Ants can be brutal. Some species of ants steal the eggs of different colonies to force them to work for their own colony. Sometimes, the kidnapped ants rebel and lay waste to the interior of the colony that kidnapped them if they think they can overpower them.
If you are talking about the parent comment the joke is that because the dad is a cop and they usually beat on black people, “it wasn’t dark enough to beat it to death” is the point. I know it’s not well explained but hopefully you got the gist of it.
If you are talking about OP’s post then the joke is that a while ago there was a school shooting where the cops refused to enter a school to do their job when they clearly took their own kids out first there’s more to this but the relevant part to the joke is that the kids dad is a cop so he refuses to go inside the school.
"Yes I would like a government that narrowly resisted a violent coup a couple years ago to be able to link me to every off the cuff remark I’ve ever crapped out."
Good management is like the one at my dad’s work, where they basically insisted on him staying home and relaxing after some health issues, because they know the company is a soulless machine and giving sick people paid leave isn’t even going to amount to a rounding error for the finances.
Yeah I don’t understand why lemmy.world would defederate from that instance. They like anti war, anti colonialism, pro human rights pro LGBTQ and yes SOCIALIST
We’re inundated with right wing propaganda and there is so little left wing information out there that punching down on this tiny thought group seems, I dunno, to say we’d prefer the ‘offical’ take on everything
If you can’t afford to tip, you can’t afford to eat out or order delivery. Just because the tip system is a terrible system doesn’t mean you have an excuse to fuck over the victims of it.
Until there’s a national strike on tipping that could lead thousands of tip reliant workers to quit (like the writers strike), be a decent person and have some sympathy. Instead of eating out and not tipping, don’t eat out. The restaurant gets the same amount of money whether you tip or not, I guarantee they don’t give a shit.
I have sympathy for underpaid workers. But I don’t think I’ll change my tipping attitude just because you said such and such. Actually your commands sound a bit condescending.
Instead of eating out and not tipping, don’t eat out. The restaurant gets the same amount of money whether you tip or not, I guarantee they don’t give a shit.
This isn’t a “just said”, it’s a fact. Not tipping isn’t a protest, it’s a self-imposed discount at the expense of the worker. The business owner makes exactly the same money, the only one who suffers is the underpaid worker.
I disagree. My business transaction is with the restaurant owner, not the staff. The price I see on the bill is the price I am required to pay. Anything extra is not obligatory, no matter how engrained it is in the US and Canada. Guilting patrons into subsidizing poor wages only enriches the restaurant owner.
Did you not read what I said? The restaurant owner is equally enriched whether or not you tip. Tipping is factored into the menu price; if tipping was not expected, the menu price would be higher to cover appropriate wages.
If you disagree with the system, limit your patronage to establishments that don’t utilize tipping and pay appropriate wages. By not tipping, you are exploiting the system at the expense of the worker; I repeat, the restaurant owner is equally enriched, only the worker suffers when you exploit the expectation of a tip to provide yourself a price lower than would be available if the system was not predicted on tipping.
If by “enjoyment” you mean having someone wait on you at a restaurant, I’m not shaming people for having enjoyment, just for taking it without paying. Same way I’d shame them for any other form of enjoyment at the expense of others.
There are restaurants that explicitly inform their customers that they pay their staff a higher wage and tipping is not expected. If you don’t want to tip and still want your enjoyment, eat at those establishments shame-free.
If you disagree with tipping culture and want to incentivize business owners to pay their workers a thriving wage for their hard work, then stop spending money on establishments that utilize tipping, encourage your friends to do the same, and write the business owners to tell them why. Another shame-free option.
If you go to an establishment where tipping is expected (and menu prices are therefore lower) but choose not to tip, then:
The business owner benefits by making the same money they would have if you had tipped, no incentive to change
You benefit from a lower price
The server works just as hard, but now does not get honesty compensation.
This does not incentive the owner to raise wages. You are exploiting the expectation of a tip that set the low menu prices. If you honestly wanted the server to make a thriving wage, your options are to pay that wage yourself or go to an establishment that does (and consequentially has higher prices to cover this higher wage).
Yes, you should be shamed. There’s no excuse for enjoyment via exploitating others.
Candy being enjoyable doesn’t entitle you to steal it if you can’t afford it. Not agreeing with “candy pricing” culture doesn’t excuse it.
I don’t care if your doctor or your barber or your banker gives you candy for free, that doesn’t entitle you to take it for free from the store. Taking something without paying is theft. Labor is no different. If you can’t afford it, go to a restaurant that doesn’t use it.
Again, the business transaction is between the patron and the restaurant owner. The employee’s wages are not the responsibility of the patron. They are the responsibility of the owner.
You’re saying “…just for taking it without paying.” However, I am paying. When the bill comes, it is a full account of what the restaurant charges me. End of story.
Edit: No amount of mental gymnastics will change the fact that the restaurant owner is solely responsible for employee wages. Everything else is social shaming.
You’re right, your contract is with the business. If you don’t want a separate transaction for your server, then just be honest about it.
I do assume you are being honest, and telling your server at the beginning of the meal that you don’t tip, right? Surely you’re not waiting until after they’ve given you the customary service to withhold the customary payment, right? That would certainly be shameful indeed, and undercut your desire for them to receive thriving pay for honest work.
No? Because a tip should never be expected. It can and is appreciated, but if it’s to be expected then I expect it to be included in the pricing of the meal, not as a separate “worker welfare” line item.
Then there’s no harm in revealing that fact ahead of time. Just let them know not to expect a tip and enjoy your meal shame-free.
I can tell you, as I’m sure you know, that tipping is expected, even if it isn’t legally enforced. If you truly believe in honest pay for honest work, then be honest about the fact that you will not be subsidizing their pay and relieve them of that conventional expectation. If you’re being honest with yourself, you should have no problem with that, right?
Again you’re expecting the patron to contort themselves through the social custom, instead of simply not participating in it. You seem to have this assumption that patrons expect and deserve a personal slave while dining. Maybe it’s an American and Canadian thing.
I hope you eventually find how freeing it is to not give a shit about what others say or think and just enjoy your meal, pay for it, and be on your merry way.
That’s exactly what I said, though: if you don’t want to tip, don’t go to a table service restaurant. There are plenty of restaurants where tipping is not expected, feel free to go there and not give a shit. Most restaurants offer take out now too, so you can still eat your favorite meals.
You are contorting yourself to justify the discount you give yourself at the expense of the person waiting on you. You are taking advantage of the fact that tipping happens after service, and that it’s not legally enforced, to lavish in the benefits of a personal slave without paying them for the pleasure.
You know very well that tips are expected, and know very well that the quality of the service you receive reflects that fact, and know very well that if you were honest up front about your beliefs on the practice, that the service you received would not be up to the quality you feel entitled to. Rather than reflect upon the unpleasant implications thereof, or accept service in line with the compensation you provide (instead of the “personal slave” you’ve become so accustomed to), you’ve decided to remain entitled.
You know very well that you’re exploiting some poor worker via unspoken convention, and yes you should be very, very ashamed.
Your assertion that non-table service restaurants don’t demand tipping is disingenuous. It’s ‘tipping culture’ after all. It’s spread everywhere. Best of luck to you in trying to shame employers into providing proper wages by berating patrons.
Please, send me your paypal link so I can tip you for this interaction.
Non-table service tipping is optional. Toss your change in or throw a couple bucks if you’re feeling generous. Those workers aren’t considered tipped, legally speaking, and they don’t make less than minimum wage. That’s a pitiful equivocation.
Tell your server when you sit down that you don’t tip, or accept that you’re a shameful, entitled little bilker. Stop your bloviating about “it’s the business owner’s responsibility!” and admit that you just a want a little slice of the exploitation for your own wallet.
Seems like you’re being deliberately dense, simply to maintain your held opinion. The restaurant owner SHOULD be responsible for employee wages, but they’re not… hence the entire issue with the US tipping system. And no amount of mental gymnastics will change the fact that you’re incentivizing the owners to never change, by holding fast to your opinion
All good points. But since tipping is supporting this broken system, and not tipping seems to be worse, what do you suggest then?
I could just not go out, sure. Just stay out of it. If enough people do that, this wil lead to less customers, more employers closing their business, more employers loosing the job they couldn’t afford to quit. I don’t see how that helps either.
And I find the arrogance of telling people if they can’t afford to tip, they shouldn’t eat out disgusting. If they can afford it and are just being cheap, that’s one thing, but you don’t get to act all morally superior while being arrogant the other direction.
If you can’t afford something you shouldn’t buy it. Just because you don’t agree with the system doesn’t mean you get to ignore it and then justify it by taking a moral high ground.
You know the servers wages are dependent on tips and you choose not to pay them. THAT is the social contract. Whether you agree with it or not.
If you cared about changing the system you’d take steps to change it without screwing the workers. You’re just being cheap.
I tip. But there’s a difference between “I know the system is terrible, but I rely on tips and would really appreciate it if you’re able” and “Don’t go out if you can’t afford to tip.” The second is arrogant and condescending. Not being an asshole goes both ways.
I really should stop going to places that need me to tip. I need to save up my money after my mistakes ruined my life yet again. Im so tired of never being able to make mistakes without nearly losing everything
I see what you mean, but I’m not the one fucking over the employees.
On the short term you are right, but as long as customers keeps tipping, the system works well enough for nothing to change.
The more people stops tipping, the closer we get to change.
And I’m sorry that the change will hurt the employees, but it’s not my battle. And tipping does not support the employees battle, just this days income.
Tell me another way I can support their battle, and I’ll listen.
(I tip when the employees seems to rely on it, or if I feel extraordinarily well serviced.)
