JohnDoe

i don't think it's ok for people to laugh at an abuse victim. i also don't think it is as important to work on at present compared to other issues. it's a shame it happens, and i think there are other battles to fight first; like boys for some reason (from the evidence from research i gathered) needing more like physical activity in schools and doing much better when they aren't tied to a desk all day. something like this is important, because testing indicates boys are getting worse especially recently in stuff like math and general literacy.

so yes men do get laughed at for this kinda stuff, by men and also by women. when men do it, i noticed it doesn't bother me as much truthfully.

i'll say when i'm in more women-friendly, radical feminist spaces (journals, magazines, irl events) there really isn't this negativity around. something like the scumm manifesto does say stuff that can be hurtful or seem hateful (i'd agree it is hateful; i'd also agree it's completely justified and rational given the circumstances) and honestly so much of the tension seems to me to be due to the online nature of this stuff.

are there women-only spaces where a bunch of negative things about men are said? obviously, and i can't for the life of me figure out why it's held to a different standard than other groups outside of the patriarchy being the explanation.

i think treating and seeing women as equal is accepting there are women who have awful takes. women as a group will be like many other groups, they might appear homogeneous and their's a wealth of differences between them.

i'm ok believing some men are toxic, as am i for some women, what i don't do is share that opinion with others if the circumstances aren't appropriate. i think that's where "think before you act" or "think before you talk" comes in.

contemporary feminism (and the wave immediately before) have done a lot more for me than how men have told me I 'ought' to act. fine, I'm not as manly or a man as far as some are concerned. what is really annoying is the apathy and close-mindedness of most of these men who interacted with me negatively.

asking a few questions is enough to make them emotional (which is fine when they do it and not ok when others do it in a way unlike their own) and more intensely emotional than nearly all women i've interacted with. that too is fine, it becomes a pain when i'm taken to be some kind of enemy or other by standards it seems like they cannot apply to themselves.

i want to say they are gaslighting, only, i really don't think it's intentional. there's a genuine misunderstanding and that's annoying as heck.

Hm I don't understand, could you explain? I had a different experience so it's a bit difficult for me to get. My dad wasn't around until a bit later and by then I didn't respect him all that much. My mom raised me and told me to be nice with my dad and show him affection, otherwise I wouldn't have interacted with him as much. I think I've taken on characteristics from my mom as a result. What does it look like for someone to have a man or masculine kind of person around?

I only watched the first three movies and didn't read the books. Why do people say harry was a cop? I didn't get that impression from the movies I watched.

I appreciated the info. I agree too! The circle v thing in your profile name is cool.

Would you say like in the case of your comment, where the ratio skews heavily towards negative, something like having the thread collapsed by default or like hiding the score would be a better way to facilitate productive discussion? I think it works as a temporary middle ground (say the first 24H a post is up and folk's aren't completely decided, it gives controversial ideas a fightin' chance)

So I actually want to engage with you. If some stuff ends up being like "collapsed" or "hidden by default" because some just had a one-off bad experience with users from a particular community, do you think you'd agree that it is an OK compromise or is that relenting too much for freedom of expression?

oh is that not the case anymore? is that because world is the biggest instance now? might be preferable if most don't appreciate their politics. Also like, I wouldn't want server downtime or anything to effect the devwork of lemmy...

Being intolerant does not necessarily mean complete exclusion. Like one-way federation is still allowed right? So if some folks wanna comment they can still get the same content, the folks who don't won't. I think that's a decent middle ground for the meantime.

There is another solution. Make it so witches cannot cause harm, everyone gives a little bit to make everything work for everyone.

We already give things away: money with taxes, certain liberties, information, hours of our lives; how many of those are done with complete intentionality? i.e. could we choose to do something else? I'd rather do something I choose or want to do even if its harmful or less pleasant because it's something I am privy to instead of not.

This really sounds like a reformulation (with more accessible language and preferable IMO) of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I have it below for your convenience:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (in note 4 to Chapter 7, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1)