TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

How to get banned from r/Feminism

JohnSudo

December 18, 2016
30459 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://imgur.com/XMYV5bm
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title How to get banned from r/Feminism
Author

JohnSudo

Upvotes 30459
Comments 488
Date December 18, 2016 5:16 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5j16nd/how_to_get_banned_from_rfeminism/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-to-get-banned-from-rfeminism.1072415
https://theredarchive.com/post/1072415
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by JohnSudo

Debunking Non-Binary Genders

13 upvotes
November 14, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]denyjunctionfunction 2893 points2894 points2895 points 9 years ago (374 children) | Copy Link

It looks like they are behind on banning people. Usually this is enough.

[–]Taylor1391 951 points952 points953 points 9 years ago (297 children) | Copy Link

Is that what I got banned for? I know they banned me when I hadn't done anything wrong. I messaged the moderators asking why and never got an answer.

[–]pizzarunner3 1345 points1346 points1347 points 9 years ago (175 children) | Copy Link

I once posted that it wasn't really bad that Audrey Hepburn was remembered for her good looks. It had everything to do with her profession as an actress and not her gender. They were comparing how we remembered her to how we remember male scientists and politicians.

My post was deleted and I was banned. Asked for explanation it was ignored. These people aren't the smartest and they know their actions to hold up to any scrutiny so they just avoid confrontation. They end up driving people away from feminism.

[–]tsilihin666 79 points80 points81 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To be fair Internet forums are just large echo chambers where everyone jerks each other off over the same topic over and over. If you disagree they always ask what you're doing there if you don't agree. /r/feminism isn't what I'd call a progressive bastion of truth.

[–]macthefire 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree with you. Progress only happens when we challenge our own beliefs and because they are our beliefs they need to be debated with opposing parties. The fact that our two parties can't come together to do this in a mature and understanding fashion simply means we will both stagnate. Mutually Assured Destruction solves nothing and leaves those who remain with even more animosity.

[–]Taylor1391 550 points551 points552 points 9 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I think it would be a problem if she was just remembered for being beautiful. But she's not. She's also remembered for being a great actress. She's known for working against the Nazis. She's known as being a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF. I just think acknowledging that she was also quite beautiful is natural, and not wrong at all.

Edit: at least I'm the only one who didn't get an answer for why. I am both a feminist and a men's rights activist and people on both sides seem to think those are mutually exclusive for some reason. All it's doing is inhibiting progress.

[–]Tiger21SoN 388 points389 points390 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Woah woah woah. You're trying to help all people fairly and not just half of them? Radical man.

[–]finalremix 103 points104 points105 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He's part of the problem! BURRRRRRN HIMM!!

[–]Psychic42 176 points177 points178 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

I mean being a feminist and a men's rights activist aren't mutually exclusive. In fact they should be inclusive as they both, technically, strive for the same thing. Equality

[–]kwisatzhadnuff 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course the reality of the kind of people that use those respective labels is often very different from what the labels are supposed to stand for.

[–][deleted] 164 points165 points166 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Feminists just want to have more equality than anyone else.

[–]htoj 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, brando and Dean are both also remembered for their looks. That's whta happens when you're in film or other visual media.

[–]BEEF_ANTHONY 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So are Peter Lorre and Marty Feldman.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Its why I believe feminism and mens rights shouldn't be seperate. By definition, feminism is gender equality. Well, more often than not we see feminism be gender equality from the perspective of a women. Is that not a bias in and of itself and isn't the point to eliminate them? As such, why not just call it gender equality so people don't get hooked up about who is in the wrong and who is in the right?

[–]mrmensplights 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You act like Feminism and MRAs are two sides of the same coin, and in some ways I agree. But any detailed analysis reveals they are very different animals.

First, I have a bone to pick with your definition of feminism. Let's look at the first three real world definitions of Feminism from recognised dictionaries:

  • "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

  • "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

  • "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."

These definitions speak to something more than simply "gender equality". Implicit in them is also the idea that women are worse off than men and that we need to focus on giving women more power in order to achieve gender equality. In actual fact Feminism goes far beyond the basic definitions and encapsulates an entire political ideology where women are an oppressed. This ideology instills in it's adherents a world view from which to filter everything they experience and their communities are constantly reinforcing what to believe.

MRAs don't really play this kind of ideology game. They come as conservatives, liberals, socialist minded, and individualists. MRAs are not one collective but rather a collection of small special interest groups with overlapping concerns. some groups focus on custody rights, some on inequality in the justice system, others on intactivism, or the educational system.

Actually, mens issues do have a place under the umbrella of feminism called mens lib. It doesn't seem too interested in the real world issues MRAs concern themselves with (like divorce,justice system,education system, etc) but instead focuses mostly on how traditional masculinity harms men ie "Toxic Masculinity". It refers to specific behavioural norms imposed on men by the patriarchy. It doesn't just admit men can be trapped or damaged by the by these norms but goes one step further and demonises the norms and thus has the effect of attempting to impose a different set of norms. So in actuality,the result is an attempt to control mens behaviour more than anything.

Unfortunately, the core principals of feminism will forever place it at odds with men and the mens rights movement.

[–]jalahaara 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

How dare you people call a woman beautiful? That's sexist as fuck

[–]Gromitt42 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Meanwhile have you seen Channing Tatum?

[–]Vigilante17 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He's sexy as fuck?

[–]eb_ester 72 points73 points74 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Feminists are the most threatening movement against women being pretty, feminine, and sexual beings.

They hate that females are those three things. That absolutely cannot stand it, because usually, they have failed at being all three.

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Now in your mind visualize the average extreme feminist who is philosophically against women receiving those labels. When you see one face to face you get why they are so against those things. It's like a group of guys with small dicks going on an all out propoganda crusade against large men.

[–]Singulaire 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They were comparing how we remembered her to how we remember male scientists and politicians.

Funny, I could swear Marlon Brando is remembered in large part for how sexy he was.

[–]Ambrosita 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Censorship is a primary tool of the social justice agenda. It's disgusting.

[–]mattXIX 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I got banned from r/Conservative for questioning then got "silenced" when messaged the mods asking why. They are all about social justice over there

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I also did, and I'm a conservative.

It was about a year or so ago and one of the mods said something completely idiotic about renaming bases or whatever... I can't remember exactly what I said but it was essentially that I thought it was stupid, who cares if a base is renamed. The mod said it was because I spoke 'from authority', I honestly thought at first that he was ESL so I tried to explain it to him, but after a couple of back and forth messages it became evident that it was because I disagreed with him, and not because of anything else.

So I accepted it. It's only a subreddit, no big deal.

[–]Thangleby_Slapdiback 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm banned from /r/liberal because I spoke highly of Jill Stein and poorly of Hillary Clinton. I was muted when I messaged the mods asking why they banned me. No response. Simply muted.