I work night shifts. My manager one time called me around 2pm to ask me something menial and waking me up (as I was still sleeping for my next shift at 7pm).
So naturally, I called him at 2AM when I was at work… because I had an “urgent” question about a work policy lol. He got the picture, and that shit never happened again
If I choose MIT it’s because I don’t care if people “steal” the code. This meme is stupid and condescending, if he didn’t mind that Intel used it’s code it’s because he didn’t mind, that why he chose MIT. Why is Intel beating him in the meme? It makes no sense. You are proyecting your thoughts onto him as if that’s how he felt, but then you show that he didn’t feel the same way you do. Why?
When I see a GPL license I don’t see freedom. I only see forced openness, which makes me immediately avoid that library, since I can’t statically link to it.
Freedom means that everyone can use your code. Yes, that means for-profit corporations. For free, without restrictions.
If I want to make a piece of software to improve people’s lives and I don’t care to do it for free, I’ll choose MIT. If it gets “stolen” by a for-profit corporation it only makes it better, because now my software has reached more people, thus (theoretically) improving their lives.
Blind tyrannical instructions that no one knows who the CPU itself answers to and follows because it doesn’t matter who paid for the hardware when no one knows what the instructions were given to because they were closed source software.
I only see forced openness,
It’s not forced. Use any other lie you’d like. It’s the ability to read and know what the instruction given are. I needn’t have to be able to read when I can trust the masses who can and I’ll take that over ONE jackass we know better than to trust.
which makes me immediately avoid that library
Bye. Don’t give a flying fuck about you or your software. YOU are that jackass we stopped.
since I can’t statically link to it.
Starts generating tears with the happiest smile on face you’ve ever seen.
You seem angry at me because I don’t license my code as GPL. Is that what freedom means now? Freedom means everyone has to use the license I want or I’ll bully them!
It’s the code I wrote, let me license it however the fuck I want if I’m not using your code.
How the fuck is the shitty mod here a removed for the enemy? I hope he dies soon. He prolly doesn’t realize that his best bet right now but whatever. I don’t really care about them
If I want to make a piece of software to improve people’s lives
If that is your intention, GPL would make more sense, as every improvement and development would be forced to be made available to those people, thus helping them further.
I doubt that your code helps anyone who needs/deserves to be helped, after beeing processed by big corpo.
You could think about your definition of freedom. For me: My freedom ends, where it restricts others people freedom - I shouldn’t be free to rob people and call it restriction if someone forbids this.
GPL means big corporations just won’t use it. If they have to make their software open source, they will just search for an alternative or make their own.
Great, I’ll be a bit absolute and say that if a corporation doesn’t want to use my GPL code I see it as a good thing, corporations tend to be soulless leeches.
Freedom means that everyone can use your code. Yes, that means for-profit corporations. For free, without restrictions. If I want to make a piece of software to improve people’s lives and I don’t care to do it for free, I’ll choose MIT.
Why not put the code in public domain then? Why MIT?
See that’s the thing, all licenses want to draw up some boundaries. As far as I’m concerned MIT and GPL are just interested in different ones.
Licenses aren’t “restrictive”, they’re permissive. Without a license you can’t do anything with the content, a license gives you some rights instead of none.
Yes, end products licensed as GPL are good. I use many of them. Libraries, however, are just avoided by companies and they just develop their own.
I prefer my libraries MIT licensed because then there’s a chance that people out there use it to develop products. If I make a GPL library then only products that were already GPL would use it. And there are way more proprietary products than GPL.
I don’t care if people make money to use my code. I just want my name attached to it somehow, even if you make it closed sourced which is MIT and OpenBSD. I hope you do use my code and even if you heavily reference it to make something new, carry that forward so more can learn and benefit.
I also don’t understand “better for the end user” arguments either. I have a library that people want to be included in another project, but that project is GPL. They won’t merge my code unless I change my code to be GPL. So everyone who wants them merged is out of luck. I can’t merge their code either with mine. What is supposed to happen is I freely give up my name to the code and restrict it to only being GPL and for GPL projects. Essentially, assimilate and join with the Borg. No, thanks.
And while that’s from my experience, I’ve also seen good projects get traction, have excitement over it, and fall off the earth because they end up making it GPL. Everyone interested in adopting it, personal or business, just disappear. Then something with less restrictions comes along and gets adopted.
End-users move to what’s better for them, and if you have a library that is only for GPL, you can end up limiting your options with a wasteful purity test. If you want it to be free you’d give freely with no restrictions. And if you think, “You can contact me to discuss licensing” that doesn’t happen. It’s still a restriction and almost nobody actually bothers.
They won’t merge my code unless I change my code to be GPL.
If you are the author of the code you want to merge, you can double-license it you know. Hand them a GPL license, they’ll be able to use your copy under the same terms, while you and everyone else use your current license.
GPL has no requirements for author attribution which is contrary to the entire point of an MIT license.
That’s why I described it as joining the Borg. You release individualism and freely give it to the collective. That’s cool, and I get the ethos behind all that, but I don’t want to add any of those constraints to my code. I just don’t want credit for my work or the others to get lost. I don’t think it’s a hard ask.
Regardless, we ended up ultimately being a full replacement for the other project.
I’ve actually noticed more GPL-licensed projects give attribution to not only the original author but all contributors.
Whereas I can’t tell you how many times I’ve worked on proprietary software where the company didn’t give attribution for MIT-licensed code. Unlike GPL’d code, the author has no way of knowing that they weren’t attributed since the code is proprietary.
I believe GPL does have an attribution requirement btw:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it;
There is no section 15 or 16 in GPLv3, but I did find section 7 saying:
Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
But that’s an optional thing that you must add onto the GPLv3 license. I’ll have to keep that in mind for the future.
That would explain why what I’ve read mentioned it’s not guaranteed in GPLv3 (when comparing to MIT). I’ll have to figure out what that notice would look like.
When I see a GPL license I don’t see freedom. I only see forced openness, which makes me immediately avoid that library, since I can’t statically link to it.
One of the arguments in favor of GPL and other “forced openness” licenses is that users should have the right to understand what their own device is doing. You paid for your computer. You own it. You should dictate how it operates. You should at least have the option of understanding what is being done with your machine and modifying it to fit your needs. Closed source software may provide utility, but it doesn’t really further collective knowledge since you’re explicitly refusing to publicly release the code, and it provides obscurity for developers to hide undesirable functionality like data collection or more directly malicious activity.
I’m not personally sure how I feel about that argument myself, but I can at least readily acknowledge it as a valid one whether I agree with the decision to force openness or not.
Yes, of course GPL is good for some things. But it being called the pinnacle of freedom is just wrong. It claims that it’s freedom for the users, but that’s not true.
In the case of libraries, the users of the libraries are not the end users of the program. The users of the library are the developers. GPL is NOT freedom for developers.
I completely agree that programs having a GPL license is positive. You can even use them with complete freedom in commercial settings!
The one freedom the GPL removes is the freedom to be a leech. If you’re linking to GPL code, you are agreeing to follow the same rules as everybody else who has contributed to that code. Nobody gets a pass
In the case of libraries, the users of the libraries are not the end users of the program. The users of the library are the developers.
Except the end user does inevitably become the user of the library when they use the software the developer made with it. They run that library’s code on their machine.
It claims that it’s freedom for the users, but that’s not true.
In light of the above, this is incorrect. By using GPL, you preserve the end user’s freedom to understand, control, and modify the operation of their hardware. In no way does the end user suffer or lose any freedoms.
I know that the end user is the focus of GPL. But me, when choosing a library, as a user, I tend to avoid using GPL ones, because they restrict my freedom. In consequence, my end users (of which there are aproximately 0 anyway) don’t get GPL code either way.
Forced openness is good for certain things, but not so good on others. That’s the reason why I licensed my game engine under BSL (whith some components of course under MIT, ZLib, and Apache), within the game development community things like that more accepted. It does have branding material, which anyone can use unless they were either behaved really badly, or being used for non-engine related material. Certain engine assets are under yet another license (public domain).
As you’ve phrased it, this seems to me to be a question of how to balance the rights of the developer versus those of the end user. The developer wants to monopolize commercial usage while the end user wants full control and authority on their machine.
Some would argue that the developer’s goals are unethical, but I think it’s an unfortunate consequence of a societal system that would see them starve on the streets if they didn’t earn with their work. In an ideal world, end users would prevail unquestionably, but so long as developers must operate under capitalism where ownership is critical, concessions will have to be made.
If it gets “stolen” by a for-profit corporation it only makes it better, because now my software has reached more people, thus (theoretically) improving their lives.
well that’s a very idealistic, and capitalistic way of looking at this (i.e. for-profit corporation is making a profit only because it’s making people’s lives better). which just isn’t the case in real life.
realistically, when you release something in a permissive license, you are more likely to improve someone’s bottom line, than to improve people’s lives in general.
Well, it did improve someone’s live, didn’t it? I’m not claiming my library that has 3 stars on GitHub is gonna revolutionize all of humanity. But it’s a little improvement. That contributes to having a more complete software ecosystem.
That code is now available to everyone that wants it. If they need it, it’s there to use. Better than every company having to reimplements for the thousandth time the same closed software.
Which brings me to another point I didn’t mention before. If a company uses an open source library, even if they are not required to publish their improvements to the library, they might do anyway because it is easier than maintaining their own fork and migrating every upstream change.
If it gets “stolen” by a for-profit corporation it only makes it better, because now my software has reached more people, thus (theoretically) improving their lives.
Or it could be “stolen” by Raytheon, and helping ruin lives better.
And I’m not poopoo’ing, what you’re saying, I just want you to consider all consequences, because it kinda seems like you haven’t.
How does GPL prevent Raytheon from using their software?
Open source is open source.
