Schadrach @ Schadrach @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

1,087

Joined

2 yr. ago

Was there a single state, where the popular vote was for Bernie but the super delegates swept in and gave it Hillary instead?

Mine. West Virginia. Hillary got 35% of the primary vote while Bernie only got 51% and therefore she got one more delegate than Bernie. She literally only ever needed 30% of the primary vote in any state because of superdelegates.

We had a local candidate who only ran in WV, whose whole purpose for running was to try to draw national attention to economically gutted regions of the state caused by the so-called war on coal who got 9% of the vote, and even he managed to outperform Hillary in one county (taking second, because Bernie won every county in WV) - when you're behind a protest candidate anywhere, you done fucked up.

My point was there was lots of space in which to be anti-feminist which doesn't mean "based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men", because defining feminism as the idea than men and women should be equal and thus anti-feminism as the opposite of that is grossly ignoring the difference between dictionary definitions and practice.

It's like saying someone is anti-Christian means that they hate their neighbors and oppose charity and community, and just ignoring all the things done by people placing themselves under that label allegedly in the name of that label.

Keep in mind, reasonable force might include running away.

Depends on the state. If you're in a Stand Your Ground state, there's no duty to flee. If you aren't, then you probably have a duty to flee an attacker if possible, unless this is at your house, they have entered your home illegally and refuse to leave.

They are presumably not going to ask "do you think Your Body, My Choice is a threat of violence" during questioning. If they ask whether or not any verbal threat could possibly rise to that level, then "yes" obviously. "I'm going to enjoy beating you until you stop breathing" is clearly an immediate threat to one's life and health, for example.

an anti-feminist movement, which means it’s based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men.

Ever hear a saying to the effect of liking Christianity if it weren't for the the Christians ruining it? As in that the ideals are fine on paper and in theory (love thy neighbor, care for the less fortunate, etc, etc), but in practice the adherents don't really do them as such?

The same applies to feminism - in theory the idea is gender equality, but in practice it often isn't.

I've been around long enough to remember when the standard feminist response to question about what should be done about male victims of abuse or sexual assault done by women was to dismiss them as not existing.

I remember a man opening the first men's DV shelter in Canada (Men's Alternative Safe Housing) and being denied funding because it wasn't a women's shelter until he could no longer keep it afloat from private donations and out of pocket funds so he had to close it and hanged himself in the garage. He left a left a four-page suicide note, condemning the government for failing to recognize male victims of domestic abuse and wrote that that he hoped his death would bring more awareness to the issue of male abuse. I wonder what ideology permeates domestic abuse services, again?

I remember big and loud feminist protests at the University of Toronto against checks notes a talk about suicide in men given by a former member of the New York board of the National Organization For Women (who he left when they opposed more equal child custody). If you've ever seen the "Big Red" memes with the red haired angry shouty feminist, they were inspired by a real person who was at this protest shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage with her "fuckface". The group hosting the talk (CAFE) would go on to create another men's shelter which still exists and is to my knowledge the only one in Canada.

Speaking of Jezebel, I remember them writing an article casually joking about the times they've been violent with their male significant others, including in one case hitting her boyfriend because he was worried he might have cancer.

I remember listening to a recording of a radio show on Soundcloud 9 years ago where Mary Koss (prominent sexual assault researcher - nearly all research on campus sexual assault in the US descends from her work, she's the source of that 1-in-4 number that gets thrown around sometimes, and she coined the term "date rape" among others) was asked about male victims of female perpetrators and her response was to ask how that would even happen, how could a woman make a man have sex by force, threat of force or by incapacitating him? (I'd give you an exact quote but SoundCloud isn't playing nice ATM, not sure if it's the site or my adblocker- either way it's close to her phrasing but I'm going from memory, the episode is Male Rape from You Were Here on WERS) and when given an example of a man being drugged into compliance declared that that wasn't rape, it was just "unwanted contact." You see, "rape" needs to be reserved for girls and women because men don't feel violation or shame like real people women do.

