Pussification in America: Political Correctness is Gay

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Don't label me with your faggotry, I haven't said a word about feminism on these boards or any boards. I simply said I'm not going to that website. Post the text of the article here if you want people to (maybe) actually read it.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
going to jezebel to read about feminism is like going to fox news to read about conservatism. There is no objective truth there.

 

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,937
8,785
Then you are unable to grasp the salient issue and simply prefer to wallow in misery. You really do think that the use of "leisure" refers to wealth, don't you?
You can choose to intentionally misapply what I said, and that's fine, that's on you. I'll simply chalk this up to you having high ideals but no experience in the reality of these kinds of situations. Ivory tower ideals are great and all, but the rest of us live in the real world where pragmatism and compassion works better /wink
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
the rest of us live in the real world wherepragmatism and compassionworks better /wink
Usage of Hitman is pragmatic and pardoning the use of hitman given certain circumstances iscompassionate? Bro.

(2) Murder isfirst degree murderwhen it isplanned and deliberate.

Contracted murder

(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2),murder is planned and deliberate when it is committed pursuant to an arrangementunder which money or anything of value passes or is intended to pass from one person to another, or is promised by one person to another, as consideration for that other's causing or assisting in causing the death of anyone or counselling another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing that death.
What's your stance on the hitman being charged with murder? Should he be pardoned too?
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,037
I'm going to try not getting too into the topic of feminism, because I've tried that and it was a train wreck. The readership here is simply not ready to handle the topic with any kind of maturity whatsoever.
However, I will say that the double standards you mention are absolutely not part of feminism.
Here's an articlethat does a pretty good job explaining what feminism is really about.
No, the article uses the "unassailable" logic that misandry is merely an extension of patriarchy. So all the bad things that affect men are the fault of men, just as the good things that affect men.

That logic, for me, would work if I were to see, say, a feminist group protesting pink ribbons at football games because prostate cancer is funded at half the rate that breast cancer is despite having about the same mortality, for example. I could list dozens of these obscene societal preferences towards women--but what I don't see is a bunch of feminists out there protesting those women (And trust me, working around Washington and New York a lot, I see protestors daily).

I DO, however, see feminists protesting things like the wage gap, reproductive rights, insurance equity, domestic violence laws (Yes, even though support for VAWA flies in the face of what this feminist says--many feminist groups support it) andthat's all fine,goodfor them BUT it shows that their actions don't match up with their rhetoric. So, sure, it's easy to say "Feminism is this"--but actually DOING those things, and seeing the ideology applied in that way? Well, that's a different story.

And that's the problem with an article like that. If every conversation about theactualactions feminist groups take is shot down because feminists point to their philosophy and think that what they SAY is a shield against action, well then we're never actually going to be discussing this veryrealmisandry that happens. (And it's misandry whether or not the "patriarchy" is behind it--Yes, men can be misandrists and women can be misogynists)

That's why articles like that are infuriating. I don't want to have a conversation about the groups mission statement,sayingsomething is easy. I want to have a conversation aboutaction--and I don't want it struck down because someone says "well webelieve.."...That's silly. As a capitalist I have to openly discuss the failures of capitalism in modern society DESPITE the fact that our system isn't very capitalist--why? Because action is even MORE important than theory. If feminist theory can be twisted once it's applied to the "real world"--then there needs to be a discussion about the value of the theory. If Capitalism (Again) manages to screw up every time it's used, then guess what? The theory is bad (as is), even if it's never been applied correctly--because theory and practical application are just different. So the discussion should bend to how to UPDATE the theory to allow it's core concepts to be applied, even given the difficulties in real world applications.

So I get the loop logic of everything bad=patriarchy, so "feminists" can wash their hands of it. I just completely disagree. That article is rife with a person who has tons of good intentions, but suffers from severe confirmation bias and social insulation. All that being said though, I'm not about to jump in an MRA and push for male rights. Men get a bad shake in a lot of ways, but they are still, overall, in abetter positionwhen you step back and look at everything--however, between the new college attendance rates, current performance in primary school, federal funding and higher glass ceilings? Any feminist who doesn't say the gap is now very narrow, and doesn't question the validity of a "humanist" stance (Even if we are still years/decades away from it) is immediately suspect to me.