[–]HellaBrainCells 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's a little like r/The_Donald over there. If you don't say something about centipede meme MAGA wall then you are gone

[–]Tiny311 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Its even worse in r/enoughtrumpspam. They ban you for literally anything. Someone posted a huge rant about how reddit was ruined and this and that, and that he would never visit the site again after the election. I asked him why he would wait around if he hates it so much and i got banned. Im not even subbed to r/the_donald or r/politics. It was just a post on the top of r/all

[–]Roxas-The-Nobody 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Hello from r/All

It could've been a bot. I remember I was banned from some anti Trump sub because I commented in a Trump sub. Told someone they used a word wrong and got banned. The Mod told me it was a bot.

[–]Taylor1391 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But the mod didn't tell me anything, that's the point. I asked why about two weeks ago and got no answer.

[–]Roxas-The-Nobody 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're like "ewwwww, cooties"

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I got banned from enoughtrumpspam even though I've never posted there. I'm just subbed to the Donald so I think they automatically banned me.

[–]RogueTrombonist 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I commented on a post asking about male sexual assault simply saying that I was also interesting in the question the OP was asking. I'm neither a men's rights activist nor a strong anti-feminist per-say - I just like to keep myself informed on different movements and political strains of thought.

I did ask the mods and they responded! They said I was banned for "off-topic content". I was then muted by the moderator. If you read the rules, they can ban you for anything which doesn't reflect a "feminist perspective". I suspect the mods are more strict about (or even bend) what constitutes a "feminist perspective" if they see that a user is subbed here, but I don't know for sure.

I frequently disagree with content posted on this sub. Sometimes I will even post my (often nuanced, and only partial) disagreements as a comment. Typically I get one or more well-thought-out responses which demonstrate an actual understanding of my views and address my specific points. I have learned, reconsidered many of my views, and even changed some because of these conversations. I usually don't even get down-voted into oblivion. For this I am thankful and encouraged.

[–]FortuneGear09 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

It'll get you banned from latestagecapitalism as well.

[–]IDoNotHaveTits 78 points79 points80 points 9 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

What's the correlation between socialism and anti-men's rights? Those subs are ridiculous. Socialism is about social equality, unfortunately the teenagers over there think that feminism and Marxism are about superiority.

[–]FortuneGear09 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

As I was told per the mods, as close to verbatim as I can recall, it's because our capitalist society was created by the same pigs that created and help the patriarchy endure. Since you are obviously an opponent of feminism in every facet, you therefore support patriarchy, and therefore support capitalism.

I didn't bother asking if they will kick people with religious affiliations under the same logic.

I'd like to note the mods weren't jerks about it, they've responded to all my comments.

[–]xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

God, all those socialist subs are such a circlejerk.

[–]MTMzNw__ 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Men's rights doesn't necessarily mean opposition to feminism though lol.

[–]Badgerz92 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/r/socialism cares more about hating men than they do about socialism. As a socialist MRA it sucks, but /r/BasicIncome can be a good sub that focuses on economic issues without the hateful identity politics

[–]torrentfox 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Someone probably went through your comment history. I actually had some healthy conversations on r/feminism until one day I found myself banned. I hadn't broken any rule, or said anything controversial.

There are better places to have gender related conversations with people who aren't necessarily MRAs. /r/FeMRADebates is one. /r/masculism is another, but approaches men's issues from a feminist perspective - not something I personally find healthy, since I refuse to feel responsible for someone else's sins. Still, you can engage with people there without much fear of hostility, as long as you're respectful.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Questioning there ideology is enough to get banned.

Normally you don't get a chance to post a follow up reply to the initial statement.

This whole Trump thing must be tough on them.

[–]TheMarlBroMan 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you kidding? In their minds it's validation of their warped worldview. They couldn't be happier.

[–]TheForgottenOne_ 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They really ban you over nothing at all. It is a joke of a subreddit. The only way they can spread their non-sense is by silencing anyone that slightly disagrees or who might disagree.

[–]KombatWombat1 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I've been banned for commenting on various subreddits. Commented on the_donald then a week or two later on latestagecapitalism or something like that. Was instabanned.

[–]Taylor1391 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I commented on tumblr in action and got banned from off my chest. The whole thing is pretty screwed up.

[–][deleted] 161 points162 points163 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

Seems strange that someone would be interested in both men's and women's rights. I thought you were only allowed to be for one or the other.

[–]Vertical807 116 points117 points118 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Not according to feminists, to them you "have to" be a feminist in order to believe in equality for both sexes.

[–]th3_cookie 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

I've always had a problem with the word "feminist". They preach about it being for both sexes equality but the word itself leads me to assume its only about womens rights. Why not use the word Equalist or something?

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BEEF_ANTHONY 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Quote from the movie 100 Girls:

Ms. Stern, I'm sick of coming into your class three days a week... and hearing my sex is responsible for all the problems in the world. You don't give us any room for questioning. Part of the problem is feminist. There's just too many "ist". Feminist, chauvinist, capitalist, communist, racist, sexist. They fight one another, instead of trying to understand one another. The only "ist" that should be are humanists.

[–]v3n0m0u5 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well the feminists have already turned egalitarian into a bad word too so...

[–]Daedalus871 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Equalists are apparently a thing. Surprisingly enough, they also believe pretty much exactly that.

[–]th3_cookie 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Now that's a movement i can get behind.

[–]Vacbs 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Because egalitarian sounds less silly.

[–]blindcomet 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well you see the game doesn't work unless you accept the framing that only women suffer hardship, and need help towards equality.

[–]baskandpurr 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because they aren't for both sexes equally. Feminism is about equality for women. In that sense, "equality" is defined by women getting something they don't have now or men being denied something. The dictionary definition even makes the for women bit explicit and no feminist ever says that it's mistaken. Just check the Wikipedia page.

[–]openup91011 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly that's why I usually don't entertain conversations with others face to face about being an advocate for men's rights. I'm a mixed woman who plans on being childfree and unmarried. Whenever I've been stupid enough to mentioned that to a "feminist" I can almost see their head explode.

I believe can be both. I don't believe in subscribing to the "type" of feminism that automatically puts me at total odds with men. I also don't think being an MRA means I'm automatically against women.

[–]Source_or_gtfo 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a special sub for those who wish to discuss "men's issues" (note how it's not men's rights or sexism against men) under feminist supervision, I guess they'd prefer people went there?

[–]ThePigmanAgain 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I got a pre-emptive ban. I had never visited the place, but suddenly one day there was a message in my inbox telling me i had been banned from posting or commenting! Presumably they went through our sub looking for especially deplorable MRAs and i was found worthy!

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They'll also ban you if you post a top-level comment and they find out you're not female. Source: happened to me a few years back.

[–]drazzy92 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Wow, Men's Rights has more subscribers than Feminism! I'm so happy to see that the majority of redditors aren't idiots.

[–]denyjunctionfunction 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't get subscribers when you ban them all.

[–]Throwawayingaccount 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't turn off the subreddit style? Ugh, I can't blame them for banning you.

[–]denyjunctionfunction 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm usually on mobile so I never change that kind of thing.

[–]Romantic_Anal_Rape 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I still can't work out why I was banned!

[–]thetrumpetplayer 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It could have been...... ummmmm.... your.... never mind.

[–]ReadyToStopForGood 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Subbing to T_D also does that. T_D has a lot of crossover with Men's rights...but you'll find a lot of women in T_D who also support it.