Or when KY wanted to pass a law requiring family court judges operate from a rebuttable presumption of equal custody in contested child custody cases - that is that both parents having equal custody is what's best for the child unless there's a good reason for it to be otherwise. Out comes the feminist opposition and trying to align any supporters of it with domestic abusers.

And I could keep going like this for a while if I really wanted to, but probably 9/10 readers stopped several paragraphs ago.

So, we have a group of men looking at the state of the world (and in particular law/society on gender issues) and deciding they are just going to opt out of the whole relationships/marriage/children thing and swear off women. Is there any world in which that would not be described as misogynistic by default? The swearing off itself is seen as misogyny before you go even a step further.

But this proves my point - that it's women swearing off men rather than the reverse causes it to be viewed more positively.

Am I missing something or is 4B essentially MGTOW for women?

Just viewed through a more positive lens specifically because it's women.

Yes, white supremacy for decades means that the police force, a former KKK offshoot, has been killing and scapegoating black men since their inception. This is known. Literally it’s the history of the police. Lol.

I don't think you grasp the scale of what you're arguing. For the stats to really mean that black folk are no more likely to commit homicide than white folk, a majority of homicides black folks are charged with (to the tune of thousands of homicides every year since we've started keeping the stats) would have to be frame jobs. Every level of the criminal justice system would have to be in on the manufacture of evidence and frames, nationwide, for decades, with no leaks. No lab tech coming out and admitting to falsifying hundreds of tests because he was told those test needed to show particular black people were guilty even though they weren't, no officers, prosecutors or judges with a guilty conscience. Hell, Kamala Harris would have had to play an instrumental role in intentionally framing at least a couple dozen black folks every year she was part of the criminal justice system.

Modern police descending from slave catchers and constables a century and a half ago is not proof of a massive nationwide conspiracy to frame thousands of black folks for homicide every year. No more so than Margret Sanger's racism proves that Planned Parenthood is a white supremacist eugenics program.

LOL

Yeah, much like frontal lobotomy, severing the corpus collosum (sp?) was a popular treatment for a variety of mental issues for a time. But much like doing really elaborate twin studies on nature vs nurture it's really hard to do a lot in that area without violating ethical rules today.

1. I'm curious what "my type" is.
2. I was just curious. A lot of cosplayers make their own, thought it was worth asking. To be honest, you being an OF model, essentially a no contact sex worker maintaining a para social relationship with a bunch of guys responsible for your income kinda helps explain why you seem to default to seeing the worst in guys.

The people who voted for trump are, in their DNA, at their core, bigoted cowards that wouldn’t have been swayed by anything else - She has a vagina and she’s black - That’s all it was ever going to be.

" I was this close, Bill… I just wanted more policy details… More time… If only they didn’t make me vote for trump".

My Trump-supporting mother, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and sister would all cite "abortion is murder" and "criminal illegals" bullshit before Harris' vagina or skin ever came into it.

I almost wish the Dems had run Biden despite his terrible debate performance so that people wouldn't blame the Dems losing on Harris' vagina and skin color instead of her terrible campaign.

Trump did about as well as he did in 2020, that Harris lost is because she did worse than Biden did in 2020. Fear of Trump wasn't as fresh to animate the base and she only really courted moderate republicans and middle class white women in the latter stages of her (short) campaign and that hurt turnout and turnout is the most important thing for Dems.

I told her that it’s amazing that not one fucking republican as uttered those two words, “voters fraud”, since Tuesday night.

Oh, I've heard them use those words, mostly in context of claiming that their watchful eyes prevented those evil Democrats from being able to do it this time. You know, because the party that can't win without voter suppression and gerrymandering believes that they are the party that can't lose without voter fraud.

That’s how this works. You take reality and then make it mean what you want it to mean.

What's "fun" is when you realize an awful lot of people do this with an awful lot of topics all the fucking time. Probably including yourself.