If I don’t want my software being used to make weapons I just won’t make weapon-related software. If they wanna use my 3D graphics library to display their missiles, cool, idgaf, that’s like putting ethical burden on a restaurant that serves food to soldiers because a military base was built nearby. The restaurant was there before the military base opened, and it’s not like they’re gonna use their food to kill people.
If I want to make a piece of software to improve people’s lives and I don’t care to do it for free, I’ll choose MIT. If it gets “stolen” by a for-profit corporation it only makes it better, because now my software has reached more people, thus (theoretically) improving their lives.
I’m not completely sure about this.
Suppose you write a library that a company like Facebook finds useful. Suppose that they incorporate it into their website. I’m sure I can skip the portion of this post where I extol the harms that Facebook has wrought on society. Do you think your software has improved people’s lives by enabling Facebook to do those sorts of things? They would not have been able to do them if you had used AGPL instead.
And I don’t want to make it seem like we should never do anything because someone might use the product of our work in a sinister way (because that would quickly devolve into nihilism). If 99 people use it for good and 1 for evil, that’s still a heavy net positive. But at the same time, I would be lying if I didn’t acknowledge that the 1 person using it for evil still would make me feel bad.
This is the kind of dark pattern that trains Windows users trying to switch to Linux to do dumb things like blowing straight through a
<span style="color:#323232;">You are about to do something potentially harmful.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I say!'
</span>
This is what people should be fearing. Studies have shown that when immigrants come in and “take jobs”, they pay taxes, and buy goods to create a life here, effectively replacing the job they took (since we need people who make beds for them to sleep in, food for them to eat, etc).
This is automation that’s ACTUALLY taking our jobs. This automation doesn’t pay taxes, and doesn’t replace the job it takes.
Very true, but let’s also keep in mind that automation doesn’t have to be a social evil. If our economic and political systems were better oriented toward lifting up society’s disadvantaged and keeping extreme individual/family wealth in check, automation could benefit all. With better social safety nets (or a UBI), government-sponsored job training (perhaps paid for by taxes on automation), and incentives for starting small businesses, automation could mean less human drudgery in the workforce, and more efficient economic outcomes for all.
I’m not optimistic about that given our track record as a species, but it’s possible.
If we can fight the owners to keep our shitty back breaking jobs and win, we should have fought the owners to rebuild our economy for automation profits to largely benefit the people from the bottom up.
If we the peasant masses even can win against the tiny owner class oligarchs, lets fight for the right thing. And if we can’t win, well then it’s all masturbation anyway and they’ll do what they want.
It’s irrational to fight for “we demand to continue to break our backs making your shit instead of robots so we can continue to subsist on menial laborer wages with broken backs!” in any event. That’s some coal miner excuse for logic.
Unfortunately the system has laid the framework for it to destroy itself when automation becomes ubiquitous. Imagine if y2k was inevitable but the engineers who’s jobs it was to fix it hands were tied by the software company’s forcing them to install more and more bugged software.
I have heard an idea floated around that the companies that make these types of automation devices would pay massive taxes on them, and that tax would pay for UBI. I’m not sure how the math works, but to me that sounds like the ultimate endgame. Then we can all enjoy our lives without needing to do tedious or backbreaking work.
Absolutely it’s the best way forward. The catch is that it’s hard to calculate. If I write an app that saves someone 3 minutes of each work day, how much am I taxed on what I automated? We can just tax the rich, and assume they automate away everyone’s jobs.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s not enough to delete the files in the commit, unless you’re ok with Git tracking the large amount of data that was previously committed. Your git clones will be long, my friend
I don’t understand how we’re all using git and it’s not just some backend utility that we all use a sane wrapper for instead.
Everytime you want to do anything with git it’s a weird series or arcane nonsense commands and then someone cuts in saying “oh yeah but that will destroy x y and z, you have to use this other arcane nonsense command that also sounds nothing like you’re trying to do” and you sit there having no idea why either of them even kind of accomplish what you want.
There are tons of wrappers for git, but they all kinda suck. They either don’t let you do something the cli does, so you have to resort to the arcane magicks every now and then anyways. Or they just obfuscate things to the point where you have no idea what it’s doing, making it impossible to know how to fix things if (when) it fucks things up.
It’s because git is a complex tool to solve complex problems. If you’re one hacker working alone, RCS will do an acceptable job. As soon as you add a second hacker, things change and RCS will quickly show its limitations. FOSS version control went through CVS and SVN before finally arriving at git, and there are good reasons we made each of those transitions. For that matter, CVS and SVN had plenty of arcane stuff to fix weird scenarios, too, and in my subjective experience, git doesn’t pile on appreciably more.
You think deleting an empty directory should be easy? CVS laughs at your effort, puny developer.
It’s because git is a complex tool to solve complex problems. If you’re one hacker working alone, RCS will do an acceptable job. As soon as you add a second hacker, things change and RCS will quickly show its limitations. FOSS version control went through CVS and SVN before finally arriving at git, and there are good reasons we made each of those transitions. For that matter, CVS and SVN had plenty of arcane stuff to fix weird scenarios, too, and in my subjective experience, git doesn’t pile on appreciably more.
Yes it is a complex tool that can solve complex problems, but me as a typical developer, I am not doing anything complex with it, and the CLI surface area that’s exposed to me is by and large nonsense and does not meet me where I’m at or with the commands or naming I would expect.
I mean NPM is also a complex tool, but the CLI surface area of NPM is “npm install”.
So basic, well documented, easily understandable commands like git add, git commit, git push, git branch, and git checkout should have you covered.
the CLI surface area that’s exposed to me is by and large nonsense and does not meet me where I’m at
What an interesting way to say “git has steep learning curve”. Which is true, git takes time to learn and even more to master. You can get there solely by reading the man pages and online docs though, which isn’t something a lot of other complex tools can say (looking at you kubernetes).
Also I don’t know if a package manager really compares in complexity to git, which is not just a version control tool, it’s also a thin interface for manipulating a directed acyclic graph.
So basic, well documented, easily understandable commands like git add, git commit, git push, git branch, and git checkout should have you covered.
You mean: git add -A, git commit -m “xxx”, git push or git push -u origin --set-upstream, etc. etc. etc. I get that there’s probably a reason for it’s complexity, but it doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t just have a steep learning curve, it’s flat out remarkably user unfriendly sometimes.
git add with no arguments outputs a message telling you to specify a path.
Yes, but a more sensible default would be -A since that is how most developers use it most of the time.
git commit with no arguments drops you into a text editor with instructions on how to write a commit message.
Git commit with no arguments drops you into vim, less a text editor and more a cruel joke of figuring out how to exit it.
Again, I recognize that git has a steep learning curve, but you chose just about the worst possible examples to try and prove that point lol.
Git has a steep learning curve not because it’s necessary but because it chose defaults that made sense to the person programming it, not to the developer using it and interacting with it.
It is great software and obviously better than most other version control systems, but it still has asinine defaults and it’s cli surface is over complicated. When I worked at a MAANG company and had to learn their proprietary version control system my first thought was “this is dumb, why wouldn’t you just use git like everyone else”, then I went back to Git and realized how much easier and more sensible their system was.
No it wouldn’t. You’d have git beginners committing IDE configs and secrets left and right if -A was the default behavior.
vim, less a text editor and more a cruel joke of figuring out how to exit it.
Esc, :, q. Sure it’s a funny internet meme to say vim is impossible to quit out of, but any self-respecting software developer should know how, and if you don’t, you have google. If you think this is hard, no wonder you struggle with git.
it chose defaults that made sense to the person programming it, not to the developer using it and interacting with it.
Just because you don’t like the defaults doesn’t mean they don’t make sense. It just means you don’t understand the (very good) reasons those defaults were chosen.
Git has a steep learning curve not because it’s necessary but because it chose defaults that made sense to the person programming it, not to the developer using it and interacting with it.
Git’s authors were the first users. The team that started the linux kernel project created it and used it because no other version control tool in existence at that time suited their needs. The subtle implication that you, as a user of git, know better than the authors, who were the original users, is laughable.
No it wouldn’t. You’d have git beginners committing IDE configs and secrets left and right if -A was the default behavior.
No, you wouldn’t because no one is a git beginner, they’re a software developer beginner who need to use git. In that scenario, you are almost always using repos that are created by someone else or by some framework with precreated git ignores.
You know what else it could do? Say “hey, youve said add with no files selected, press enter to add all changed files”
Esc, :, q. Sure it’s a funny internet meme to say vim is impossible to quit out of, but any self-respecting software developer should know how, and if you don’t, you have google. If you think this is hard, no wonder you struggle with git.
Dumping people into an archaic cli program that doesn’t follow the universal conventions for exiting a cli program, all for the the goal of entering 150 characters of text that can be captured through the CLI with one prompt, is bad CLI design.
There is no reason to ever dump the user to an external editor unless they specifically request it, yet git does, knowing full well that that means VIM in many cases.
And no, a self respecting software developer wouldn’t tolerate standards breaking, user unfriendly software and would change their default away from VIM.
Git’s authors were the first users. The team that started the linux kernel project created it and used it because no other version control tool in existence at that time suited their needs. The subtle implication that you, as a user of git, know better than the authors, who were the original users, is laughable.
Lmao, the idea that we should hero worship every decision Linus Torvalds ever made is the only thing laughable here.
I think in this case, “depth” was am inferior solution to achieve fast cloning, that they could quickly implement. Sparse checkout (“filter”) is the good solution that only came out recently-ish
Lol if an employer can’t have an intelligent discussion about user friendly interface design I’m happy to not work for them.
Every interview I’ve ever been in there’s been some moment where I say ‘yeah I don’t remember that specific command, but conceptually you need to do this and that, if you want I can look up the command’ and they always say something along the lines of ‘oh no, yeah, that makes conceptual sense don’t worry about it, this isn’t a memory test’.