[–]ttnorac 977 points978 points979 points 9 years ago (123 children) | Copy Link

"Feeling safe" is how we ended up with the TSA and their useless security theatre.

[–]entlemansuitor 244 points245 points246 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

TSA = Thousands Standing Around

[–]Dudist_PvP 88 points89 points90 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

or my personal favorite: "Taking Stuff Away"

[–]Grandmaofhurt 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Taxes Spent Asininely

[–]Stephen1985 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Touched Sisters Ass

[–]Mas_Gask 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Touching Syrian Asses

[–]QueenoftheDirtPlanet 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It isn't useless, it's worse than useless... it's authoritarian overreach that cows people. I hate the stress and the fear every time I have to fly. As if being in the air wasn't horrible enough they have to violate the fourth amendment to remind you who owns you.

[–]Dreizu 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's even worse than that. The TSA checkpoints are prime targets for terrorists. Instead of having people spread around waiting for their flight to depart, they're shuffled into a narrow "security screening" area.

[–]ApatheticGardenGnome 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (94 children) | Copy Link

No. That's an attempt to actually keep us safe. It may not be perfect. Or very effective at stopping actual attacks but I guarantee that its mere existence has prevent a lot of attacks from even being attempted.

[–]IceTwenty 117 points118 points119 points 9 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the idea behind the TSA was good, but it's just so fucking horribly implemented and full of incompetence that it's hardly noticeable what (if any) positive impact it's had.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]wOlfLisK 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's actually true. Hijackings are basically impossible because cockpit doors are locked. So instead they have to just bomb the plane and kill... a few hundred people at best? That's assuming they actually take it down which is unlikely as bombs would have to be tiny to get it on board. You're probably looking at a dozen deaths and maybe a depressurisation as a worst case scenario.

But the security lines? Major airports at peak times are packed. Hundreds of people crammed into a 100m2 area to go through a dozen checkpoints. Bags aren't checked before the bag checkpoint, there's no need to smuggle anything in. Just wait in line for 10 minutes and boom.

[–]AsteroidsOnSteroids 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, the TSA doesn't catch terrorists because they literally let 95% of contraband through even when they are warned beforehand that undercover agents will be trying to get things through that day.

[–]theunitedguy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They could just target the people waiting in the long line

[–]guncha 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Until a "pants bomber" walks through and now everyone has to take their pants off at the security. Maybe no terrorists are getting caught because there simply aren't that many terrorists to begin with.

[–]thefirephoenix544 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The TSA has done nothing. Literally nothing.

[–]AsteroidsOnSteroids 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They've taken billions of tax dollars and lined the pockets of crooked politicians and businessmen. That's something.

[–]BossRedRanger 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also they've stolen luggage items and molested thousands of people.

[–]ByTheHammerOfThor 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You know how you know this is true? If they stopped even one guy, we'd never hear the end of it. I can't think of one terror attack they've actually stopped.

[–]ttnorac 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

No, the actual TSA does nothing to protect us. Adam Ruins Everything did a great show on how the TSA makes us less safe.

I would wager the TSA has never stopped a single terrorist attempt.

[–]flee_market 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That's an attempt to actually keep us safe. It may not be perfect

99% ineffective is a long, long way from merely "imperfect".

For the intents and purposes of actual security, the TSA might as well not exist.

The only difference it makes is how early you have to show up for your flight, and how much money gets shoveled into a private corporation.

[–]ByTheHammerOfThor 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Counter argument: look at the Brussels airport attack. I know this will get me on a list, but:

If you want to shut down an airport and hurt a lot of people, an airport right before security is a soft target. You can bring in huge suitcases filled with anything (because you haven't even started the screening process). There are a bunch of people packed together and you're at a transportation hub. Maximum disruption without having to defeat any security.

I actually take comfort in this when I fly. I really, honestly don't believe that the terror threat is all that common/real. Because literally anyone could carry out that attack and yet it never fucking happens. So if these soft targets exist throughout the country and no one ever hits them, my conclusion is at least one of two things: 1) the NSA and CIA are fucking amazing and catch these guys wayyyyy before they even get to the airport and then never take credit so they can keep catching the next guy. And 2) the TSA is a mother fucking joke. A really expensive, civil liberty-eroding joke.

Tl;dr When you go to an airport, even before you get on the plane, you're surrounded by unscreened strangers with unscreened bags. But nothing bad ever happens. Because it's all a boogeyman.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ByTheHammerOfThor 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"You cant take that bottle of water on the plane."

"Why?"

"It might be a bomb."

"So...I should put it in this trash can surrounded by people waiting in line even though it might be a bomb?"

"Yes."

[–]treasrang 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boot licking piece of shit.

[–]Noodle-Works 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is a bad attempt, and mostly theater. Asking a 80 year old grandpa to take of his shoes and belt is ridiculous and does nothing but make us "feel safe" because, "well, if we all have to do it, we'll catch the Bad Guys!"

All security checks can be fooled if you're determined enough. A guy in my section for NFL games brings in 1/8th of whiskey in a fairly large flask every game. We go through metal detectors and security checks our bags.

Tell me you couldn't sneak anything dangerous if you really wanted to. Its all theater, and of course, security to force you to purchase $5 waters, $9 beer and $15 burgers.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (360 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]PurWhip 1356 points1357 points1358 points 9 years ago (130 children) | Copy Link

But I thought feminism was fighting for women AND men?? At least that's what they always insist when you criticise their movement. Hypocrites.

[–]Anti-Marxist- 496 points497 points498 points 9 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

I'm just glad they're open and honest about what feminism is. Next time someone tries tell you that feminism is for men too, link them to that rule

[–]Jarwain 172 points173 points174 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

So different people can have different interpretations of what a movement represents, and encourage that interpretation. That doesn't mean that everyone who subscribes to the movement subscribes to the same interpretation, however.

Although then people start running into the No True Scotsman issue when the interpretations conflict

[–]Stoppels 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

So different people can have different interpretations of what a movement represents, and encourage that interpretation. That doesn't mean that everyone who subscribes to the movement subscribes to the same interpretation, however.

These people lead the feminist movement on Reddit, I think it's safe to say their interpretation trumps dissenting voices, since the other voices will be banned unless they rectify their wrong behavior.

Neo-feminism in a nutshell.

[–]DarkSoulsMatter 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You'd be surprised at just how many damn people cannot use the extremely simple logical process you just made use of. The scarcity of that very basic concept is the source of all racism, sexism, political party bullshit.. all of that craziness that you see almost every day in all circles. It's maddening. As if the fact that you can categorize someone into a group completely negates their status of being an individual with differing characteristics.

[–]XGC75 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I watched a video on /r/media_criticism recently (probably still on their first page) where the video narrator tore down the tenancy towards racial categorization of the reporter based on his apparent political categorisations. It's not that there wasn't a good argument for him to make, but he didn't choose those arguments. Just kept spouting different derogatory names for liberals.

[–]Lonelythrowawaysnug 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Every feminist participating in that sub reddit despite that rule is, at least, complicit with that stance in their circle.