(Btw it's absolutely infuriating that spell check doesn't even recognize misandry as agod damnword, lol).
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Don't label me with your faggotry, I haven't said a word about feminism on these boards or any boards. I simply said I'm not going to that website. Post the text of the article here if you want people to (maybe) actually read it.
Sorry, I thought you were another Trollface, which was prejudice on my part. My bad.
Anyway, if the color of text and background makes a difference, here's the article:
(Skip to Part 4 for some perspective on the perceived "double standard")

If I Admit That 'Hating Men' Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Okay, so maybe you are a man. Maybe you haven't had the easiest ride in life?maybe you grew up in poverty; you've experienced death, neglect, and despair; you hate your job, your car, your body. Maybe somebody (or multiple somebodies) pulverized your heart, or maybe you've never even been loved enough to know what a broken heart feels like. Maybe shit started out unfair and became irreparable and you never deserved any of this. Maybe everything looks fine on paper, but you're just unhappy and you don't know why. These are human problems and other human beings feel for you very deeply. It is hard to be a human. I am so sorry.

However.

Though it is a seductive scapegoat (I understand why it attracts you), none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of "misandry." You can rest easy about that, I promise! In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you ? specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don't hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but ? congratulations! ? we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement?it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women?especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable?without comments sections devolving into cries of "misandry!" from men and replies of "misandry isn't real" from women. Feminists are tired of this endless, fruitless turd-pong: hollow "conversation" built on willful miscommunication, bouncing back and forth, back and forth, until both sides throw up their hands and bolt. Maybe you are tired of this too. We seem to be having some very deep misunderstandings on this point, so let's unpack it. I promise not to yell.

Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a "humanist." Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well?in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

Or, if you didn't like that one, here's another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like "misandry isn't real," we mean it the same way you might say, "Freddy Krueger isn't real." The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it's almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger. Additionally, it is totally possible for some rando to dress up like Freddy Krueger and start murdering teens all over the place. But that doesn't meant that Freddy-Krueger-the-dude is literally real. He is never going to creep into your dreams at night and murder you. He has the power to frighten, there are isolated forces in the world that resemble him, but he is ultimately a manufactured menace.

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn't Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

We live in a world of measurable, glaring inequalities. Look at politicians, CEOs, film directors, law enforcement officers, comedians, tech professionals, executive chefs, mathematicians, and on and on and on?these fields are dominated by men. (And, in many cases, white men.) To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping women and minorities out of those jobs is to claim that men (people like you) are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favoring men, then it stands to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in nearly every high-level specialized field.

It's fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities. It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia?that's where we're at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.

Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that's just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It's not misandry, it's mis-Kevin-dry. Or, you know, whoever you are. It is not built into our culture or codified into law, and you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Kevins that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity. That doesn't mean that there aren't isolated incidents wherein mean women hurt men on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem that results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

There are some really shitty things about being a man. You are 100% right on that. You are held up to unreasonable expectations about your body and your career and your ability/desire to conform to traditional modes of masculinity (just like women are with traditional femininity), and that is absolutely oppressive. There are radical feminists and deeply wounded women and women who just don't have the patience for diplomacy anymore who absolutely hate you because of your gender. (However, for whatever it's worth, I do not personally know a single woman like that.) That is an unpleasant situation to be in?especially when you also feel like you're being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you've never met and towards whom you feel no particular animus.

The difference is, though, that the radfem community on Tumblr does not currently hold the reins of power in every country on earth (even in nations with female heads of state, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men). You do, abstractly. No, you don't have the ability or the responsibility to fix those imbalances single-handedly, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure is a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives. You might not benefit from patriarchy in any measurable way?on an individual level your life might actually be much, much worse than mine?but the fact is that certain disadvantages are absent from your experience (and, likely, invisible to you) because of your gender.