Yes I am delusional, all the Trump justices are absolutely impartial to women,

This is a trend that has been ongoing for a long time, long before Trump. No reason to expect Trump justices to be radically different on this than non-Trump justices, especially since most cases (family, criminal and civil) are at the state level and Trump only ever had the power to appoint federal justices.

how stupid of my woman brain for claiming this

The only person in this conversation who's blamed anything on you being a woman is you. It's just not a topic a lot of people actually look into with any depth, and generally make assumptions based on what they'd predict from their existing framework of how the world works instead of looking into the stats.

Hell, I didn't even notice you were a woman until I clicked on your profile and got a banner image of cleavage in...is that a Vault-Tec jumpsuit? Did you make it or order it from somewhere?

Yes, police have actively been using black people as scapegoats for homicide that the police carry out for decades. There used to be a code police would put on bodies in the 80s and before - “DNE” do not investigate, indicating a homeless person or sex worker who probably will never be identified. However, it has been found, particularly with LAPD, that they were using this indiscriminately and many cops through the years were found to have covered their own murders with this code.

"DNE" is the opposite of inventing evidence to prosecute black folks for killings secretly done by police - it's institutionally telling everyone to drop the ball on this one. For "DNE" to be a significant part of what the statistics show while your beliefs remains also true, cops would have to be going around killing and "DNE"ing white folks (which seems backwards from what you'd expect from people driven by white supremacy) and/or have an elaborate conspiracy all the way along the chain from cops to coroners to forensic techs to prosecutors to judges to jurors to frame black folks for murders of other black folks.

Because again, for homicide and race statistics to be what they are because of white supremacist policing there either have to be a bunch of white killings not being counted as homicides at all, or a bunch of totally fabricated frame jobs for killings of blacks fabricated in a conspiracy that is shockingly tight lipped despite being utterly massive (something like a third of all US homicide to bring black homicide rates in line with share of population) and spanning decades.

More likely is what you find when you dig deeper - a huge proportion of homicide in the US is gang related and young black men are the primary gang recruitment demographic for a mix of cultural and mostly economic reasons.

Public shooters, school shooters, going postal shooters, were all typically white male shooters (the one black shooter I can think of was a cop).

Yes, public mass shooters tend to be white men, typically young ones. There's about 25,000 homicides per year in the US. Since the 60s, public mass shootings have accounted for a total of about 1,500 of those (not 1,500 per year, 1,500 total). And those shooters either die on the scene because the whole point was to kill themselves and take a bunch of innocents with them, or get tried and convicted.

You'll note I said public mass shooters instead of just mass shooters, because the difference is relevant. It's a trick of the statistics - when talking about how bad mass shootings are, people will point to Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, Pulse, etc but when talking about how often they happen will include any shooting with three or more casualties. If you limit your talk of mass shootings to only include shootings that were not limited to a single private residence (such as home invasions and family annihilators, which tend to have different demographics) and were not done as part of some other criminal activity (a lot of those are gang or cartel related, and have different demos as a result), then what you're left with is mostly young white guys in dire need of mental health assistance who decided to take a bunch of people with them when they killed themselves (as in Columbine) and the remainder are mostly white supremacists who think they're acting to defend the white race (as in Christchurch) or some similar bullshit.

No, courts will always make sure both parents have custody rights because it’s about the child’s best interest, not the parents.

No, they don't. Or rather, they're not required to (individual judges can if that's their preference). Two states require the courts start from a presumption that equal custody is in the best interests of the child unless there's a good reason for it to be otherwise (and includes an explicitly non-exhaustive list of examples of such reasons), about half a dozen require that the courts "consider" equal custody, and the rest leave it totally up to the judge's preferences and biases. Kentucky was the first state to pass a law requiring a rebuttable presumption of equal custody, and they did that in 2018 (and they were fought against by ostensibly feminist women's lobby groups).

Until the 2000s, most custody was influenced by the old fashioned "tender years" doctrine and the fallout from that - basically the idea that a child needs it's mother so keeping mother and child together as much as possible was in the best interests of the child. At this point you're likely to claim this idea was patriarchy, but it became a thing in the first place because of early agitators for women who could be seen as sort of proto-feminist who were fighting against the previous standard of putting children with whichever parent could better materially support them (usually the father). It was only later that we took to the idea that material support could simply be extracted from one parent and given to the other.