[–]RevolutionaryNews 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Next time someone tries to tell me what Protestantism is about, I'll just send them to the KKK website.

Come on, that makes for some good karma but in reality your logic is irrational. Gotta remember that a world exists outside of reddit.

[–]Snailic 141 points142 points143 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

No. Egalitarianism is equal rights for all, men and women, regardless of race/ethnicity. Feminism literally has "feminine" as the root.

[–]Plaeggs 113 points114 points115 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Feminism was formed under the basis of bringing women to be equal to men, when they were not. It has, though, been taken too far in some cases, going to a sort of supremacy.

[–]TacticusThrowaway 62 points63 points64 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mainstream Feminism has never addressed women's privileges over men. It just kinda talks around them, even when discussing 'toxic masculinity'. Heck, good luck getting them to call it 'sexism'.

[–]Its_not_him 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Yes, in some cases. There are still pertinent issues women face today, just as there are for men. We shouldn't let extreme cases define the entire movement.

[–]PinkySlayer 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

And what would those issues be? I can't think of a single issue that first world feminists crusade against that has a factual basis. If you know of some that I'm not aware of I'd be happy to hear about them, though.

[–]Snailic 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair enough, you are correct with that being the original idea. But, the extremists have ruined it and brought it to what it is now.

[–]Jarwain 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I'd think the extremists ruined how you perceive it, I don't think everyone agrees with the spin that extremists put on it

[–]Lord_Wrath 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. I told my friend that I was egalitarian and she then went on to say that Feminism and Egalitarianism both want rights for all people. My eyes almost bounced off the back of my skull. The neo-feminist movement hardly gives a shit about women of colour; let alone a teenage refugee boy or the struggling undocumented gardener. They're completely disillusioned.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, that would be equalism. Is /r/equalism a sub? It should be.

[–]Z0di 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

4th wave feminism.

[–]cbnyc0 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sort of like Jaws 3.

[–]QueenoftheDirtPlanet 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

you are thinking of egalitarianism, which feminism is not

[–]BossRedRanger 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A wise person once said, "the worst thing to happen to the Women's Rights movement was Feminism."

[–]manak69[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When women say feminism includes both men's and women's rights, you then ask them where have the fought for men's rights before? Where have they stood up for the issues men face today?

[–]TwelfthCycle 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They just want to subsume men's rights. They don't actually want to deal with them. It's basic politicking. Bring in the people and leave the issues at the door.

[–]666Evo 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Didn't you know? r/feminism aren't real feminists.

[–]ComradeAri 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, they won the race to secure the name.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sharuumium 106 points107 points108 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

-George Orwell

[–]paracelsus23 69 points70 points71 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even one of their rules is hypocritical

 /r/feminism 

Your point?

[–]OddCrow 144 points145 points146 points 9 years ago (134 children) | Copy Link

It's a subreddit FOR feminism, though.

It's like being upset that you can't post diet advice on r/food, they might be related but that's not really why it's there.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (85 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

I would consider this an analogy to black lives matter vs. all lives matter.

The black lives matter movement is dedicated to raising awareness about problems faced as a race.

Though the all lives matter movement has good intent, and we can all clearly see it, it does muddy the original movement. We start to see problems as a society and work to solve them together.

Some problems can't be solved "as a society," though, because that's simply not how some people think. We tell our conservative grandparents about "all lives matter" and they might think "yeah! Except the blacks!"

It's very relevant to the feminism movement. I live in the middle of San Francisco -- the one place in the states most known for its cushy, SJW tendencies -- and I'm still blown away by how many men think (this is a real quote) "it's wrong" for women to be making more than men, and how they wouldn't stay in a relationship where that was happening.

We can't tell these people "everyone should make the same money!" To people like you and I, who already agree, of course. It makes sense. Nothing more needs to be said.

These people need to have it explicitly said to them. Equally qualified women aren't making as much money as men in some industries, and it's a problem.

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points90 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

The black lives matter movement is dedicated to raising awareness about problems faced as a race.

Though the all lives matter movement has good intent, and we can all clearly see it, it does muddy the original movement. We start to see problems as a society and work to solve them together.

That's because most of the things they moan about aren't exclusive to black people, they just want to see it that way. Victim culture.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you've seen the bigger problems for yourself. Maybe in your part of the country, maybe in your circle of friends and family, that doesn't happen. Really, that is great.

It simply does. And it's extremely disheartening that you would turn a blind eye to it -- You haven't witnessed it yourself, so surely it doesn't happen? Surely they brought this on themselves, right?!

I lived near Ferguson MO for awhile. I have met the most outstanding people who are quietly hated by the people around them. I have dated a girl with a cop for a father, who constantly gripes and complains about niggers, and whose mother who did whatever processing at a local jail, openly discussing how she treated black people like children to put them in their place.

I dated another girl who was coerced out of a relationship with a black guy because her parents disapproved.

If you can't at least consider this might be a real problem, then I don't know what to tell you. Continue living in your happy bubble.

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

BLM = Feminism? Its founder is a cop killer on the FBI's most wanted list. Their "protests" typically involve bodily harm to people, property destruction and chanting support for death and disorder. Their leaders constantly encourage the same. :(

Hmm, not too unlike feminist "protests". You might be onto something there.

Also, your "quote" from some random man is complete and total bullshit.

The harm BLM, and rad-fem activists cause is not.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

(this is a real quote) "it's wrong" for women to be making more than men, and how they wouldn't stay in a relationship where that was happening.

A quote by who?

[–]irunovereverycatisee 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

how many men think (this is a real quote) "it's wrong" for women to be making more than men, and how they wouldn't stay in a relationship where that was happening.

Pfft. Send them my way then. If a woman makes more than me, I'm gonna hold on even harder. This is a capitalist country, not gonna get ahead by sticking to outdated notions.

[–]73297 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Nah because they simultaneously state that all men's rights issues must be addressed through the field of feminism

So this is the quandary, men must pursue their grievance through feminism but feminism can't by definition accept male problems

Of course to feminists this isn't an issue because men don't deserve help

[–]TacticusThrowaway 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They deserve precisely as much help as feminists are willing to give, and no more. And they'd better not complain about it. /s

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because it's off topic on /r/food but you can't have a subreddit about sexual equality for women and not have discussion on men also seeing as that's who you're supposed to be trying to be equal with.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

You have a point, somewhat. But you can't define feminism in a vacuum without men's issues too. From the definition on a google search for feminism

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

So to say that men's issues don't belong in there totally ignores the context of the situation. Just because it's not perfect for women, doesn't mean we should ignore all other groups problems even if that other group has it worse. The focus may not be on men's issues, but you have to put things in context.

I think the problem is that with some issues you'll have somebody come and say "well it's not perfect for insert other group here either." I think both sides are guilty of complaining about the burnt food in their oven while their neighbor's house is on fire.

[–]TacticusThrowaway 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that feminism doesn't like to admit men have gender equality issues, much less that female privilege is a thing. Also, it constantly acts like rape erasure only happens to women raped by men. It uses sexist language by its own stated standards, then yells at people who point it out.