These things are not related. Git uses the system default editor, which is exactly what a cli program dropping you into an editor should use. If that’s Vim and you don’t like that, you need to configure your system or take it up with your distro maintainers.
No, it should prompt you to enter your one sentence description in the CLI itself, and kick you out to an editor only if you provide a flag saying you like writing paragraph long commit descriptions.
Git is complicated, but then again, it’s a tool with a lot of options. Could it be nicer and less abstract in its use? Sure!
However, if you compare what goes does, and how it does, to it’s competitors, then git is quite amazing. 5-10 years ago it was all svn, the dark times. Simpler tool and an actual headache to use.
What are you smoking? Shallow clones don’t modify commit hashes.
The only thing that you lose is history, but that usually isn’t a big deal.
–filter=blob:none probably also won’t help too much here since the problem with node_modules is more about millions of individual files rather than large files (although both can be annoying).
git clone --depth=1 <url> creates a shallow clone. These clones truncate the commit history to reduce the clone size. This creates some unexpected behavior issues, limiting which Git commands are possible. These clones also put undue stress on later fetches, so they are strongly discouraged for developer use. They are helpful for some build environments where the repository will be deleted after a single build.
Maybe the hashes aren’t different, but the important part is that comparisons beyond the fetched depth don’t work: git can’t know if a shallowly cloned repo has a common ancestor with some given commit outside the range, e.g. a tag.
Blobless clones don’t have that limitation. Git will download a hash+path for each file, but it won’t download the contents, so it still takes much less space and time.
If you want to skip all file data without any limitations, you can do git clone --filter=tree:0 which doesn’t even download the metadata
Yes, if you ask about a tag on a commit that you don’t have git won’t know about it. You would need to download that history. You also can’t in general say “commit A doesn’t contain commit B” as you don’t know all of the parents.
You are completely right that –depth=1 will omit some data. That is sort of the point but it does have some downsides. Filters also omit some data but often the data will be fetched on demand which can be useful. (But will also cause other issues like blame taking ridiculous amounts of time.)
Neither option is wrong, they just have different tradeoffs.
See this is the kind of shit that bothers me with Git and we just sort of accept it, because it’s THE STANDARD. And then we crank attach these shitty LFS solutions on the side because it don’t really work.
What was perforce’s solution to this? If you delete a file in a new revision, it still kept the old data around, right? Otherwise there’d be no way to rollback.
Yes but Perforce is a (broadly) centralised system, so you don’t end up with the whole history on your local computer. Yes, that then has some challenges (local branches etc, which Perforce mitigates with Streams) and local development (which is mitigated in other ways).
For how most teams work, I’d choose Perforce any day. Git is specialised towards very large, often part time, hyper-distributed development (AKA Linux development), but the reality is that most teams do work with a main branch in a central location.
It’s almost like she’s trying to be polite because she knows that sometimes guys turn violent when they’re rejected.
EDIT: Look, I’m getting tired of this. Not a single person arguing with this is having a conversation about this that is based in reality, they are just trying to twist words to make it sound like maybe there’s some equivalence here. Have some statistics from Australia. You can look them up for your country if you care:
Those discrepancies are shocking but not really that surprising if you’ve lived in society at all. Also, this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.
I was just ranting to my husband about how I got tired of being polite to men* in my personal life who don’t take “no” for an answer the first time, I WILL be a “bitch” to co workers, in laws, friends etc that pull this shit. I am exhausted after years of finding 17 different ways to politely say no to a stranger who wants something from me on any given day. I am absolutely fucking done wasting time pussyfooting my words, with the men I am safe with (for whatever reason) and uh often men I am not safe with but I have been VERY lucky to have positive outcomes there. Pure luck
* I just don’t currently have women like this in my life. I have though
The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?”
If you can’t answer that fast enough to determine if you’re dealing with a violent man, then “not all men” is meaningless to a woman who is trying to not get killed.
Also, you’re basically saying women don’t think about this. I wonder what kind of answers you’d get if you actually asked any of them about this.
Black men usually get the talk at a very young age that they need to be super careful in every interaction with police or else they might be killed.
Now, not all cops are trying to kill black men in traffic stops. But if you don’t know which cops will kill you on the flimsiest pretext, then this isn’t terribly useful to a black man trying not to get killed.
Tell me, is it “racist” of these black men to be concerned about being killed by cops?
It’s not a perfect comparison, but the point is that these are people who are simply being extremely polite to avoid the potential threat of violence, and the other party is the one who has an undue likelihood of perpetrating that violence.
In both cases, the violence is the bigotry, not the worry about who might inflict that violence.
Some - wrong - people might say that black men worrying about being killed by a cop is racism because they are acting on information about their race. These are presumably the same people saying women are sexist for worrying about male violence. As always, noticing bigotry is in fact not the real bigotry.
Let’s go back to the original example: a woman dating.
Assume the woman is a lesbian. Would it be racist for her to apply the behavior in the post when she dated women of color, if her opinion was based on the statistic quoted in my last post?
So, absolutely no interest in the subject matter then. I’ve been trying to figure you out and I think I’ve got it:
You’re using racism as a tool to deflect any talk of sexism, and to imply that saying men are far more likely to kill women is sexist against men, even though it is 100% true. And even then you’re talking about racism using anti-black racist talking points, which is extremely telling.
You’re staying in the realm of innuendo though. You’re not really saying anything. I bet if you actually stood up and said what you mean it would be horrific and you’d get banned, which is why you’re not doing it.
Do you not know how often racists use crime stats to bolster their arguments too?
Men more often kill women is no grounds to make blanket arguments about men in general, same way as some minorities being overly represented in rape statistics is no grounds to make blanket statements about those minorities.
You can say it’s just you “being careful” and whatnot, but you should realize that you’re using word for word the same arguments racists use to justify their racism. Both represent an actual threat to women for sure but it’s no justification for labeling them all, that’s the point.
A woman might in both cases be vary of the specific groups here, at the mildest level. Discrimination can range from very minor to very hostile behaviour. Basically your imagination is the limit for what someone might do about these prejudiced feelings.
actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it
Statistics Finland, Finnish Government, the police and several university studies have made deep dives into this. But if you can show them wrong then by all means, go ahead. But I can provide you the sources for these claims, if you really want to go there.
You’re supplying nothing and asking me to disprove it. Fuck right off with that.
You yourself already claimed the statistics are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it” and now you are indignant that I’m asking you to show your work. But very well, I’ll supply the sources first and then perhaps you can tell me how they are “twisted made up bullshit”.
Have at it. Shouldn’t be that hard because you seemingly already are knowledgeable about these stats and know they’re bullshit.
These are not the same thing, and it should be obvious if you’re even slightly paying attention.
Nobody is arguing that all forms and types of prejudice are similar. The argument is that you are using the same arguments for your prejudice as those arguing for race based prejudice. But if your argument really is that the effects from one form of prejudice are better than others so it’s fine, then alright. It’s just a terrible look and makes it easier for racists to get away with their shit since their reasoning have been already accepted in other contexts.
Okay, so I think you knew this going in, but those are mostly written in Finnish, and since you already know I’m Australian, you probably knew I can’t speak Finnish. So like, great job there.
Anyway, of the one that I can actually read, the problem is immediately apparent in the title.
Foreigners more often suspects of offences than Finns
Suspects.
That right there is the problem.
The difference is, racists will take these statistics - which often reveal racist policing and the effects of discrimination rather than saying anything about actual races - and twist them to a racist end, which is usually further violence towards those minorities.
Femicide is a real thing.
The difference is clear, and if you can’t see the difference, then maybe you don’t actually care about the people that are being hurt, and you only care about the rhetoric. I don’t know, but I do know you’re missing the point.
since you already know I’m Australian, you probably knew I can’t speak Finnish.
I’m not sure where I was supposed to know that from but I was making a claim and I think it was a fair assumption you knew what you were talking about since you dismissed it right away. So having to read Finnish sources about a Finnish topic doesn’t seem like too much to ask. I’m not sure how you got to your conclusion before that the stats are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it” if you can’t speak Finnish and don’t know how to translate them. If it was through English language sources, surely you can use them here to help your argument about the stats being bullshit.
So like, great job there.
Nobody forced you to make a claim that the stats are bullshit without even having checked them.
Suspects. That right there is the problem.
Not just suspects, as shown in the Government of Finland and University of Helsinki studies. Did you even look at them?
The difference is, racists will take these statistics - which often reveal racist policing and the effects of discrimination rather than saying anything about actual races
Again something discussed in the studies. Racial bias hasn’t been in any study shown to be anywhere near enough as an explanatory factor for having so much higher rate of sexual violence. Another things they’ve considered were for example poverty, culture, trauma and so on. I think poverty was ruled out as well, since even with racial bias, it still was much too high compared to population average. Some sort of combined factor is what they’ve considered, but a lot of the studies are unsure what causes it, but studies are very confident that’s it’s both a real thing and not made up by bias.
Whatever the explanatory factors, same as with men being violent towards women, the discussion is about what the real effect is and if that justifies blanket prejudice.
The difference is clear, and if you can’t see the difference, then maybe you don’t actually care about the people that are being hurt, and you only care about the rhetoric. I don’t know, but I do know you’re missing the point.