Maybe you're saying, "Hey, but my life wasn't fair either. I've had to struggle." I know it wasn't. I know you have. But that's not how fairness works. If you present fairness as the goal?that some day everything will be "fair" for everyone?you're slipping into an unrealistic fantasy land. Life already isn't fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and the DNA you were born with, and we all have to accept the hands we're dealt and live within that reality. But life doesn't have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. We can fight against that.

Feminism isn't about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis?it's about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women's basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field. It's not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they're women. It's that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn't sexism. But she shouldn't have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).

Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists?your allies?for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

Part Five: I'm Sorry That You Are in Pain, But Please Stop Taking It Out on Women

It's not easy to swallow your own privilege?to admit that you're a Fleetch?but once you do, it's addictive. It feels good to open up to perspectives that are foreign to you, accept your complicity in this shitty system, and work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory. It's something I had to do as a privileged white woman, and something I still have to work on every day, because it's right. That doesn't make me (or you) a bad person?it makes me an extremely lucky person who was born into a white body in a great family in a vibrant, liberal city in a powerful, wealthy country that implicitly values white bodies over all other bodies. The least I can do is acknowledge the arbitrariness of that luck, and work to tear down the obstacles facing those who are disenfranchised by the insidious fetishization of whiteness. Blanket defensiveness isn't going to get any of us anywhere.

To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for "misandry": I totally get it. Humans are not such complicated creatures. All we want is to feel like we're valued, like we deserve to exist. And I'm sorry if you haven't found that so far in your life. But it's not women's fault, it's not my fault, and it's certainly not feminism's fault. The thing is, you're not really that different from the women you rail against so passionately in these comment threads?the women who are trying to carve out some space and assert their value in a world of powerful men. Plenty of women know exactly what it feels like to be pushed to the fringe of society, to be rejected so many times that you eventually reject yourself. That alienation is a big part of what feminism is fighting against. A lot of those women would be on your side, if you would just let them instead of insisting that they're the villains. It's better over here, and we have room for you. So stop trying to convince us that we hate you and I promise we'll start liking you a whole lot more.

It's a pretty good read if it isn't read through a filter of bubbling hatred.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
No, the article uses the "unassailable" logic that misandry is merely an extension of patriarchy. So all the bad things that affect men are the fault of men, just as the good things that affect men.

That logic, for me, would work if I were to see, say, a feminist group protesting pink ribbons at football games because prostate cancer is funded at half the rate that breast cancer is despite having about the same mortality, for example. I could list dozens of these obscene societal preferences towards women--but what I don't see is a bunch of feminists out there protesting those women (And trust me, working around Washington and New York a lot, I see protestors daily).

I DO, however, see feminists protesting things like the wage gap, reproductive rights, insurance equity, domestic violence laws (Yes, even though support for VAWA flies in the face of what this feminist says--many feminist groups support it) andthat's all fine,goodfor them BUT it shows that their actions don't match up with their rhetoric. So, sure, it's easy to say "Feminism is this"--but actually DOING those things, and seeing the ideology applied in that way? Well, that's a different story.

And that's the problem with an article like that. If every conversation about theactualactions feminist groups take is shot down because feminists point to their philosophy and think that what they SAY is a shield against action, well then we're never actually going to be discussing this veryrealmisandry that happens. (And it's misandry whether or not the "patriarchy" is behind it--Yes, men can be misandrists and women can be misogynists)

That's why articles like that are infuriating. I don't want to have a conversation about the groups mission statement,sayingsomething is easy. I want to have a conversation aboutaction--and I don't want it struck down because someone says "well webelieve.."...That's silly. As a capitalist I have to openly discuss the failures of capitalism in modern society DESPITE the fact that our system isn't very capitalist--why? Because action is even MORE important than theory. If feminist theory can be twisted once it's applied to the "real world"--then there needs to be a discussion about the value of the theory. If Capitalism (Again) manages to screw up every time it's used, then guess what? The theory is bad (as is), even if it's never been applied correctly--because theory and practical application are just different. So the discussion should bend to how to UPDATE the theory to allow it's core concepts to be applied, even given the difficulties in real world applications.

