• 0 Posts
  • 95 Comments
Joined 16 days ago
cake
Cake day: October 29th, 2024

help-circle
  • Take heart, as long as there are people who are willing to stand against tyranny and fascism, there will always be hope. Every one of us, even the strongest of us, sometimes need to take some time off to recover - take all the time you need. Be with your loved ones, hold on to them tightly, and share your love as widely as you can. Spread love among your friends and co-workers as best you can. I know it sounds extremely corny, but love, and fighting for who we love, is how we will win.

    We can’t vote our way out of this, but we can build a better future outside of the system and do everything we can to resist the state. That means that we might be left with no choice but to take risks and make sacrifices in the hope that the world we leave behind might start moving in the right direction.

    Stay strong and hang in there. I love you, no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you’ve done.


  • Thanks for the reply, I apologise if I come across as rude, I have been personally affected quite a lot by the whole ‘brain development’ conversation because I am disabled and I have had this kind of thing used to take away my human rights. So I find it a little bit upsetting to talk about - which probably means that I shouldn’t talk about it to preserve my own well-being, but I find it really hard to just let discourse that I feel is really harmful to persist in our society.

    Some people might be ‘cooked’ at 16, others might not be done until they’re in their 30s. Some are never finished no matter how long they’re in the oven.

    The root problem is that we’re desperately trying to find a correlation between “number of years alive” and “level of responsibility” where one doesn’t really exist.


  • 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.


  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneepic ratio rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.




  • 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.










  • 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.