I’ve just provided you the studies that show that the much higher than average prevalence for sexual violence among some immigrant groups. It’s a real thing. Men being violent against women is a real thing. I care that people are hurt. I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent or call all of the men in certain immigrant groups rapists. It’s fucked up imo. I wouldn’t exactly blame women for being alert I guess, it’s a reaction, but when people are justifying it online it does feel hurtful to be grouped in there. So no wonder people speak up. It’s the same with so many types of prejudice, be it because of sex/gender, skin colour, age, whatnot.
actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it
Whenever you look at a racist trying to use statistics to bolster their worldview, it always winds up being thinly disguised bullshit. Not the statistic, but how they abuse them and pretend they say things they don’t. That’s a consistent pattern, and your attempts to do the same thing so far don’t seem to be any different.
Not just suspects, as shown in the Government of Finland and University of Helsinki studies. Did you even look at them?
Of course I looked at them. That is how - please read this, and try to internalise it - I knew they were written in Finnish and I couldn’t read them. What do you want me to do with them, exactly?
It’s muddy and the exact mechanisms aren’t clear as to why there are these discrepancies.
The femicide thing is extremely clear.
I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent
I didn’t say that.
I wouldn’t exactly blame women for being alert I guess, it’s a reaction
That’s all I said initially, and people, including you, are getting all bent out of shape over it.
when people are justifying it online it does feel hurtful to be grouped in there
But you just admitted it was justified to feel that way so like… why don’t you like it when people justify it?
And yeah, it hurts. Guess what? Misogyny hurts men too. The answer is not to deny that it exists.
Whenever you look at a racist trying to use statistics to bolster their worldview, it always winds up being thinly disguised bullshit. Not the statistic, but how they abuse them and pretend they say things they don’t. That’s a consistent pattern, and your attempts to do the same thing so far don’t seem to be any different.
I’m not arguing for racism against any groups. My point is the opposite. Yes the statistics (which you claimed are bullshit but haven’t been able to dismiss in any way) show that certain immigrant groups are way overrepresented in sexual violence. Yes, men are more violent towards women than women are towards women. But I specifically don’t think it justifies blanket statements and labeling all of them as violent or rapists and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if any people from those groups get bothered when such blanket statements are made.
Existence of the higher rate of violence (sexual, physical) is not justified reason imo to label all members of a group as such. That’s the whole point.
Of course I looked at them. That is how - please read this, and try to internalise it - I knew they were written in Finnish and I couldn’t read them. What do you want me to do with them, exactly?
If you are claiming they are bullshit then I’d prefer you’d show me how. If you can’t read them, I suggest translating them or providing stats or studies of your own that show the opposite result or dismiss the earlier stats and studies. Those can be in any language you wish.
If you are claiming my claims are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it”, what I’m obviously hoping from you is the explain how. How did you come to that conclusion, is there something about these specific stats, if you perhaps have better ones or studies and or something.
The femicide thing is extremely clear.
I don’t think the exact reasons for that have been made clear, what mix of biology, culture, poverty, misogyny and so on makes it up. Same as the sexual violence case. Hell, a lot of those factors propably overlap. But as said, the end result, these people (men, some immigrant groups etc) are cause of the violence. But the whole point was that while I understand caution (be it towards men in general or just certain men), I think the justification, blanket statements and mocking people who are hurt and alarmed by such blanket statements is bad.
I understand you’re only using the statistics to make a point, and I’m explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear. You seem determined to only look at the aesthetics of using statistics.
And I very easily dismissed the one that I could read. I’m not going to translate everything you send me so I can play whackamole with it, especially when we agree on the fact that the racists are wrong to use these studies. Unless we don’t, in which case the fact you have these in your back pocket ready to go really does say something about you, doesn’t it?
the end result, these people (men, some immigrant groups etc) are cause of the violence
Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That’s actually something I’ve never done, unless you can quote me saying that.
You keep talking about these “blanket statements”. Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
I’m explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear.
It doesn’t seem clear to me. What’s the actual difference of men having a higher rate of violence towards women and one of those immigrant groups having having higher rate of sexual violence towards women? Both are real, actual things that are concerning for women, but what makes it okay to be prejudiced towards one group as perpetrators but not the another? That’s something I don’t understand.
I very easily dismissed the one that I could read
Not at all. You saw the word “suspect” and thought it can be dismissed on that basis alone without showing anything for conviction rates. It’s an inordinately high rate of suspects and there’s an inordinately high rate of those convicted.
I mean, you sure dismissed it I guess, but rather with an argument that doesn’t hold much water at all. As the actual statistics show.
Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That’s actually something I’ve never done, unless you can quote me saying that.
It’s sorta the whole basis of the discussion, that the behaviour and rhetoric employed here is justified because it is backed up by statistics. I don’t think so. You seem to think so, at least in some cases.
You keep talking about “blanket statements”. Can you find the blanket statements I’ve made, please? You keep talking about these “blanket statements”. Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
If you don’t feel like this is one then I’m not sure what it is trying to say:
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
I don’t think it’s unfair, I think labeling a whole group is.
I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent
I said this:
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
Now, if you can’t tell the difference here, if you really think I was making a blanket statement that all men are violent, I cannot help you.
You are completely wrong to call those blanket statements. If you’re curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me. So far I have seen nothing but pettifoggery. I will not translate that word.
Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.
If you’re curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me.
I mean better late than never. I would’ve expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.
Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.
Oh, what happened to “blanket statements”? Sounds like you’ve walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you’ve fallen back on the aesthetics.
I mean better late than never. I would’ve expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.
So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.
Oh, what happened to “blanket statements”? Sounds like you’ve walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you’ve fallen back on the aesthetics.
I don’t honestly understand what you mean with this. Unless you mean you edited your comments, the blanket statements, the discussion, it’s still there? Are you saying you changed the comments…? Because while good, it sure is going to make it confusing to follow the whole thing.
So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.
I’m saying yes I am curious and that you should’ve started with that. Instead we got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics, that didn’t go anywhere.
Since you said you are curious to understand me, I will extend one more attempt to help you understand. If you don’t work with me, I will stop.
(Edit: I feel I should add that the lone downvotes on your comments aren’t from me. I know you’re not downvoting me at this point so I’m not returning them. I don’t want the fact you were downvoted to make you more defensive against me. Also, I haven’t deleted any statements after the fact.)
Now, since you said “you should’ve started with that”, I feel like I need to explain that I have been saying exactly what I mean this entire time. There is no hidden message behind the words that I am about to reveal to you. I simply believe that there must be a misunderstanding here.
You tell me that these sentences are “blanket statements”:
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
Now, it’s not clear to me why you believe this, since at no point have I said that “all men” are anything. If you believe these are blanket statements, then I don’t know how to help you understand me unless you explain in detail what you believe these sentences mean.
I want you to paraphrase the messages you see (edit: in these two sentences that you specifically named, not in everything, I want to stay focused here), in your own words, so that I can understand what you think I was saying, so that I can explain whether or not I agree.
This appears to be a foundational issue for you, since when I asked what I said that offended you, you named these statements. So, if there’s any hope of reaching an understanding, this is where it starts.
If a good man has a woman turn violent on him, odds are he has a physical advantage and will be able to deal with it. It shouldn’t have to happen that way but he can probably keep himself safe.
Flip that around, and as a woman, even if 99.99% of men will take it completely calmly, the small chance that you’re dealing with that 0.01% who will flip out and try to hurt you the second things don’t go his way, is fucking terrifying.
Especially if you’re smaller than average and dealing with someone bigger than average, the smart thing is to not just risk it. No, it doesn’t feel good when a girl assumes the worst about me, but I get it, so I don’t take it personally.
I can know I would never turn my strength and size to hurting to someone, she cannot.
The exact same considerations apply. If you’re in a situation where others could physically overpower you, you tend to try avoid doing anything that gives anyone reason to do so if that occurring is even the tiniest possibility.
When it comes to ones own bodily safety, other considerations become secondary, whether that’s fair or not.
It’s not matter of “all of them are like that” but of playing it safe.
I’m saying you’re the one who was in danger and therefore had the exact same concerns, and thereby you enforced my point that prioritising your own safety in this way isn’t about gender.
Anyone can be at a physical disadvantage, and therefore have to rely on caution. And anyone can turn out to be a crazy person.
My point is - you’d think attacking a guy twice one’s size might present a risk to one’s safety, but that didn’t seem to stop them. Like, one punch from me might easily have killed them, so it’s puzzling. In a way I think they knew they were protected by their size, because I just wouldn’t dare touch them. Even when being attacked with a blunt object!
“And therefore, it’s women that are privileged”. No, I’m really not trying to make that point, but it would be funny if I was.
You met some crazies, which just proves the point that they exist, and we all have good reason to act with caution lest we encounter one with unfortunate results.
Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament. The salty dudes on Lemmy won’t let you get away with telling them otherwise.
I’ve been in a handful of conversations over the last couple weeks with men on this platform that don’t understand the concept that women have to treat men a specific way for fear of the few of them that can be violent.
Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.
Men killing women and women being afraid of being killed by men is apparently exactly the same thing, and we’re sexist for even noticing it. How dare we make them aware of an uncomfortable truth that they were successfully ignoring?
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. Thank you for saying it, and don’t pay the salty dudes here any mind. I readily tell the ones that argue on behalf of their egos to just talk to any woman they know about this, and I always get some half-cocked “well they’re bigots too” line.
Like yeah sure, every woman is explicitly taught by other women not to put themselves in a potentially compromising position with a man because all women are secretly bigots.
Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament.
I’ve honestly been taught that blanket statements about sex/gender are usually not fine. So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement. I’m sure many can agree with that sentiment in general terms, whether it’s based on skin colour, sex/gender, sexual orientation or whatever.
Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.
I mean treating all men different is sexist and prejudiced. There’s really no way around that. Whether this sort of blanket prejudice is justified in this case, could be. But also that’s not a great look, to justify statistics or stereotype based prejudice.
It’s not unreasonable for a woman to avoid putting herself in a situation that a potential predator can take advantage of or retaliate against her for. Talk to a woman you know about this. I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.