[–]IArePant 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree with them on much, but I can honestly understand that. Detracting from an issue one group has by trying to highlight another group that has it the same or worse is a logical fallacy. It also doesn't really add to any conversation. It would be pretty annoying if someone did that about men's issues.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TwelfthCycle 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I didn't think people were allowed to talk about black culture. I thought we wuz all just racist. Even the black cops. All racist. Never anybody done anything wrong.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TwelfthCycle 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Does black lives matter have a non-extreme side? I thought they just ran around finding assholes and burning down black cities.

Seems like everyone they champion is a guarenteed dirt bag who was in the wrong. BLM has a magical ability to pick the loser every time.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Only Women have real problems"

[–]mightylordredbeard 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a bubble. It's their own little safe place on Reddit where they can go to circle-fingerbang each other without others infringing on their "right to feel safe".

[–]Chriscftb97 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do you need to? That sub isn't about men facing certain issues, it's about women.

[–]Voidrith 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet youll get banned for posting in most of those 'other subreddits'.

[–]p3ngwin 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

talk about a persecution complex....

[–]LlamaTheBountyHunter 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that there's a lot of hipocrisy on that sub, but this isn't a good example. It's like /r/gaming has a rule that posts must be related to gaming. It's a feminism sub so of course it's going to be limited to discussion of female rights.

[–]sillymod[M] [score hidden] 9 years ago stickied comment (63 children) | Copy Link

This kind of post is normally removed as it violates our subreddit policies. However, I have been travelling and didn't see it. At this point, with the number of participants and comments, removing it would also have a detrimental effect to that valuable discussion. As a result, I will be leaving this up.

Those who continue to report it won't be satisfied with the response.

[–]skankboy 136 points137 points138 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Those who continue to report it won't be satisfied with the response." LOL

[–]Boston_Jason 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Those who continue to report it won't be satisfied with the response.

Care to share the reports? I bet there is some gold in there.

[–]sillymod 92 points93 points94 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

6: <no reason>
4: Threatening, harassing, or inciting violence
1: how to be a contrarian asshat
1: Safe space shaming
1: Cry more sexists
1: cuck
1: Post about bannings by other moderators
1: This isnt mens rights
1: #2
1: MAGA!!!!
1: We should stop focusing on women and focus on men's rights instead.
1: I thought "banned from" posts were against the rules?
1: you absolute do have a right to feel safe assholes
1: Threatens, harasses, or bullies
1: I'm male and you are all fucking idiots
1: No posts about bannings by other moderators
1: You guys are sad
1: Personal and confidential information
1: this has nothing to do with men's rights
1: OP was not born with a right to post in /r/feminism, so why is he complaining? Deal with it.

[–]Boston_Jason 74 points75 points76 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

1: OP was not born with a right to post in /r/feminism, so why is he complaining? Deal with it.

my sides!

Someone put a MAGA in there!

[–]haragoshi 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

my genitals!

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JohnFrusciante70 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These are great, thank you

[–]wicknest 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"This hurts my feelings!"

[–]overtmind 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for taking a nuanced approach to moderation instead of 'zero tolerance.' Says a lot about the moderator corps of this subreddit.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. You're the best kind of silly mod.

[–]AloysiusC[M] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I saw it earlier but there was already an interesting discussion in it about when people should have the right to feel safe and what society can or should strive for.

It's basically one of those situations where the value is in the comments, not the post.

[–]simjanes2k 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Man what kind of Nazi are you, anyway? GTFO with logic and basic decency. You must have not eaten your morning ration of babies.

<3

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE GANDOLF STORMCROW

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE!

[–]saccharind 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice, thanks to this post and /r/all I have a mod queue of about 200 to get through.

[–]uptokesforall 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i respect your thoughtful moderation. I feel safe in this thread.

[–]im_a_little_tea_pot 503 points504 points505 points 9 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

I don't actually agree with what OP says in his argument. However, it is a valid argument and I don't see why he should be banned for it. So I tried to post a PNG of this, with the title "Is it right to ban people we don't agree with". Guess what? I got banned.

[–]whacafan 334 points335 points336 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure the person was saying that even if we lived in a perfect society where nothing literally ever went wrong and no one was ever hurt there would still be people that didn't feel safe. They're saying the government can't provide you an emotion. They can try but they cannot actually do it.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SaloL 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So what's the "thing" to strive for? Or rather, how will you know you've achieved that goal (of "making everyone feel safe," or however you would put it)?

[–]CoIossuz 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is unattainable, unless we have some kind of mass-hypnosis where everyone is supposed to have the same set of morals, principle and beliefs. The world we live in, the real one, these are always in conflict. So how would you ever know if any action you made or took universally measured out to be right one..?

Humans fluctuate between feeling certain emotions every so often, unbeknownst to us when they will change, it's one of our basic functions. The government would never be able to guarantee or provide for us with a certain emotion we want to feel or not feel. If we want to achieve that goal, of everyone feeling as safe and equal as anyone else, we would have to rid of our own emotions.

Safe space and equilibrium, really it's quite silly because we will never be able to satiate that need.

Or maybe I just thought about this for too long so my train of thought has become twisted haha....Just a shame that I can't come up with something actually constructive.

[–]Wauwosaurus 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like some Naruto "Infinite Tsukyomi" shit.

Sorry for my nerd talk, it's very similar though.

[–]Pissed_2 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When you strive for happiness, how do you know you've reached your goal? What is happiness? It's not cut and dry. The "goal" of striving for a society where people feel safe isn't clearly attainable or an objective endeavor but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. And it definitely doesn't mean that we don't make efforts to attain happiness.

I would argue that one of the most fundamental desires of a human is the desire to feel safe. If we take that as true, then we can extend it to the way we want our societies to function. We want them to function in such a way that supports the fundamental desires of humans, while not infringing on other humans. One of those desires is to feel safe so we implement laws to protect our safety. It's hard to divorce the feeling of safety from actual safety.

But that might be different than what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is more along the lines of: should people claiming that they feel unsafe about something always be regarded as something important to recognize as a legitimate societal issue? I think the answer is clearly no. If I feel unsafe about ham sandwiches they should not be banned. If some feel unsafe about clowns, clowns should not be banned. If many feel unsafe about rapists, then they should be banned. Where do we draw the line? It should be drawn, but where?

My point is that it's unfair for someone to say, "We should strive for the feeling of safety" then get the response, "How will we know that we have achieved the goal of feeling safe?"

We strive for things all the time where there's no clear goals. Like being successful.

[–]Por_Naccount 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You strive to make things actually be safe. What happens next is in the human mind. If you live in a place that objectively is safe, well, you'll probably subjectively feel safe too. If you don't, there's dick all the government can do about it that it hasn't already done.

[–]whacafan 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No he didn't. He said it isn't attainable based on the reasons I was saying and then he said that they should strive for safety. But he didn't say that they shouldn't also strive for the other thing.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]liableAccount 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I really don't understand what we would gain out of striving to feel safe. How you feel safe, is entirely subjective. Asking one entity to govern this leaves a wide debate about how to do it and ultimately stirs up a shitstorm, with people disagreeing and becoming irate because they feel they're not listened to. Even when you reach an understanding, it's not as if the entire world will be appreciative of it, which may lead to you feeling unsafe when you leave the safe space you've become part of. Which, in turn, creates a domino effect leaving people to question what actually makes them feel safe and somewhat second guessing their own beliefs. But who's to say that they aren't right already and that the narrative is completely different because of different cultures?