So I get the loop logic of everything bad=patriarchy, so "feminists" can wash their hands of it. I just completely disagree. That article is rife with a person who has tons of good intentions, but suffers from severe confirmation bias and social insulation. All that being said though, I'm not about to jump in an MRA and push for male rights. Men get a bad shake in a lot of ways, but they are still, overall, in abetter positionwhen you step back and look at everything--however, between the new college attendance rates, current performance in primary school, federal funding and higher glass ceilings? Any feminist who doesn't say the gap is now very narrow, and doesn't question the validity of a "humanist" stance (Even if we are still years/decades away from it) is immediately suspect to me.


(Btw it's absolutely infuriating that spell check doesn't even recognize misandry as agod damnword, lol).
bro, MRA will benefit immensely from you. for real. we got bunch of angry dipshits leading us although that's probably a right reaction to all the self-righteous lefties out there. You would be great. we are basically a coalition of mostly young, left leaning libertarian who woke up from liberal dipshits like tanoomba.
 

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Biggest piece of bullshit I've read in quite some time Tanoomba. You really are a retarded faggot if you believe that propaganda.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
No, the article uses the "unassailable" logic that misandry is merely an extension of patriarchy. So all the bad things that affect men are the fault of men, just as the good things that affect men.

That logic, for me, would work if I were to see, say, a feminist group protesting pink ribbons at football games because prostate cancer is funded at half the rate that breast cancer is despite having about the same mortality, for example. I could list dozens of these obscene societal preferences towards women--but what I don't see is a bunch of feminists out there protesting those women (And trust me, working around Washington and New York a lot, I see protestors daily).

I DO, however, see feminists protesting things like the wage gap, reproductive rights, insurance equity, domestic violence laws (Yes, even though support for VAWA flies in the face of what this feminist says--many feminist groups support it) andthat's all fine,goodfor them BUT it shows that their actions don't match up with their rhetoric. So, sure, it's easy to say "Feminism is this"--but actually DOING those things, and seeing the ideology applied in that way? Well, that's a different story.

And that's the problem with an article like that. If every conversation about theactualactions feminist groups take is shot down because feminists point to their philosophy and think that what they SAY is a shield against action, well then we're never actually going to be discussing this veryrealmisandry that happens. (And it's misandry whether or not the "patriarchy" is behind it--Yes, men can be misandrists and women can be misogynists)

That's why articles like that are infuriating. I don't want to have a conversation about the groups mission statement,sayingsomething is easy. I want to have a conversation aboutaction--and I don't want it struck down because someone says "well webelieve.."...That's silly. As a capitalist I have to openly discuss the failures of capitalism in modern society DESPITE the fact that our system isn't very capitalist--why? Because action is even MORE important than theory. If feminist theory can be twisted once it's applied to the "real world"--then there needs to be a discussion about the value of the theory. If Capitalism (Again) manages to screw up every time it's used, then guess what? The theory is bad (as is), even if it's never been applied correctly--because theory and practical application are just different. So the discussion should bend to how to UPDATE the theory to allow it's core concepts to be applied, even given the difficulties in real world applications.

So I get the loop logic of everything bad=patriarchy, so "feminists" can wash their hands of it. I just completely disagree. That article is rife with a person who has tons of good intentions, but suffers from severe confirmation bias and social insulation. All that being said though, I'm not about to jump in an MRA and push for male rights. Men get a bad shake in a lot of ways, but they are still, overall, in abetter positionwhen you step back and look at everything--however, between the new college attendance rates, current performance in primary school, federal funding and higher glass ceilings? Any feminist who doesn't say the gap is now very narrow, and doesn't question the validity of a "humanist" stance (Even if we are still years/decades away from it) is immediately suspect to me.