So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement
You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you. It’s not about you, especially if you aren’t a predator.
I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.
Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.
Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.
You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you.
Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.
Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.
Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.
Unfortunately, people who take offense will find ways to deny the situation. The fact is, if you’re walking down the street and a woman 100 ft out moves to the other side before crossing you, she understands that there is a slight chance you might be a danger to her.
That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.
What I’m saying is, women don’t think all men are like that. That would be completely ridiculous. But statistically, enough of them are to warrant not being immediately trusting of strangers that can biologically overpower them in every situation.
I’m sorry but receiving end of what?
Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men
Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.
How come?
That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.
I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.
Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men
It wasn’t clear what you meant. Hence the need for clarification. But I got what you meant now.
I directly answered that in the same comment. Unfortunately, people who are offended will find a reason to take exception of the situation. There’s no amount of drawing examples that will satisfy the type who only sees that they personally are being attacked and not that it’s more about mitigating risk.
I try to illustrate the reasoning every time. As I have with the following example I made to you. The usual reaction is “well actually the woman in question is still a bigot for avoiding me on the street because she doesn’t know me”, or a similar sentiment in which the offended person runs head first into the point and still misses it.
I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.
Well first, I’d like to congratulate you on being the only person I’ve encountered so far who’s interested in the discussion and not the reaction.
But also, I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.
No one is going after men who take offense at that line of logic so much as those men who are loudly voicing their misunderstanding of a concept which goes on around them all of the time that they have only just noticed. It seems that your concept of “going after those men” is just people who understand the situation trying over and over to explain it.
As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.
I’m interested to hear how you might improve an exchange with someone who doesn’t allow the reasoning that women should be allowed to cross the street 100 ft before crossing you in the interest of their safety.
I don’t think it’s about finding it personally offending but rather that it does paint all men in a certain light and I just don’t think that sort of generalizations are good.
I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.
I mean I think it went a bit further than that.
As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.
If you are acting differently towards someone because of their gender (or skin colour or religion), that would make them prejudiced at least. So I wouldn’t argue that point. I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
Look, I’m not going to sit here and debate the ethics of a precautionary behavior with you because you, like many other men, misinterpret the behavior itself as a slight against men as a whole.
There’s no way I can do that without venturing into the realm of defending that kind of prejudice, which you’ll inevitably take as an invitation to just say is wrong on principle.
I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
Here’s the thing. The kind of person you’ll be responding to will cover their ears and say prejudice of any kind is wrong. You won’t convince anyone that way.
I literally had someone tell me the last time I had this discussion that the act of determining to do something based on the gender of someone is the very same as determining to do something based on their race. So it’s also racism.
There is no winning that. Once someone is bent on being against prejudice on any order, they will make false equivalencies to bludgeon their point.
that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
Let me ask you something: For a solution short of reeducating the world’s men, how come the onus is on women to be forced to take a chance with someone who they don’t know how they’re going to react?
Why are we looking at a situation where a woman might say “I shouldn’t walk alone from the gym to my car because there was this one guy staring at me and I saw him go out just before me” and saying “That woman is obviously a bigot, what can we do to correct that behavior?”
I honestly don’t think there’s anything to do about this. There’s no way to make women be less prejudiced against men in these situations that doesn’t also inherently raise their risk of being assaulted.
The only thing left is a man who will insist that a woman take the chance of raising her risk so that his feelings don’t get hurt. But here’s the thing. The worst that can happen to that man is his feelings get hurt because a stranger doesn’t trust him. The risk to a woman is an actual, physical thing.
No, no, you’re supposed to treat everyone fairly, the exact same way and always assuming they are the best, most stable people who would never react adversely to a “no” or any other negative occurrence.
And then when you run into that statistically inevitable crazy person, just let em beat you to death! You wouldn’t want to hurt the feelings of all the perfectly decent people you met before then, would you?
Big giant /S
This is unfortunately one of those cases where the mere existence of dangerous individuals makes being a little unfair with the rest of us completely warranted.
Bear in mind Lemmy is an overall very leftist platform. Claiming an outside observer can tell a man from a woman is going to attract downvotes, let alone going on to list alleged specific differences.
Note to readers, because I am used to Lemmy: Anyone assuming I agree or disagree with any given take on gender differences can fuck off. My actual post conveys no opinion on them.
You’re completely correct. Normally, I’m on the side of not assuming people’s gender and I’m of the mind that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover.
But, because of the safety and personal ramifications crossing the wrong person can have, I think it’s important that we acknowledge a woman’s right to seek safety in a situation she perceives might possibly go south for her. That includes the prerogative of not putting herself in a situation that she perceives as risky to begin with.
Maybe that concept would be better accepted if it were expanded to “Anyone should have the right to avoid danger they think they might be in”
Some countries in Europe started to look more into this topic since the number of femicides is growing and becoming more newsworthy it seems.
A lot of people are biased since sexism is deeply rooted in our society and many don’t realize what’s happening around them if they are not directly affected.
Just this week I had to discuss with a rather aggressive delivery person who berated me (unprovoked and for a made up reason) until my partner came from another room. As soon as he had to discuss his issue with another man he started to believe the facts and stopped. Actually kinda glad this happened since my partner is also very biased regarding “everyday sexism” since it doesn’t affect him and this was the first time he was able to see it first hand.
I didn’t want to relay this while the thread was still so hot, but I’m a large scary-guy-shaped person - I really doubt any of the guys in this thread would say any of this to my face - and I didn’t understand this until my sister asked me to tell our dad something she needed him to hear because “he’ll listen to you because you’re a man”. I said I didn’t think he was that sort of person, and she just said, “No, it’s normal for people not to listen to women.” So I told him the thing and he listened to me where he hadn’t listened to her.
I was pretty shook by that, so I asked my partner if that was normal and she said “Oh, yeah,” without having to think twice about it.
That’s where my journey started. After you start seeing it, you can’t stop.
I also started noticing at a certain point how often women would randomly apologise for existing near me in public. Like they are clearly afraid of me. It doesn’t feel nice, but it’s never once occurred to me to yell “not all men!” or “I’m one of the good ones!” at their retreating backs.
I’ve discovered - through being NB - that I can completely reverse this by even slightly feminising my appearance. I actually get random women smiling at me in public, not politely, but openly and genuinely. It makes me think of what a trans man said about how lonely it is to be a man, how he misses the camraderie of women looking out for each other. From my perspective when I’m fully man-coded I agree, men absolutely do not openly smile at me. That’s too gay, or something.
I’m not worried that any bad actors will abuse this info to get women to let their guard down though, because a consequence of this is getting an absolutely appalling amount of disgust and hate from random dudes, but I consider the trade absolutely worth it when I have the energy for it.
Thanks for sharing your story. One of my guy friends is the Hagrid Type. Big, hairy, loud. But he also tries to break through his appearance. And I think that’s the whole point:
Instead of telling “not all men” it’s better (but also more difficult) to show us. Be nice. Hold other men accountable. Things can be changed but first we have to face reality.
It also saddens me to hear about the manly loneliness that’s caused by the same internalized sexism. I’m glad to hear you found a way out of this, that still lets you be you!
Genuinely not trying to be that guy, but it seems like you’re saying that because it happens to men less often than to women, we can just ignore when it happens to men. Which im sure isnt what you’re trying to say, but its the insinuation you present whenever you bring up stats like these.
Because your using these stats to dismiss people saying men face domestic abuse too? I get you’re doing it because those people arent arguing in good faith, but its still ultimately you insinuating "men dont face DA as much of women, so they dont matter.
your using these stats to dismiss people saying men face domestic abuse too
Nobody brought it up. I wasn’t dismissing anything like that.
"men dont face DA as much of women, so they dont matter.
I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it. You haven’t made your case, you’ve just said I said something I clearly didn’t say. I don’t know what else to um… say.
So if nobody brought this up, why did you write that edit and bring up these statistics?
I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it.
You did though.
this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
And you also pull the claim of “women get harsher sentences when they commit DA” out of your arse too.
So you admit that you read “the consequences of that violence” and your mind immediately went to the legal consequences for the perpetrator, instead of thinking about the physical harm done to the victim.
That says basically everything about the butthurt responses in this thread.
So you admit to pulling the claim that men are less affected by abuse then women completely out of your arse based on nothing but your own sexist ideas?
Women are far more likely to be killed by men than vice versa, which is the obvious point I was making. I didn’t want to go find the information because frankly it’s pretty obvious that a man beating up a woman will usually do a lot more damage than a woman beating up a man. That’s why I framed it as a “guess”, so you’re not catching me out on anything here. If you care about the stats you can find them in this thread somewhere.
Should I go ahead and assume that you dodged my question about the thing you clearly admitted because you don’t want to admit it again, because it’s actually really revealing about the kind of person you are, and you don’t want that revealed because deep down you know exactly what kind of person you are?
I didn’t realise you were asking a question. Yes I did interpret it that way, as I believe “consequences” has more association with facing the consequences of your own actions than the physical affects of abuse. So I don’t think this is some big gotcha moment like you’re claiming.
Women are far more likely to be killed by men than vice versa
And men are more likely to take their own life due to suffering abuse, does that not count as a “consequence”
revealing about the kind of person you are, and you don’t want that revealed because deep down you know exactly what kind of person you are
And here we go with the redditor mentality of trying imply you can physcho-analyse me to be some horrible person because I dared to disagree with you on the internet. I have been polite with you from the start and all you’ve done is act like a child that cares more about “winning” an argument than anything else.