To top it all off, who gets to decide who is in charge of this? There are many sides to each debate and no one is truly neutral.

It's a difficult subject, no one has the correct answer and it's not in a societies interest to find the definitive answer as there simply isn't one. There are much more important things we could be doing as a society than this.

[–]Denadias 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because feeling safe is not the same as being safe, we should strife for everyones lives being safe.

It would be nice for everyone to also feel safe, it would also be nice if there was no violence. Both are good things to hope for but are impossible to achieve, we should not waste time striving towards something that is impossible.

Things arent as bad as many may think in the states (statistics back this up) but that doesnt mean there isn´t lot of work to be done before we can say it´s totally safe (if that´s even possible) same goes for every single nation on this planet.

[–]swohio 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He said they didn't have a right to feel safe as in there is no law nor is there a way to make a law to ensure someones personal perceived feelings.

[–]NoTwoPencil 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I also disagree.

Should society strive for it? Absolutely.

but

Can government guarantee it? Not really.

Failing to make this distinction can really muddy the argument.

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points77 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I think he's 100% correct. We shouldn't make laws to make someone feel anything. That's some Orwellian shit. Make laws that help people be safe. We can't help how they feel.

Bottom line is, these types of "feminists" (in quotes for obvious reasons) are completely safe in their day-to-day lives, but they don't feel safe and they think that's someone else's problem.

If I don't feel happy, I don't go complaining to law makers about it. I jerk off, eat an ice cream cone, and play with my dog. Not necessarily in that order...but very likely.

[–]Dwarfdeaths 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Outsider from /r/all here.

Your distinction between literal safety and feelings of safety as the goal of society breaks down a bit when taken into a larger picture. I would argue that the general goal is to ensure the well-being of citizens, and that is inextricably tied to mental well-being.

For example, if a kid is a victim of cyber-bullying or (non-physical) bullying from his peers, he is still at risk of suicide or other mental health issues. You may think this is his problem to deal with and he should "jerk off, eat an ice cream cone, and play with his dog," but statistically you will get fewer deaths if you institute anti-bullying measures. Essentially, you are making them be safer by making them feel safer.

This connection may become less clear with other societal issues, but the concept that physical well-being and mental well-being are related is absolutely necessary to consider when discussing how things make people feel. The answer isn't necessarily to pander to irrational feelings, but the feelings should still be considered.

And, to your point about considering feelings being Orwellian shit, I would argue that government intervention (laws) necessarily inspire feelings as a response regardless of whether they are taken into consideration. If your goal is to ensure that your policies are effective and lead to the best outcome for people, you should absolutely consider how people will feel about your actions before implementing them.

[–]Aranian 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Addressing those issues would be totally legit, as it addresses the well-being of another (the bullied student). But any law that addresses bullying should/would try to stop the perpetrator (maybe with punishments or sensitivity training) and maybe give counseling to the victim, if the bullying was severe (as that can totally be necessary).
By handling the actual issue it would hopefully also make you feel safer (because the actual crime is actionable, which is difficult currently), but the law itself does not contain any reference to feelings, only actual events/actions.

The difference between the mental health of people and their feelings is also important. Being bullied and put down by others, making you feel depressed I would see as a mental health problem. Feeling unsafe because you could be bullied (but aren't) because the laws are lax: not so much.

[–]outcastded 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The point is just that if you are reasonably safe, then you should feel reasonably safe. That's the assumption that law makers should calculate with. How could they make laws that makes sense otherwise? People will feel all sorts of irrational things, and that is impossible to account for. What about those who don't feel reasonably safe as long as there are still Muslims in the world, or men in the world, or whatever? It's a slippery slope to start accounting for all sorts of irrational feelings in laws, and it may start to infringe on the rights of other groups, or even equality when feminist organisations tries to make women more equal than men.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NebraskaFakeLawyer 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Reddit is turning into a collection of safe spaces.

And all sides are guilty.

[–]33a5t 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Join us at r/4chan, where everyone's a faggot!

[–]OverkillerSRB 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fuck off we're full

[–]ByTheHammerOfThor 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feels > Reals

[–]Aaronsaurus 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I kind agree we should protect people's emotional state (adversity in childhood leads to many social problems). However making 'safe spaces' is more likely to make issues worse. What we need is good education and social services. :/

[–]DeathTrap-Legatron 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I mean if someone said the color red makes them feel unsafe then we shouldn't be obligated to ban the color red but should have social services available for them.

[–]ScotWithOne_t 1096 points1097 points1098 points 9 years ago* (103 children) | Copy Link

Isn't intimidation and coercion illegal? By doing either, you're not physically hurting someone, just making them feel unsafe enough to do your bidding.

So, depending on how you look at it, they may have a point. But shutting down the discussion and banning someone making an opposing point is retarded.

[–]people_watching 882 points883 points884 points 9 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

There's a difference between actively trying to make someone feel unsafe, and society have an obligation to actively try to make you feel safe.

[–]lasciate 315 points316 points317 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Threatening people is already illegal. We're not talking about that, though.

We're talking about people who unironically believe that men should be made to cross the street or loudly announce their intentions when their paths happen to cross a woman's on the sidewalk at night. We're talking about people who claim to feel fear of imminent danger whenever confronted by ideas they disagree with. Poll /r/feminism and ask them if they feel "unsafe" when someone reveals they're an MRA during a discussion. You'll find the results enlightening. Sadly, they would only use that as circular evidence that MRAs pose a threat.

To make these people feel safe would require forcibly making all of society into a padded play room where no one is allowed to disagree with their views or even look at them askance.

[–]Nora_Oie 96 points97 points98 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Actually, it goes even further. Many people have irrational fears (such as of having to speak in front of a class or of reading Huckleberry Finn).

We already have a system whereby if said frightened person goes to the disabled students center, they can use their anxiety/phobia to make a prof change an assignment.

But to generally work it so that every single person's fears are addressed, well, that will pit people against each other and make everyone crazy.

"People who won't read Mark Twain make me anxious and fearful."

[–]Medarco 57 points58 points59 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But to generally work it so that every single person's fears are addressed, well, that will pit people against each other and make everyone crazy.

Exactly. Once we start accepting everyone's fears and "safe feelings" we get into some really weird paradoxes. Say I am Transphobic. Do I have the right to feel safe, guaranteed by society, by keeping trans people away from me? What if I feel unsafe around black people. Is it ok for me to not hire them, or serve them in my store?

Obvious answers are no, but those are really easily understood examples of how convoluted that thinking gets.

[–]11415142513152119 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This so much

[–]birdhustler 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

We're talking about people who unironically believe that men should be made to cross the street or loudly announce their intentions when their paths happen to cross a woman's on the sidewalk at night.

