"generally speaking" as in "I pulled this stat out of my ass"
Calling you a russian bot isn't exactly a liberal policy, is it?
If your reasoning for determining someone is "a lib" is saying that, then that's exactly how you're using the term.
The fact you immediately assumed I was a capitalist is a pretty compelling argument that you're not good at determining people's ideologies based on their unrelated complaints about your bad takes
It's crazy that this isn't even the first comment I've seen this week arguing that the Ukraine war is somehow a conspiracy by the West to sell more weapons, as if Russia didn't just roll up and invade them, illegally and unprovoked
Or - get this - it's because I'm from a country where having more guns than citizens isn't considered normal.
Children aren't old enough to vote, why the fuck would you think it's a good idea to give them easy access to ranged, deadly weapons?
"Gunphobic" is an absurd term, because a phobia implies an irrational fear, so fearing misuse of objects explicitly created for killing things isn't exactly a "phobia" so much as it is a legitimate concern for the country with the 2nd highest rate of firearm homicides per capita on the planet.
In my country, we don't do "school shooting drills". We don't need to.
Oh sure, there's definitely lots of valid criticism of rainbow capitalism, but to be clear, it's not pride month itself that's the issue there - it's corporations leveraging it for profit
Okay but this isn't "oh no, there are tankies around", it's the admin of one of the largest Lemmy instances systematically suppressing information about massacres and genocide.
There's quite a big gap between banning "opinions you don't like" and defederating from a systemically auth-left instance, in the same way that defederating from an auth-right instance would be a no-brainer.
I think the lemmy software itself isn't so much the problem (in that it isn't politically moderated), but the way he moderated his own instances make a fairly compelling reason for defederation
I would add though, that (a) those statistics do exclude non-violent sexual harassment (which is more likely from strangers), and (b) that sexual violence is massively underreported, especially when the perpetrator is unknown, since the chances of anything being able to be done about it are extremely low
I clearly said: it's not targeted at you specifically, but at that fact that women are disproportionately more likely to be harassed or assaulted, and when that happens, the aggressor is almost exclusively men.
They're not scared of you because you're personally scary, they're scared of you because there's an ingrained culture of sexual harassment of women by men. So when you say "that's a nice dress" to a woman you don't know, she's not thinking "aww cute", she's thinking "is this guy being nice, or will they threaten me if I turn them down?"
Seriously, ask literally any woman you know if they've ever been sexually harassed, and the answer is almost guaranteed to be yes.
I would 100% pick a Catholic priest
Yes, I know that, that's how hyperbole works. My point is that such a statement shouldn't be interpreted as "every priest is a child molester" but as "there's a concerningly high rate of them, and they're probably not a good option for childcare."
You are accusing everyone
When did I say "all men are <whatever you're saying I'm accusing all men of>?" Stop making this about you, and actually try to understand why interactions with men can be terrifying for women.
"generally speaking" as in "I pulled this stat out of my ass"
Calling you a russian bot isn't exactly a liberal policy, is it?
If your reasoning for determining someone is "a lib" is saying that, then that's exactly how you're using the term.
The fact you immediately assumed I was a capitalist is a pretty compelling argument that you're not good at determining people's ideologies based on their unrelated complaints about your bad takes