But yes I do know what kind of person I am, someone that’s survived DA and has has to fight people like you constantly who want to dismiss it because “☝️🤓 well Women are more often victims of abuse than men” which is exactly the argument you started with and have been simultaneously defending and denying you’re even making this whole time.
someone that’s survived DA and has has to fight people like you constantly who want to dismiss it because “☝️🤓 well Women are more often victims of abuse than men”
I would never tell an individual that their trauma doesn’t matter. You keep saying I did this, and you have not even once shown me where or how I did that. Just quote the place where I said this. I would love to understand.
they are just trying to twist words to make it sound like maybe there’s some equivalence here. Have some statistics from Australia. You can look them up for your country if you care:
and
If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
and I get that pointing this out is completely pointless because you’ll just say “That not what i was implying” without offering an explanation as to what you’re actually implying or having the self awareness to realise my original comment was saying “Which im sure isnt what you’re trying to say, but its the insinuation you present whenever you bring up stats like these.”
But then you both doubled down on defending that insinuation as well as denying you insinuated it. Which is insane and leads me to believe you did actually intent to say.
I’m pointing out rates of violence to show that women in general do have good cause to be cautious and overly polite when rejecting men. And the point about the rate being so low is just a statistical fact. It is in fact too low to reliably measure.
If you want to explain how this creates an insinuation that your abuse doesn’t matter, or any other insinuation, you need to explain it, because I didn’t say it. I’ll try to understand where you think the insinuation comes from, but I don’t see it currently.
You’re saying you want an explanation from me, but you haven’t provided an explanation yourself either. You have just given me bald assertions.
You have yet to ever explain why you think I’m saying what you apparently think I’m saying. I told you I would try to understand if you did, but you declined to.
As to the kind of person this makes you, I want you to hear this: you are an abuse survivor. It sucks that you went through that, but it doesn’t make you good or bad, or qualified to say what other people mean when they talk about the subject.
Some people go through abuse and they learn to be empathetic and understanding, and to put themselves in the shoes of other abuse survivors to understand them. You apparently have come out of it thinking that now every conversation of abuse and violence has to specifically center your experience or it is somehow dismissing you personally.
That makes you selfish. You don’t have to stay that way, but if you keep insisting that everyone else is the problem and you are right, then you will.
But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.
“If you are bothered by blanket statements and sexism towards you, it’s just because your ego is bruised and you might actually be the violent person I’ve painted you as.”
No. The point is we can’t ask vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind when around those who have the ability to harm them.
Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.
This is almost word for word what racists argue. You even used the term “one of the good ones”, holy hell. How do you not see how fucked up this is?
Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.
It’s hard to not take it personally when a group you’re member of is being made negative blanket statements about and when those who think it’s hurtful speak up, they’re mocked. And then there’s the belittling language about how if you are “one of the good ones” you should just take it and “make sure you won’t harm them”.
It’s one thing to say that yes, women are more cautious around men and there’s some reason for it. But it’s the blanket statements, "“NOt All mEn” and “just ignore it” shit that bothers me. That’s not fine imo.
If you’re not asking vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind, be specific about what should be different.
I know it feels like absolute shit to have the worst assumptions made about you because of your gender, race or whatever else, but aside from treating everyone fairly whenever no risk is involved, we can’t ask people to assume the best about others when deciding anything, if doing so puts them at the mercy of a stranger in any way.
Hell. I’m a tall man, and I would have reservations if a girl wants to have a first date at her place, alone. Odds are, 99.99%, it’ll be fine, might get laid, woo. But what if it isn’t fine?
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
The first kind robs people of life opportunities, the second only ever hurts our feelings.
I’d prefer to see the discussion happening from the position that some men are violent, which causes women to be cautious. There should be a common understanding in both that men can be violent towards women in high rates, but also that it’s not a reason to label the whole group or speak implying such.
Now we’ve had both a very clear blanket statement about women and people mocking those who take offense to that and talking about “the good ones”. That’s not a discussion that is going the right way. That’s the sorta shit that causes more discrimination and bad sentiments.
I’m not saying women can’t (or aren’t allowed to be) be prejudiced, I know it’s a reaction. It’s the discourse that makes it out to be all men that goes overboard and is just the same as what racists do. It’s one thing to cross to the other side of the street when you saw someone you are worried about coming, okay you probably do fear something so individually whatever, fine, but if you go online and justify it with “well those people statisticially…” you’re just spreading really discriminatory shit and of course people are going to pipe up.
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
I know, but it’s not like racism is just thinking someone is a human. I’d say most racism isn’t like that, but small things.
But no one here is suggesting any of this is grounds for completely disregarding a person or a demographic of people.
I would turn down that first at-home date, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make a counter-suggestion. And even then I would risk offending her by revealing my unwillingness to immediately trust her.
And if she does take offence, that isn’t exactly telling of her having a healthy understanding of how the situation might look to me. Even as I turn her down, it’s not like I’ve already decided she’s a crazy person.
The people getting mocked are ones who feel they’ve been wronged by this kind of caution, for example by getting an overly careful and roundabout “no”, taking offence because someone would assume the worst about them. That they wouldn’t have taken a straight answer well.
In reality, it was going to be a “no” either way, and she was perfectly within her right to do it carefully with a complete stranger.
Throwing around the stats and explanations is to help us understand. The point is that the numbers are such that vulnerable people do not even have the option of being fair, because if they are, inevitably, they will run into at least one nutcase which will then proceed to explode in their face.
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
In any situation where two or more people interact, a more vulnerable party has every right to take whatever precaution they feel is needed to be safe, until they know for sure that doing so isn’t needed.
When this is the case, there is nothing to take offence from. It’s not about you.
But it can still hurt, and when you then see stats and stories about violent men thrown around it feels like people are telling you that “they were right about you” and that you should feel hurt.
But that’s not the point. The point is that there are good reasons to be careful. And when someone does so around you, unless there are additional circumstances to consider, there’s nothing there that’s a personal slight upon your character, gender, or anything else.
I think in this specific case and unfortunately in these sort of discussion, the people being mocked seem to be those who take offense to the discourse that paints men in generic terms as violent or take it personally (which while not meant as such, can obviously feel like it to some).
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
I think the real solution would be to for the discourse to be such that it doesn’t make it seem like it’s all men. Of course if it seems like all men are being blamed, people will complain. It’s not a huge switch in the rhetoric either to make it clear that’s not what is being said imo. But here it felt like they doubled down on it instead.
Who are you referring to when you say “these”? Because it seems like you’re making judgement calls about people based entirely on whether or not they questioned your blanket generalization about literally half the population of the planet.
Oh really lol? So you made this accusation but as soon as I ask you to explain specifics you back out?
I mean, I know what I said, and I wasn’t generalising about all men. You said, “these”. Give me the quote, explain what you’re talking about, unless you re-read it and you know you it actually doesn’t say what you’re trying to make it say. I’m happy to explain, but I do want you to explain what you’re talking about. I said a lot, so you need to meet me halfway. It’s not a big ask.
“n in m women said that they …” and “p in q men said that they …” would be more correct.
You are comparing apples to oranges. If women and men were treated the same by the society and thus would report actual events with the same probability, then you could compare these.
How many men would admit they experienced emotional abuse were that the case? A rhetorical question. Like a half of them or more wouldn’t.
So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
It is from factual statistics. Yes, I’m actually saying that.
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
Factual statistics say otherwise, that my argument isn’t silly.
I thought perpetuating gender role stereotypes and even prioritizing them over data was something a slrpnk.net user would be unlikely to do?..
Also I’m following the example of that other person and disengaging.
and Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/…/Domestic_violence_against_men with this - “The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
Also every fucking police service publishes some stats.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”
Which is exactly why they rely on anonymous survey results rather than police reports to get these statistics, which you would understand if you looked into Excrubulent’s sources before immediately going into defense mode and jumping down their throat because they acknowledged that women being wary of men is not irrational behavior.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
To acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!” only when violence against women is discussed is to dismiss and silence the trauma experienced by all domestic abuse survivors regardless of gender, assume that there is some “clue” they all missed to avoid being abused, and that anyone who responds to that trauma by being wary of people with similar broad-strokes profiles is treating unfairly everyone that does not exhibit this explicit “clue”. And that is victim-blaming, because there is just no way to know at first glance.
Those might sound like hefty assumptions but I gotta be honest with you, I truly do not understand what outcome you are trying to reach by rehashing this, over and over, other than silencing discourse that you find damaging to your own ego and self-image, and, further, what rationale you could find to feel personally attacked by this discourse, other than simply not being able to empathize with fellow members of the human race that happen to belong to the opposite gender.
It is reasonable to be cautious as a woman until you can be sure that the man you are with is safe. You can argue that men should do the same if you truly believe that they experience the same risks. You cannot argue, however, that women are wrong or irrational for behaving this way without making sexist arguments. Which is probably why you people always stop short of making any actual actionable arguments.
And to clarify, because apparently we are unable to differentiate unless it is said explicitly; I’m talking about you, personally, and people that respond in this way to any mention of domestic abuse with acknowledgement that it is primarily experienced by women at the hands of men. I am not talking about ALL men.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
OK, suppose I agree, but what does this sentence add to this conversation? “More” doesn’t mean much.
o acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!”
OK, I won’t answer the rest because you are not arguing in good faith.
Lol. That is exactly my point. Thank you for confirming it.
“More” doesn’t mean much
In the context of this conversation and supported by the data provided earlier, yes it does.
you are not arguing in good faith.
Not really sure what it is about those two sentence fragments that suggest that my argument is not in good faith but I honestly don’t expect you to have any answers anyways beyond base knee-jerk reactions.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
You would think that a group called the Bureau of Statistics would understand that they need to normalise. You would think they understand something about, oh, I don’t know, statistics, maybe?
In fact, you would think that the fact that they have statistical rates down to a tenth of a percent for how often people report to the police clearly indicates that they have other numbers, independent of those reports, to generate these reporting statistics. How would they know that X% of people report without knowing what the actual numbers of incidents are?
