I’m not sure I really understand who you’re referring to when you write “OP”, but either way, I think that that with the additional context I explained above, the comment reply of “women do not exist for you to have sex” is quite understandable - I personally don’t feel that it is fair to describe it as a non-sequitur.

Honestly, I find it kind of weird that the top level comment (as written by Lightor) is more about how the movement would affect him, and I think that it probably demonstrates that he isn’t really the ally he seems to think he is. In my opinion, if he really was “one of the good guys”, he wouldn’t have written his comment the way he did.

Anyways, I think I’ve said all I have to say - thanks again for the respectful conversation, and I hope you have a great day, much love and solidarity!

Again, I totally get your point, and I think it’s a worthwhile conversation to have, but that’s not really what I’m here to talk about - I’m just trying to explain what happened in the comment thread, why people got upset, and how we can avoid that so that we can have open and productive conversations about these really sensitive topics without upsetting people.

The reality is that women so often have to deal with men trying to control their sexuality, so when we’re talking about these topics in good faith, we really need to be extra cautious that we’re handling these topics delicately and respectfully.

Thanks again for the reply - I think I understand your point, which I think is genuinely interesting and worthy of discussion, but there is just something about the phrasing that feels off to me, and just to be clear, I’m sure it’s unintentional. I’m sure we can both agree that we would always want to make everyone feel safe, respected and valued, but sometimes we can accidentally say (or write) things in a way that come across in a way that we don’t intend.

In my opinion, talking about women ‘withholding’ sex as a ‘punishment’ implies a certain level of expectation or entitlement, like men are entitled to have sex with women and if they don’t have sex then they’re punishing men. This is something that I think a lot of us sort of struggle to recognise as harmful, because we all are human and we know that we all have a need for sex, both men and women - but historically, this kind of framing, that men are entitled to sex with women. has been used to excuse violent sexual crimes

There’s totally a valid conversation to be had about how effective this movement could be, but I think that it’s really important that men like myself need to start from a place of recognising that our behaviour can be really hurtful to women, even when we don’t intend it to be, and that we listen to them when they tell us that we can make really simple small changes to protect their humanity, make them feel safe and valued, and recognise the part that we all play - consciously and unconsciously - in the system that has mistreated women for longer than we can possibly fathom.

This election, liberals wanted us to vote for the trolley to genocide Palestine in order to protect other minorities in the US.

Next election, the liberals will want us to vote for the trolley to genocide gender binary non-conforming and transgender people in order to protect other minorities in the US.

The election after that… hey, wait, this reminds me of a poem I read somewhere…

Hello, thanks for your reply, I appreciate that we can have a civil conversation about a topic that can be quite heated. I’m a man, so I definitely can’t speak for women, but I try my best to listen, and I can try to pass on what I’ve learned!

You’re totally right that nobody in the screenshot wrote the words “men are owed sex by women”, but if you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt, I think there’s something a little deeper at play here, and I think it really depends on your perspective.

Rather than explain it directly, it might be easier to use an example - let’s say that you have a friend who you don’t want to have sex with. If that friend is really nice to you, and you don’t have sex with them, are you punishing them?

If that friend said something like, “You know, if you don’t have sex with us, we might become more violent and dangerous…” how do you think that would make you feel?

Personally, I would feel a bit scared by that sort of statement - I feel that it’s coercive, and it has a kind of veiled threat of violence there that makes me uncomfortable.

I hope that helps explain why some people might read the message differently from how you read it.

link, please? Edit: found it.

Seems like pretty typical self-centred reply-guy behaviour, then all the men downvoting got annoyed because the person fighting on behalf of women in this interaction refused to entertain the implication that men are owed sex by women

Because the concept of federation is still impenetrable to a layperson

I’m really sorry, but I think it’s much more likely that the Democratic platform was very unpopular because it didn’t really appeal to what voters cared about. It’s tempting to start considering conspiracy theories, and it’s good to be skeptical of the systems which govern us, but I don’t think it’s very likely that election interference occurred in this case.

There is plenty of evidence of voters who are really disillusioned with the democrats because they just don’t seem to be focused on the things that matter to the average working class voter - the cost of living going up while wages remain stagnant, entire sectors of the economy being captured by monopolies, public services and infrastructure crumbling, health care and education becoming harder and harder to access…

The democrats are the party of socially liberal, wealthy people. The republicans are the party of socially conservative, wealthy people. This time, more people believed the republicans lies than the democrats lies.

Short term rentals definitely made things worse, but the housing market was fucked up before short-term rentals became commonplace. They just poured more fuel on the fire. The main problem with the housing market is that homes are used as financial vehicles for investment and speculation.

The best way to end tipping culture is to unionise hospitality workers. As customers, what we need to do is encourage and support working class solidarity, talk loudly about our support for unions, encourage employees to organise, all that kind of stuff.

The trolley problem has always been really interesting to me, not because of the problem as it is usually considered, but because of the framing of the problem.

We could stop the trolley, derail the trolley, hop on board the trolley and take control of it. All of these, and more, are within our power.

But those are not valid choices. The trolley must not be stopped, even if the trolley will end all human life.

We can only choose whether the trolley goes left, or right.

We must never ask who put the people on the track, or why we can’t protect people from the excesses of the trolley.

This was a trolley problem in real life, and these voters all selected the most immoral and unethical choice.

Ah yes, the trolley problem, a philosophical thought experiment which famously has a moral and an immoral choice.

make me president for 30 days, I have some really exciting ideas I would like to try out. what was it that the supreme court ruled, immunity for the president or something? hold my fucking beer, I’ll get that overturned real quick

edit: actually, I just remembered, since one of my first official acts would be for all members of the supreme court to be put on trial in front of a citizen’s court for crimes against humanity, I don’t think they’d be overturning anything anytime soon

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m totally with you, I’m opposed to violence just as you are. I just extend my opposition to violence a bit further, including violence inflicted by states. I don’t want you to change your opposition to violence, I think that’s great. I’m just asking you to consider whether your exemptions given to states engaging in military conflicts is actually justified

Yeah I got sick of buying the little packets and just ended up buying a bottle of 500 from the US. Pain in the fucking ass

I learned the word “moot” from Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords on PC. I am wondering if I am more of a dummy or less of a dummy than someone who learned the word from reading and someone who learned the word from hearing it.

Honestly, what’s worse, that someone has so little empathy that they’ll just tell some innocent person that they should be separated from their loved ones because they didn’t say the right magic words as they went over the imaginary line, or that someone would invest the time and energy into creating software to do so automatically

I understand where you’re coming from, but if you dig deeper into the problem, I think that it becomes clearer and clearer that social media is more of a symptom than the cause of the problem. The real issue is that people are becoming more and more aware that the system is failing them - wages are stagnant but prices are soaring, protections against the worst excesses of corporations are eroding, climate change is causing people to lose their homes and livelihoods…

People are desperate for someone to blame and for an alternative. Fascism offers easy answers that let people blame some “others” but just makes things worse. Leftists have uncomfortable answers that require you to admit your complicity in the system before you can begin to dismantle it.

deleted by creator

But haven’t you seen countless cases of examples where those strict rules for war have been completely ignored? Russia is just ignoring them completely in Ukraine, Israel is just straight-up conducting a genocide and no western country gives a shit apparently, for the US there are countless cases of shit like the My Lai massacre or the US sponsorships of terrorist organisations in South America…

States are just big systems that exist to give people a monopoly on violence.