The court is biased against women, not men, because that’s how a patriarchy works.

You should probably look at how the court system actually treats people based on sex, rather than just looking at your wildly inaccurate model and assuming that the map matches the territory because it's the map you like. I can go on about how and why it's an inaccurate model, and give some examples of those inaccuracies in action if you'd like, but that's a bit offtopic.

It's especially obvious in criminal courts, and especially when a man and a woman have been arrested for literally the same crime (not just the same kind of charges, but literally the same event). For example, look at the Chicago torture case from 2017 where two black men and two black women essentially kidnapped and tortured a white guy and streamed it on Facebook. The two men got $900k and $800k bail, the women got $500k and $200k bail. They eventually all took plea deals with the men getting 7 and 8 years in prison while the women got 4 years probation and 3 years in prison. This treatment wasn't some kind of weird one-off, but its convenient and illustrative because you had four people who all did the same crime together with an even sex split and a very obvious and dramatic difference in bail and punishment.

The reason black men are disproportionately charged in the US with crimes is due to white supremacy, including within the police force, which has been information in the public knowledge since BLM protests so stop playing stupid.

You can make that argument for things like nonviolent drug charges and the like (and that's why you're saying "crimes" and not "violent crimes" or "homicide", and to be clear I absolutely agree with you that police are more likely to arrest black folks for nonviolent crimes than whites), but I specifically was pointing to violent crimes and in particular homicide. The "fun" thing about homicide is that it's hard to invent homicides whole cloth, and you can't just plant a homicide in someone's car to "discover" when you search them or w/e. And when you get into homicide, in most cases perpetrator and victim are the same race.

So in your scenario how would police white supremacy cause the effect shown in the stats? Do the police just ignore dead white folks, because they are more likely to have been killed by other whites? Do they send extra effort investigating the deaths of black folks, because they were likely killed by other blacks? Is there a secret, nationwide conspiracy whereby every law enforcement institution secretly murders black folks and then manufactures evidence to frame other black folks for it at a later date, and everyone from officers to coroners to forensic techs to prosecutors, judges and jurors are all in on it?

But to double down on my original argument, when you start looking at criminal justice stats, usually when there's a racial gap that harms black folks there's also a sex gap that harms men. Your argument that racial gaps are definitely just bigotry but men are just violent monsters who should be (for example) disproportionately killed by police, be more likely to be prosecuted when arrested, be more likely to be arrested for nonviolent crimes, should receive higher bail for the same charge and longer sentences for the same charge, etc, etc? And you don't see the bigotry in saying that?

...and yet federal domestic violence law in US was full of explicitly gendered language and until fairly recently (I haven't read over the last two revisions of it in detail), had things like having the standard anti-discrimination boilerplate and then following it with that funded programs were allowed to discriminate with respect to actual or perceived sex or gender if the program felt it was necessary, so long as an alternative was available (no requirement to even give lipservice to it being equivalent), but elsewhere that all funded programs must serve women (hint: they weren't thinking about non-binary people when they were thinking of who that would exclude).

Or Title IX implementation. Title IX literally says that federally funded educational programs cannot discriminate with respect to sex. The implementation of that very simple notion includes things like if a girl wants to play a school sport but there isn't a girls team she must be allowed to try out for the boys team and be allowed to play if she can perform at their level. If a boy wants to play a school sport but there isn't a boys team, he's SOL. Equality! https://www.nfhs.org/articles/title-ix-compliance-part-iv-frequently-asked-questions/

The first men's DV shelter in Canada was repeatedly denied funding specifically because it wasn't a women's shelter until the guy running it couldn't keep it open from his own finances and private donations. When he shut it down, he hung himself in the garage.

The right occasionally pays lips service to men's issues, the left mostly ignores them. Neither generally actually does much.