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
Somebody should have taught you that claims are not supported by rhetoric.
Guys, we have to suck it up. I’ve talked with my wife about this very thing, a lot. She’s really helped me process a lot of relationship trauma in my deep past, including bad/weird breakups.
Men, by and large, have the ability to utilize violence in ways that women simply do not*. Especially towards women. This shapes a lot of inequity and abuse in society writ large, no matter where you are. Forget the law, forget about the rest doing the right thing, forget all your bias, and forget any logical fallacies you are clinging to right now. Just look at the stats above.
One in four. 25%. If you were doing anything in your day-to-day life that came with a risk of bodily or psychological harm a quarter of the time, every time, you’d probably just stop. Or, as OP is pointing out, screw social pretense and improvise a solution with a better shot at safety.
To flip that around, consider all the women you know and then think about how 25% of them have been abused in some way.
Women learn from their peers or otherwise adapt to be non-confrontational, passive, indirect, avoidant, or just plain not present. Sometimes that lesson is learned proactively, sometimes first-hand. Why? Because 25%, that’s why.
(* As someone who has been abused by women, yes, there are outliers. But since we’re talking statistics, that’s another discussion.)
Because American media keeps pushing the idea that the Democrats are “the left” and because Democrats oppose guns because the Republicans promote them, they equate owning a gun with being a part of “the right”.
Democrats don’t oppose guns. Democrats are for base-level gun control. Republicans are insane, NRA-supporting fools who would rather 5 year old children get massacred weekly instead of have any potential gun controls.
Really? Yeah, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with, you know, actually keeping kids safe. No, that actually makes sense, and even worse, isn’t about “me”!
For the record, even if there’s anything to your absurd statement, I’m all for gun control. I care more about kids’ lives than yours.
You’re not making a very good case. Historically speaking, American gun laws have universally been about disarmament as opposed to harm reduction.
If, for example, the awb had included free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
R always deflect to mental health. But Reagan dismantled our mental health infrastructure, and R consistently votes against spending in that area. (Probably because they won’t ever seem to vote for anything that helps people, only for taking things from people.)
So R needs to support gun control, OR support funding mental health services, OR come clean and admit that school shootings are a price they are willing to pay as long as they get to keep their weapons and do as they will with them.
(They did like the mulford act, but we all know what that was really about. The one thing more important that guns to that crowd.)
It’s always one political party’s fault, never the clear result of what a system of government was designed to do.
The nfa was bipartisan, gca was bipartisan, fopa was bipartisan, the Brady bill was bipartisan.
The majority of child gun deaths are accidental or suicide.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
First, I don’t how that could be your response to my comment about the current state of mental health. So R is magically going to vote for two things they never (in recent history - say since school shootings became the big issue they are now - or even say since death by gun became the top cause of childhood death) vote for as long as we put those things together?
It seems kind of ridiculous to argue here over the content of the regulations when there is literally no possibility that half of our legislature will vote for it anyhow.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
Hmm. Yep, everything stemming from our system of government is just peachy. We don’t still have problems rippling through our culture due to slavery and civil rights issues, one political party that has sold their soul to Trump and his cronies (oh and let’s not forget how they’ve welcomed the white supremacists into their midst) and is just itching for an excuse to go full secession, unsustainable wealth inequality, a large percentage of families living paycheck to paycheck, a healthcare system that routinely makes people choose between paying for food and shelter or healthcare and medicine and etc etc etc.
Clearly with two hundred years of extremely well documented history of all these problems and our ineptitude and lack of will to solve many of them, we should conclude that the system is working as intended.
I don’t think you’re giving our congresspeople enough credit. Neither half of our legislature would vote a bill containing gun safety education and mental health services into law. Their aim with gun control laws is not to prevent child death from firearms.
I disagree that it’s just peachy that we live in the prototype fascist state, still going strong, but the rest of what you said is true.
I certainly didn’t think I’d ever be Daffy Duck in the “wabbit season/duck season” gag, but here we are. While I (now) understand the point you are trying to make, I do not agree that this is the future envisioned by those who created our nation and system of government, and thus I must disagree that this is functioning as intended.
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay to prevent the government from massacring civilians like they did in Myanmar recently.
If we really want a gun-free society we need to make sure the government doesn’t have guns. Given that’s impossible, the next best thing is letting citizens have guns.
I hope you at least vote for candidates who support mental health initiatives. (Though that would rule out Republicans.)
But anyway hey, at least you are honest. (Kinda. Aside from assuming I’m pushing for gun-free just because I wish republicans would even talk about gun control.)
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay
It’s the price the victims pay. You see that price, that those dead people have paid, as something that you are willing for them to pay. Let’s not mince words. It’s your value judgement that it’s worth it for them to have died. I wonder if they and their families felt it was.
Also far right conservative men are given all the permission in the world to threaten violence whereas many groups of people on the left, and leftism in general are defined by conservatives as inherently dangerous which both makes it practically much more dangerous to own guns and carry them (because you will just got shot by a cop and the cop won’t even get in trouble they can just say “they looked dangerous”) and also makes a culture of responsible gun ownership way harder to grow because the societal conditions around it are aggressively hostile to leftwing people owning guns.
Listen to the way centrists talk about the threat of violence from the far left and far right in the US, of course there are shitty, dangerous people on the left, but to compare the two as if there were similar amounts of violence coming from both is a ridiculous misstatement of reality.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…if they want to shot you they will. Being a responsible gun owner also has nothing to do with politics, get strapped and keep the 4 rules in mind. There are a ton of us on the left who own guns and more and more are arming themselves on the left.
Whats funny is I keep hearing about bots and operatives on Lemmy that go around promoting things that arent the status quo like we are the next social media. And the kind of people saying it thinks everyone needs to stick to a party line or else! Like or else what? If I do not love every thing Big Dem is pushing, I am a Russian shill bot trying to destroy America. The downvotes you have are from people barely able to form thoughts past doing what they are told.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…
As someone who noticed the difference between how police treated BLM protestors vs Jan 06 insurrectionists I think it’s pretty clear that if they do have an inkling of your leanings it’s gonna make a difference, at least in preconceived notions as they enter into their interaction with you, and how aggressively they come at you in the first place.
Depending on what you are implying regarding which was which, I have a hunch we aren’t going to agree on that detail, and I’m doubtful either will change the others mind, so I’m just going to cut this off here.
Edited because my original wording was nearly gibberish.
I’m saying the insurrectionists were armed, as well as the idiot protestors outside of many State Capitol buildings, and so the cops are a lot more apprehensive about harassing or confronting them than they were towards BLM protestors. There was a lot more at play on January 6th than just being armed though, including ideological alignment, and support from high level politicians.
Yeah - in non US places gun ownership only means one thing: you own a gun. It says nothing about your politics. And yes, US democrats being referred to as “left” is ridiculous. The Democrat party wouldn’t even be a centrist party in most (western) democracies.
Pepsi - the choice of a new generation… of woke, pronoun-shifting libtards. As an aside I like your spelling. It’s reminded me to listen to Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most Wanted again.
Are you familiar with sarcasm / irony / satire? I’m quoting and subsequently mangling a slogan from 1985. (c. Forty years ago) Surely you haven’t taken that comment at face value?
I remember that now you mention it. Bartering with a super power seemed crazy to me back then. It’s amazing how little seems to have genuinely improved for Russians (specifically) since the fall of the USSR - we had high hopes of a new age but… gestures broadly at the current state of Europe and shakes head.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of Democrat and Republican gun owners alike who view gun ownership the same as you do, and don’t make it their entire identity, political or otherwise. We just don’t get constantly exposed to that reality, because it doesn’t make for interesting headlines, or divisive online debate.
Good. I’m glad. I had my suspicions that was the case but it’s nice to have it confirmed by an insider. I always struggled to believe that an entire nation of so many millions of people would have a one size fits all pro/anti stance on any one topic; it’d be absurd.
Suppose you get falsely charged by the state because of your politics, what are you going to do? Get into armed conflict against the police officers coming to arrest you?
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family, and thus establish a military goverment. Because it’s apparently it’s 19th century now.
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family
Sounds good
thus establish a military goverment.
Nah, I just defeated the military. I would prefer a less authoritarian system
When you killed everyone in a coup, you are by definition a new military. You might prefer less authoritarian system now, but all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power, it’s just how the selection process goes, for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
We know that, because actually I deceived you earlier, it’s not 19th century now, and we already saw how that happened. And also, both technologies and situations are different now
I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals
you are by definition a new military
No, I am a member of one of many militias
all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power
Not all of them, but I understand what you mean
for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
Yes. Thats how war works.
both technologies and situations are different now
It’s not like armed insurgencies don’t happen in modern countries. Look up the IRA. Even if you are not keen on blowing up billionaires, you can still shoot meal team six as they try to bring back lynching and the KKK.
That said, disarming the country including the police, especially the police, would be more conductive to a peaceful life. So would actual democratic representation.
Absolutely not, I’m all for defunding the police but if your idea of a peaceful country doesn’t involve someone owning and being willing to defend themselves with firearms you’re just living in a fantasy where crime just magically doesn’t exist.
perhaps at the federal level, but California and Washington liberals have passed sweeping gun control laws that severely impinge on law abiding citizens, and the AFT under Biden criminalized brace pistols, turning millions of law abiding citizens into criminals overnight. Only a SC ruling kept them from pursuing arrest for people who legally purchased their firearms, including a full background check for their purchases.
When people are discussing American politics and Democrats and Republicans, they most certainly mean liberal Democrats when they say “the left”. The accuracy of that statement doesn’t change the intent.
lemmy.world
Top