That's pretty ridiculous. Do the redditors of this sub realize that people who say these things are hiding behind "feminism" as an excuse for mental instabilities? MRAs get a bad reputation, as do feminists like this, but I hope it's understood that most sane people (of either gender) would laugh at requests like that.

[–]lasciate 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Too often feminists shield and validate such people rather than challenge them.

[–]rpad 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A great number of politicians might have gotten elected because they promised more safety for their voters. Or bad safety perception can prevent them from being reelected. So feeling safe in public is not an empty phrase, or a topic without consequences.

You might feel unsafe in a foreign country as a tourist, even if they tell you that the local police is doing their job. It might not be rational from you, but you will probably avoid visiting that country again. So perception of safety is important not just to you, but to the place you are visiting, because they want you to feel safe and come back.

[–]iopq 167 points168 points169 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Someone can FEEL unsafe with you doing nothing.

[–]elebrin 78 points79 points80 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And some paranoid folks will always feel unsafe, or use their feelings as a reason to do really shitty things to other people.

[–]fds_alex 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cue the creation of the TSA

[–]Humankeg 88 points89 points90 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

The woman in college feeling uneasy around the man that looked like the person that raped her, so she had the university put some type of restraining order on him from her. Even though he had no contact ever with her prior to that.

Edit: link http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398852/student-banned-areas-campus-resembling-classmates-rapist-katherine-timpf

[–]ScotWithOne_t 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is this a real story? If so, that's ridiculous.

[–]Fala1 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's no evidence of this happening anywhere. It is only mentioned once on the Harvard review forum.
I read a piece by someone who contacted the colleges that fit the description, but they all denied and said it also wasn't policy to do something like that.

Take that as you will.

Personally I believe innocent until proven guilty.

[–]AEsirTro 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn i'd sue the shit out of that school.

[–]InadequateUsername 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

My sisters friend changed universities to avoid seeing her ex-bf, even though they broke up in highschool and she was in her second year.

Large campus, 34k students, different programs. Most wtf thing ever. She wasn't raped or treated poorly in the relationship, their relationship had just came to it's natural conclusion.

just adding to "wtf" things people do.

[–]Nora_Oie 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. A person can be "intimidating" just because they stand at the front of a room or on a stage. So ban teaching and theater.

And god forbid that we have movies and television.

[–]paracelsus23 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"feeling unsafe" is like the ask reddit thread earlier where guys were made to move on an airplane because they were seated next to single children. The fact that a guy's a guy made someone feel unsafe and now there's a rule. Fuck that noise. If someone's threatening or harassing someone that's an actual crime.

[–]InadequateUsername 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

is that really a rule now? The epitome of sexism, chances are a child diddler would already be on the no-fly list.

[–]paracelsus23 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a link to the parent comment. The entire thread is fucked, though. Worth a read but it'll make you rage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5izk5b/what_are_some_common_forms_of_sexism_that_men_face/dbc7rat

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Coercion and blackmail also are activities that involve the threat of violence. Feminist are actually claiming that their feelings - how they are passively interpretation the world around them, is the same as a direct threat of violence. That's like saying, "this black man should be arrested because as a white person I don't feel safe walking down the same street at night time with them."

[–]ScotWithOne_t 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Without context in the OP's screencap, I have no idea to what extreme that discussion going. What was the actual thread about? Intimidation can be a very real thing when the perpetrator is doing nothing illegal as well. Wasn't there an issue with Black Panther members loitering around polling places in the 2014 midterm elections?

[–]Source_or_gtfo 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't intimidation and coercion illegal?

Because a threat of criminal behaviour has been made - which is an objective threat with a feelings-independent reality.

[–]Tturkleton 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I work in a hotel that has a bunch of army spouses going about during the day. Whenever I'm walking to a job or work order they usually see me in the halls and I say my usual "hi how are you" with a smile. Most say hi back but some shuffle back to their room and lock their door and put the night latch. I understand and I want them to keep themselves safe but I'm just a worker walking in the halls. I don't know how I intimidated them

[–]DerangedDesperado 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I kinda feel bad for people like that. It must be a legitimately difficult to go through life like that. Im sure we've all FELT unsafe for no reason but as long as you understand that you're fine. My own example: I made friends with another guy on a bus that was going to far northern Norway. So while were waiting for our return boat me and him kicked around this fishing village. We standing in an isolated spot and suddenly i start thinking this guy could kill me right here and no one would know who did it. I mean its possible, but it just wasnt likely and i had no reason to think that.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They have no point. It's impossible for society to make all of it's citizens feel safe and it's silly to try. Some people are anxious and freaked out by anything. How could you ever make that person feel safe?

Then you have a large number of women being influenced to believe that all men are inherently dangerous. How could you ever make them feel safe? Ban men? Segregate the population by gender?

Then there's the million dollar question, how the fuck am I responsible for your feelings? I don't even fucking know you and I'm supposed to cater to your every whim for you to feel safe? The fuck have you done for me? No, we should never try to legislate behavior. Look at how shit reddit is now because of censoring. Look at how shit universities are now because of censoring. Trying to force people to behave certain ways is shitty and never going to work and if you believe in freedom at all you should be vehemently against it.

[–]CristabelYYC 351 points352 points353 points 9 years ago (108 children) | Copy Link

I have been a feminist since age 9. I was banned for suggesting an abused woman should have left a man who, among other things, got a neck tattoo of her name two months after they met. She ignored red flags, I muttered something about taking responsibility and...banned.

[–]FultonPig 430 points431 points432 points 9 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

Reddit HATES personal responsibility, though. It isn't just limited to /r/feminism. I got banned from /r/LateStageCapitalism for suggesting that people should only have as many kids as they're capable of providing for, because apparently "the State should be able to ensure that everyone is provided for, regardless of income".

[–]magic_gazz 204 points205 points206 points 9 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

I made the mistake of clicking on /r/LateStageCapitalism once. Never again. The level of crazy there is far too high.

[–]FultonPig 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Same here. I went there because I thought one of the pictures of a street market sign that said "daycare for future shoppers of [name of market]" was ridiculous, and I thought that the concept of ingrained capitalistic conditioning was intriguing, but good lord, that community is downright cancerous.

[–]bellringer27 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Wait is it not all satire? I swear to god I thought it was.

[–]FultonPig 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, there are a lot of subs like that. /r/The_Donald, /r/streetwear, /r/LateStageCapitalism, /r/socialism...

[–]Chobeat 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just don't go in the comments. Most of their content is interesting and a decent fraction is quality stuff.

[–]Minusguy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I liked it at first because it gave me a new perspective on capitalism but after I basically said that rich people are just people too I got heavily downovoted. This is just a hate sub, they have a common enemy and they aren't going to do shit about it except for whining.

[–]SmashedBug 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I got banned from /r/latestagecapitalism by saying that I donate blood. No appeal or reason or anything.

[–]Bird_and_Dog 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I knew it! It's a sub run by vampires!

[–]invisiblemovement 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Donate blood? Or sell plasma? Cause I can see them being like "they're literally paying you for blood, hurr durr" but just donating blood would make no sense.

