. for some reason women act like they should have total immunity from danger. it's fucking childish.

                                          [–]xhytdr 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          ...this is one of the reasons why Trump for elected. In much of life, perception is reality, and strongmen project the perception of safety.

                                          [–]sahuxley2 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          This was my thought as well. That probably counts as "society striving for its citizens to feel safe."

                                          [–]Harnisfechten 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          of course there's a market for it.

                                          The problem only arises when someone demands that someone else give them things or do something for them just because of how they FEEEEEEEELLLL

                                          [–]adelie42voluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          This is where I fell in love with Rothbard; he unjumbles so much of this. For example, if by 'society' she meant markets, I fully agree. If by 'society' she means The State, then I completely disagree.

                                          The term is too ambiguous, not to mention people frame things differently (such as the way lines are drawn between market and state)

                                          [–]MxM111I made this! 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          The problem here is to be banned for suggesting opposite to that.

                                          [–]gigglefarting 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          Assault is illegal which is precisely the threat of bodily harm with the ability to follow through with such harm.

                                          So, in a sense, we actually do have the right to feel safe.

                                          [–]boona 102 ポイント103 ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                          What happened to building someone's character so they can tolerate challenges and have the fortitude to hear differing opinions?

                                          [–]Zadien22 57 ポイント58 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                          Children aren't responsible for defending themself, and so need a parent or guardian to do it for them. Government is the new guardian to those who are adult only in that they are old enough to be.

                                          [–]murdermeformysins 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          Do you believe youre responsible for defending yourself from the rest of society? Am i allowed to beat you up cause im stronger?

                                          [–]MxM111I made this! 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          Well, even if we assume this as true, I do not think good parents are completely controlling the child feelings. Child should be able experience feelings himself and be able to deal with it, since in society there are always things that different people like differently, and being able to tolerate others as oppose to make others to behave exactly the way you want to (where pink hats, for example) is the only way forward.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                            [–]imjudgingyourmom 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                            That would be a microaggression.

                                            [–]sohcgt96 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            Good god I hate the term microagression.

                                            [–]imjudgingyourmom 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            That's it buddy, that's a macroagression.

                                            [–]TOASTEngineer 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            Empowering people? That's not what feminism is about!

                                            [–]RPDBF1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            Trophies for everyone.

                                            [–]trenescesePolish ancap || Taxation is theft you idiot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            https://riteshjsr.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ch860122.gif

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                              [–]jedify 95 ポイント96 ポイント  (20子コメント)

                                              Why should a society not strive to have its citizens feel safe?

                                              Because it's never perfectly achievable? That's not a reason.

                                              Because feelings shouldn't be public policy? That's not an answer either. If you're saying that feelings shouldn't be legislated, I agree to an extent. But there are ways for societies to strive for things without legislating them. Oh, and feelings are already legislated. That's what assault is.

                                              Assault Definition 1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result.

                                              [–]sohcgt96 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                              No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result.

                                              There is however a difference in perceived intent vs. actual intent. You tell somebody "Give me your purse or I'm going to stab you" even if you have no intention to actually do it should they not comply is going to be perceived by the victim as intent to assault. That's why the law is worded this way, so you can't just go before a judge and say "Nah man I wasn't really gonna stab her I was just trying to sound scary" and have that be a viable defense.

                                              [–]Eyefinagler 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                              Dont try to argue with 17 year old libertarians

                                              [–]Literally_A_Shill 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              At this point it's pretty obvious that this sub is full of The_Donald supporters more than anything else.

                                              [–]Terra-Delu -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                              But 15 year old communists like yourself are fine.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                [–]Latentk 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                This is an interesting counter argument to legislation designed to illicit or protect feelings. Up voted for sharing a different point of view.

                                                With that said, what you did provide is a fairly good example of precisely why the idea of legislating feelings is a horrible idea. I've heard (albeit anecdotally) of folks abusing the "assault" statute with fair regularity. You're right, someone merely has to feel threatened to claim they were physically or emotionally assaulted.

                                                The problem with this, the reason it is a horrible idea, is because what offends me may not offend you. What offends you may not offend me. Society as a whole is endorsing sensitization of everything we say and do. Because of that we are now stuck in this awkward position where everything offends someone and everyone is offended in general.