(Btw it's absolutely infuriating that spell check doesn't even recognize misandry as agod damnword, lol).
Sure, I get what you're saying.
I will readily and openly admit that feminism is used (or rather, misused) to carry out actions that don't necessarily have a positive effect on society.
What I'm suggesting is we not use that as an excuse to disregard feminism altogether as harmful or unnecessary, because that's simply not the case.
I hate pink ribbon bullshit. It's a commercial marketing ploy to sell fucking cereal bars and yogurt, and there are certainly diseases more deserving of (proportional) funding than breast cancer. And I lost my grandmother to breast cancer. I also consider myself a feminist.
So, by all means, call people who identify themselves as feminists on their bullshit when their actions go contrary to their principles. It's the responsible thing to do. But to use their actions as a reason to label "feminism" as a whole as bullshit, you're part of the opposite problem and we all end up just spinning our tires in the mud.
We're human beings, capable of rational thought and adapting our behavior in an ever-changing world. We have not yet reached a point where feminism is unnecessary in this world, so the best we can do is try to make sure it isn't misunderstood or used as motivation for harmful actions. How better to do that than promote the underlying principles that pretty much everyone can agree with (as the article attempts to do) and point out when actions contradict these principles (as you have just done)?
 

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,937
8,785
Usage of Hitman is pragmatic and pardoning the use of hitman given certain circumstances iscompassionate? Bro.



What's your stance on the hitman being charged with murder? Should he be pardoned too?
If the situation warrants letting the hirer off, then yes. You act as if sanctioned murder isn't something we do on a daily basis. Newsflash - we do. Hell, please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the guys that advocated for the LAPD to kill that rogue police officer that got trapped in the cabin?
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
If the situation warrants letting the hirer off, then yes. You act as if sanctioned murder isn't something we do on a daily basis. Newsflash - we do. Hell, please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the guys that advocated for the LAPD to kill that rogue police officer that got trapped in the cabin?
no. i don't even know what that is.

Bro, I don't act like there is no sanctioned murder. Either way, murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence, etc etc are important in describing different killings and are part of the law.

We are discussing the nature of the killing someone, bro, and the law is pretty clear.

And if you do the deed, you pay the price.
 

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,937
8,785
Then we have nothing further to discuss. I don't agree that simply because something is "the law" that it is just or right.
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
Fuck the law, the moral concept is clear. There's no ambiguity there unless you intentionally construct a false one for the express purpose of rationalizing whatever it is they're trying to rationalize.

I don't care if he duct tapes her vagina shut and threatens to cut off her infants arms in front of her. Deferred murder by proxy is not permitted -- that's an actual thing in the "real world", and that's called vengeance.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
what would be the real world application of contract killing outside of spousal dispute? Holy shit. endless possibilities. wish i could read a paper on it and refer to something more tangible.
 

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,937
8,785
It's not vengeance when it's the only way out of life-threatening situations. How many women are killed each year while they have restraining orders from their husbands/stalkers/whatever?

In a perfect world our justice system would either 1) make such situations unnecessary or 2) use the court system to separate out the cases of justifiable homicide, but we don't live in that world and I doubt we ever will. So people will continue going to jail for safeguarding themselves the only way they can.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,009
138,750
So you're saying woman are psychics now and can kill people based on pre-crime foresight? a call for vigilantism is kind of absurd, do you even realize the Pandora's box that kind of legality would have. If Progressives weren't fucking retarded and realize gun restriction hurts woman the most, this advice would be universal but they sell these things called hand guns(stun guns) what you do is keep one on you and do this thing called defend yourself, which is what we should be doing helping people empower themselves, your position kind of implies woman are pathetic and incapable as well.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Then we have nothing further to discuss. I don't agree that simply because something is "the law" that it is just or right.
The law is just. If you want to argue against the law, propose one but understand that you will be opening up a lot of shit when it comes to "justifiable homicide" when you start to be lenient on the intent of murder. There is no going around the law--morally. You cannot have any intent to kill. contract killing is clear example of planning, colluding and/or conspiring to kill and cause bodily injury to someone.

that shit is indisputable.
 

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,937
8,785
Since when is self defense vigilantism? The only reason at all it might be a Pandora's box as you claim, is because the court system wouldn't treat it correctly and quickly lay down the boundaries between legal defense and wanton murder. Sorta like the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. It's only abused because the court system doesn't keep a tight reign on it.