Skip to main content


 
  • Content warning: hot take
  • Filtered word: nsfw

  • Content warning: hot take
  • Filtered word: nsfw


  • Content warning: hot take
  • Filtered word: nsfw


There wouldn't be many men left, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Remaining ones would have to be taught from an early age that they need to be super careful around women, and it is their fault if they get shot.

  • Content warning: Violence Against Others
  • Filtered word: nsfw


Why not, since the current world seems to be good enough for most people? If you try to appeal to reason and morals and nothing significant happens and you even get called out for it, what else can you do?

@hypolite @starbreaker The same reason we don't cure a victim's wounds by stabbing their attacker.

If women having to fear all men is crappy, so is men having to fear all women.

I want a better world for everyone not a different set of privileged and oppressed.

@DaveHiggins @hypolite

> If women having to fear all men is crappy, so is men having to fear all women.

Conversely, if men shouldn't have to live in terror of women's anger, then neither should women, queer people, trans people, and non-binary people have to live in fear of men's anger. :)

  • Content warning: Guns
  • Filtered word: nsfw


  • Content warning: Guns
  • Filtered word: nsfw


  • Content warning: Guns
  • Filtered word: nsfw


Easy for you to say as you are standing at the top of the privileged-oppressed pyramid through absolutely no effort on your part.

Beyond that, you seem to have missed the point of my reply which wasn't to endorse such a cruel policy, but to point out the current situation for women by extrapolating on this fictional policy. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

This policy is neither realistic nor desirable in the absolute, but it can be useful as a rhetorical tool to outline the current situation most women face.

@hypolite @starbreaker Absolutely I'm privileged. But I'm trying to lift others up rather than throw anyone down.

Been trying to do more than just agree about how bad things are with people who already see the issue recently, so I'm probably not in the ideal head space to spot the rhetorical advancement of absurdity.

It's great, and your replies show how far you are ready to go to achieve your ideal world. Just remember sometimes violence is an effective mean of making the world better.

@hypolite @DaveHiggins The only problem with improving the world through violence is that doing so tends to hurt innocent people.

If we could have assassinated Hitler and his buddies in 1938 (along with Hirohito and Tojo) we might have avoided WWII. But such a precise application of violence wasn't feasible.

Indeed, but "hurting innocent" isn't specific to activists using violence.

To riff on your example, in hindsight how many innocent would you have been confortable killing if it meant taking out Hitler as well? At the time, Hitler was given the benefit of the doubt by many Western politicians and journalists even after he wrote Mein Kampf, so it isn't a "feasibility" question, rather that damn privilege again.

@hypolite I would have had Hitler whacked after his little stunt in the Munich beer hall, and not waited for him to write and publish his manifesto.

@hypolite True, and my suggestion isn't unprecedented. IIRC, David Brin's novel THE POSTMAN showed women culling boys who showed a tendency toward antisocial violence (violence for personal gain, bullying) as opposed to pro-social violence (violence to protect other, weaker individuals).

And then there's the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas...

@starbreaker
well, several men would've died by my hand today, mostly because they were annoying the fuck out of me...

  • Content warning: hot take
  • Filtered word: nsfw