                                                We (libertarians and other like minded folks) would vastly prefer if everyone kept their offenses to themselves and instead focused on what matters to them and their family. We just want the government to stop dictating what we should be offended about. Or at least that is how I interpret the idea of Libertarianism.

                                                [–]JudgeJBS 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Laws should be written to apply evenly to everyone.

                                                Laws based on feelings and emotions cannot apply evenly to a population as each person in the population has individual feelings and emotions - including the law enforcement officers and officials trying to enforce said laws.

                                                [–]jedify 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                It's very common for laws to require reasonable judgement in their enforcement. I'm not really aware of the law being abused. Keep in mind that the 'victims' cannot press charges. It's up to the DA/cops. Do you think we should really get rid of the law?

                                                The problem with this, the reason it is a horrible idea, is because what offends me may not offend you.

                                                Feeling unsafe and being offended are not the same thing.

                                                [–]linuxwes 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                Feeling unsafe and being offended are not the same thing.

                                                The problem with legislating based on feelings is it becomes impossible for anyone to know what actions will or won't cause random people to experience a particular feeling. You can legislate based on making a verbal threat because it's a very clearly defined line which a reasonable person would not cross. Once you open it up to anything that causes a person to feel threatened without being really clear what those things are, you have a law which nobody knows how to comply with. Is staring at someone threatening? If so how long? Is walking on a dark street behind someone threatening? If so how dark? How do I get where I need to go if I can't walk on the dark street also. Laws need to be clear and reasonably obey-able.

                                                [–]Latentk 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Should we get rid of it? As written perhaps we should. It should be replaced. With what, however, is up to further debate. I don't want to tell you how to live or how to think.

                                                On your final point, by offending I meant for any reason really. Not just to say something offensive but to plan for or prepare for committing an offense.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                  [–]Chrisgomez182 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                  because people hate feminists and they'll upvote anything bashing feminisits

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                    [–]CowWithBeef 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                    Why did you downvote a question?

                                                    [–]LeinadSpoonAnti-Federalist 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I think society should strive for citizens to feel safe amongst each other. They just shouldn't do that with violence.

                                                    [–]bruh_my_jays 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    What is the relationship between feeling and being safe?

                                                    Why shouldn't a society strive for its citizens to feel safe?

                                                    Is the feeling of security independent of its conditions???

                                                    [–]omarfw 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Yes, because the human brain is capable of manifesting anxiety and fear in just about any scenario.

                                                    We shouldn't be changing the rules for everyone based on a few people's subjective personal experiences.

                                                    [–]rhose32 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    What was your comment a response to?

                                                    [–]Bonks1 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    It's actually pretty easy to make people feel safe. It bothers me that so many libertarians are mean-spirited. It's not actually hard to be nice to people even if you think they're weird or whatever. It's as though the ideologues purposefully refuse to envisage the endgoal as happy because 'ooooh this is real life you have to suffer'

                                                    [–]SynisterSilence 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Yes, idealistically a society should strive for its people to feel safe around each other... but not by their means of babying everyone and building safe spaces.

                                                    [–]cleuseau 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    To be fair society is more than public policy.

                                                    [–]goldandguns 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    Well, I personally disagree with you too... Nothing wrong with police for instance doing things to make people feel safe in addition to being safe so long as it doesn't come at the expense of the actual safety

                                                    [–]ttnorac 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I think it's the difference between a right and a preference. Mostly it's related to the subjective and sometimes abstract concepts of "feelings".

                                                    [–]lopro 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I agree with the post, but you have a history of being a whiny bitch. So, I'm not inclined to care.

                                                    [–]PissWitchin 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                    How to be a libertarian: bitch about getting banned on internet forums

                                                    [–]blackjesus75 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    This is why I'm tired of hearing about Trump, people need to grow up and realize shit isn't always gonna be in their favor. Yet I still see threads about a gay guy being scared for his life, shut the fuck up its 2016. You have more rights today than you would have at any point in history. Hopefully we won't have four years of moaning.

                                                    [–]fluffstravels 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                    I literally posted about this when it posted in a different thread. Most rights are actually created with the intent to make you feel safe. Even property rights for that matter. I don't understand why people think this isn't the case.

                                                    [–]jharden77441 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    That's exactly right my boy, the entire reason there is correlation between well established property rights and economic growth/success is because they are made to make investors feel confident in investing in an economy.

                                                    [–]fluffstravels 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Exactly. It's like people are afraid of saying emotions aren't bad and they are tied into things like confidence in markets or ability to work freely within those markets.

                                                    [–]MarqueeSmyth 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    ITT: circle jerk echo chamber complaining about circle jerk echo chambers.

                                                    If you don't like it, don't do it.

                                                    Edit: that's not fair. People need reassurance and this subreddit (and that one) provide it. So instead of "if you don't like it, don't do it," I should've said, "you do it too, so take it easy on them."

                                                    [–]matt_shitty 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    Why did you downvote the 2nd comment?

                                                    [–]rocksblowsweedpark 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I don't think you waited even two weeks before reposting this.

                                                    [–]Elliptical_Tangentmutualist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Next in the series, "How to be stung by bees," featuring putting your bare hand in a hive.

                                                    [–]Bhrunhilda 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    I consider myself a feminist, but that sub is toxic. Also, banning people from sharing ideas instead of engaging in debate is a great way to show weakness. Also engaging in civil debate is a great way to learn how to debate in public and actually reach people. If you just decide to never debate something you believe in, you will be hard pressed to spread your ideas and convictions.

                                                    Of course people should be banned for getting ugly and vicious, but that is NOT engaging in debate. The moment you call someone names, you've lost the debate.

                                                    [–]g-j-a 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    banning people from sharing ideas instead of engaging in debate is a great way to show weakness.

                                                    THIS^

                                                    Nail, meet hammer.

                                                    [–]mirvine_ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    This exact same post with the exact same title was posted by /u/JohnSudo in /r/mensrights (the guy in the picture) and it got 28.4k karma. I'm surprised nobody else recognized this as a repost. Plus, it was only about a week ago.

                                                    [–]siingleton 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I'm not dismissing people's responsibility for seeing things as is, but you can be physically safe and yet mentally bullied, can't you? As an example, imagine a group of young dickheads shouting intimidating shit at your frail nan as their idea of a joke. Is it your nan's responsibility, in her state, to put up with them? Or societies job to educate the children? I'm with the argument against victimism (is that a word?), but what he says seems too absolute and ignores the importance of mental health.

                                                    [–]pacjaxLabore 2020 baby please 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    why did you downvote a question to YOU lol

                                                    [–]duhcartmahn2 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Both of you are talking past each other...

                                                    You do not have a right

                                                    ...

                                                    should a society not strive

                                                    ...

                                                    Basically, you are talking about two different things.

                                                    In the most general sense, you would be correct in saying that there should not be laws against making someone feel unsafe. There are exceptions to this obviously, as we don't want people running around with chainsaws threatening to murder people to drive down property values because everyone feels unsafe.

                                                    However, A society can strive for subjective goals easily without passing laws restricting behavior. For example, A town could hire more police, and train them to be better community stewards. A town could add more streetlights to dark alleys. A town could sponsor events designed to bring awareness to shitty behaviors. A town could do work to help bring the community together better, and make people feel safer through familiarity.

                                                    Striving toward something and enacting a restrictive law on behavior are different things. I want to live in a town that strives for safety and community, but I don't want to live in 1984.

                                                    [–]tleisher 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Wasn't this JUST posted here like a week ago?

                                                    [–]hacksoncode 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    It's kind of a dumb view, though. Assault is a crime for good reason, and threats are just as much initiation of aggression as actual harm.

                                                    [–]TheFlacidM 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    Unfortunately I can only upvote this once.

                                                    [–]ashishduhh1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    This describes democrats pretty well. All the (literal) crying and "shaking" from the election, all the fake hate crime stories.

                                                    [–]douglas4321 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Feels not reels

                                                    [–]malus545 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I'm an economist but the utilitarian disregard for emotion libertarians often have is pitiful. Nobody should feel and everyone should be a robot and I don't care what your experiences are, just look at this graph and this excel chart, beep boop beep boop.

                                                    [–]ReasonReaderHard Line Libertarian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Ask her about what the government should do for people who don't feel safe around minorities.

                                                    [–]BiffManly 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I have to wonder what a guy who regularly posts in /r/MensRights was doing hanging around r/Feminism

                                                    [–]wickedbloodfart[🍰] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Reeeeepost... yawn.

                                                    [–]VoiceOfLunacy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    You hurt someone's feelings, I hope they have a safe space they can retreat to.

                                                    [–]RSCBC 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    r/feminism is a joke anyway.

                                                    [–]HeyGirlAreYou18Yet 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    So was Trump running for president and here we are.

                                                    [–]anteater-superstar 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                    What a fucking pedantic and pathetic argument. Safety is, for one, in many ways the perception of being safe. There's absolutely no value to being "safe" if at any given moment you are at genuine risk of assault or harm.

                                                    This also ignores the fact that feeling unsafe generally, in the case of sexual assault or racial discrimination, comes from not being safe from these offenses.

                                                    Maybe you should listen to women, people of color and LGBT people when they say, due to living in a society where their groups are disproportionately targeted, they would like to feel safe?

                                                    [–]Distq 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Socially liberal amirite

                                                    [–]bxranxdon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Well done 👏

                                                    [–]HeyJude21 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Haha your comments didn't make them feel safe.

                                                    [–]greatdanegal1985 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I'm a feminist and I think what you said was perfectly reasonable. I wish people would start realizing they hurt their own cause by this bullshit.

                                                    [–]MoBio 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Don't tread on my feelings.

                                                    [–]TotesMessenger 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

                                                    If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

                                                    [–]timthenchant3rancap 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Feminism is just socialism with panties.

                                                    [–]jeanduluoz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    And the word of the year is "post-truth," which "denotes circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief." How fitting.

                                                    http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN13B14X

                                                    [–]eternal_septuagint 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Seems like that they have figured out a way to feel safe from you on reddit.

                                                    Is it like that for you in person, too ? Is this your little precious safe space ? Like you would not ban someone from making you uncomfortable here ?

                                                    [–]bduff116 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    It's crazy the influx of mods banning people or removing stuff they don't like all across reddit. I remember when reddit was so against such censorship.

                                                    [–]ThatFanficGuy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    I'm struggling to understand this point of view.

                                                    Granted, creating false sense of security when security itself is lacking is terrible for everybody involved ("Nah, I have the power - who dare attack me for creating such a social atmosphere?"), but I see nothing wrong with facilitating the sense of security along the real thing through application of public policies. Discarding feelings as an unnecessary part to plan for is stupid: we are, after all, creatures of emotion; denying that is inviting a hungry lion into your bed. To have people of an oppressed group be and feel safe is not only social progress but a conduit of political support.

                                                    It maybe the wrong subreddit to argue about public policies, however, since those are inherently constituted by some sort of government...

                                                    [–]prayformojo80 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Just for argument's sake, one could say that you do have a right to feel safe. Only the safety you have a right to is safety from having your fundamental rights violated by a person or a government. Just as a person/government physically harming you is a violation of your rights, a threat made by a person/government to harm you, making you feel unsafe, is equally a violation of your rights.

                                                    The problem is that progressives have such an expansive view of what they have a right to (free education, free healthcare, jobs, etc.) that they perceive any challenge to those "right" as a threat to their feeling safe. Couple that with their disregard for the rights of economic liberty, freedom of association, armed self defense, etc., and it's easy to see how they're willing to perceive someone standing up for those rights as a threat to their "rights".

                                                    You asserting your right to conduct your business with whomever you choose to associate with is a threat to their "right" to your services. You asserting your right to keep the product of your labor is a threat to their "right" to force you to pay for their education/healthcare/etc. You conducting economic exchanges with other parties in agreement is a threat to their "right" to dictate what a "fair" price is.

                                                    Of course, threats against your rights have to stand up to a reasonable interpretation test. Someone might perceive a comment like "I like your shoes." as a threat to steal their shoes, but their interpretation doesn't make it a valid, rights violating threat like the comment "Give me your shoes or else I'm going to hurt you." Similarly, someone may perceive the statement "I have a right to own a gun" as a threat to their safety from being shot, but their interpretation alone does not make the statement a violation of their rights as the statement shouldn't (ideally, I know) be reasonably interpreted as a threat to shoot them.

                                                    [–]lossyvibrations 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    What does this have to do with libertarianism?

                                                    If people don't feel safe, they're not going to be comfortable with reducing the scope of government. When people don't feel safe, they vote accordingly.

                                                    This is why I'm a strong advocate of libertarians endosring the Civil Rights Act as a compromise. Maybe someday racism will be gone enough that people will feel safe without it, but until then we need it.

                                                    [–]jcapinc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    GJ

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (74 返事)