[–]SmashedBug 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Donating. That's all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/4xjsqq/comment/d6g9wwq

I've always donated blood for free. If money is your only reason, something's wrong.

[–]invisiblemovement 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Can't see anything, so they must've deleted/hidden your comment :/

[–]_g_g_g_ 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a liberal but many liberals seem to hate personal responsibility. Reddit is filled with such people.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]harborwolf 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm confused, are you saying that we don't 'victim shame' the girls or some moron that leaves his car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in it?

I'm 99% sure I agree with your ultimate point, I'm just confused as to the wording.

[–]SAImperator 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Late Stage Capitalism is a breeding ground for morons and cretins.

[–]MR_SHITLORD 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I agree with socialism and taking care of everyone but i still think having kids should never be a right. People call me hitler tho, i can't seem to even point out arguments at all

[–]Hahnsolo11 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Having kids if you can support them should be a right, but you shouldn't be surprised when your kids are taken away from you because you are neglectful or abusive. Being a good parent is a big responsibility that you need to accept if you decide to have a kids.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, because that's stupid. Trying to argue that the most basic human right in all of human existence should be a privilege will make you look foolish every time.

[–]semtex87 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Having children you can't support or provide for is not a right. Because that infringes on my rights since I then have to pay for your irresponsible ass.

Arguing otherwise makes you look foolish.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It infringes on your rights by having to pay taxes? You're making 0 sense lol

[–]Noodle-Works 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

personal responsibility is just so.. personal, though. like, you're invading my space by telling me I have to be responsible for stuff. Where is my safe space??

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DerangedDesperado 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The way things are these days everything is cheapened. Racism, bigotry, misogyny, victim blaming, all that shit has been thrown around so much its nearly lost all meaning. People are talking abotu how crazy 2016 has been but im thinking it might just be getting started.

[–]NWVoS 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

People ignore red flags all the time on many issues. And in the case of domestic abuse, well, there are many reasons a victim will stay.

Compelling Reasons Women Stay

[–]Anon_Alcoholc 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why would she need to take responsibility just because she didn't notice or didn't consider certain actions as red flags? It's so easy telling someone that they should've seen what you and others may have seen, but someone who's being abused does not see what you do. Saying someone man or woman who was abused should take responsibility for not seeing certain things is a bit of an dick thing to say. Not noticing something or not understanding why something is not right does not mean that person should be blamed when something horrible happens to them because of it. Hindsight is 20/20 so you hope people learn what some red flags may be or why certain things are red flags but telling them they should take responsibility for what happened to them at the hands of someone else isn't really a great way to go about it.

[–]swohio 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Saying someone man or woman who was abused should take responsibility for not seeing certain things is a bit of an dick thing to say.

A lot of victim blaming can be bad but there is a certain point that reasonable people start to carry some blame. I mean, would you throw on a tux and a gold watch and walk around any of these neighborhoods (Top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in America ) at 3am? Sure you didn't deserve to be attacked and are a victim but can't you admit that maybe being there to begin with was a bad idea?

That's a really obvious case and not all situations are so black and white but is suggesting that people need to think critically about situations really that bad of a thing to suggest?

[–]bangingbew 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Clearly you've never been abused otherwise you would know it is not that easy. But hey whatever, project your own experiences on others. Oh and who the fuck knows the age they became a feminist. Pfft I got you beat bro I was a total feminist at 8 and a liberal at 2.

[–]guy_from_sweden 668 points669 points670 points 9 years ago* (101 children) | Copy Link

Almost all subreddits strive to become echo chambers, while simultaneously condemning them. To be honest, that also includes this one. What seems like a reasonable, justified ban in one subreddit is often easily spun to look very much the opposite in another one.

In this case, OP went into /r/feminism and spoke out against the notion that women have a right to feel safe. To us it looks a lot like OP was banned for saying something that makes perfect sense - you can't just claim that you are supposed to feel safe without a reasonable basis behind it. To them, it probably looks a lot like OP is promoting behaviour that is technically legal but considered sexist. Think stuff like cat calling. If you're a woman walking out during the evening and you pass by a group of men that cat call you - you're going to feel very unsafe although statistically the chances of them doing anything illegal in this situation is very low. That's the type of "feel safe" that /r/feminism consider obvious and that it looked to them as if OP was arguing against, even though I bet most of us in here would agree that no woman should feel unsafe while out and about on her own because other people act like pigs around her.

EDIT: Lots of good responses coming in. Allow me to clarify a few things.

Cat calling as a behaviour should not be outlawed. I believe however that we men have a greater responsibility to speak up against it. Likewise, women cat calling should also be spoken up against. The behaviour isn't harmful per se but it really doesn't fit in a modern society in my opinion. If somebody wants to do it, that is fine I guess? But right now a lot of people seem to be convinced the behaviour is okay.

No, OP should not have been banned. That was sort of the point with this comment. I think both OP and the /r/feminism user had valid thoughts on the matter but due to OP being banned it seems that he had no option to clarify that and make them understand.

And no, I don't actually think this subreddit is ban happy in particular. When I type "strive to become" the word 'subconsciously' fits in there too. What I mean is that hivemind thinking is commonplace here as with most other subs and this caused us to view stuff one sided, as I believe this post to be an example of.

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points77 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Very true, but then that should be the response to him. Banning someone and deleting posts stops conversation and doesn't help your cause. The guy wasn't trolling and typing obsene things, it's not so unreasonable that they should have discussed his opinion and why they think he is wrong.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Banning someone does make your unpaid moderation job easier though. Your method optimises for maximum amount of non-trolls being allowed in to their area, theirs is a time efficient way to keep trolls out quickly and easily without having to waste as much time.

Your method would make sense if one was to assume their goal is outreach but I don't see that being the case. I can't imagine anyone would start with the goal of spreading feminism to non-feminists and deciding the way to do it is to create a subreddit called feminism and be heavy with the ban hammer.

[–]BuccoBruce 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Like someone wouldn't get banned from here for doing the opposite. Lol.

[–]Smitty1017 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They would not, from what Ive seen

[–]semtex87 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

OK well what OP was saying is that the "feeling" of safeness is impossible to codify into law as it's a 100% individually subjective thing. The law is what the post was talking about and OP made an accurate statement and got banned for it.

[–]volkswaggerwagen 66 points67 points68 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

He was arguing that feeling safe isn't a legal matter

[–]rokoviza 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, there is a concept of being reasonable in law. Feeling unsafe reasonably is kind of a legal matter. The law is crafted to please a reasonable person. A person is punished when his crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no clear concept of being reasonably feeling unsafe, but there is a concept of a reasonable suspicion which is quite close in some sense, so it's reasonable to give a thought to their argument.

Of course, the main problem is to determine what is reasonable and what is not. That's why we have judges. To decide whether your feeling of a threat is reasonable or just stupidity on feminist steroids.

[–]VStarffin 101 points102 points103 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

No he wasn't. He very clearly said it wasn't even a goal to strive for. That's just being an asshole, to say that.

Banworthy? Nah. But it's still a dickish thing to say.

[–]Flamin_Eggplant 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think he was saying its not the goverments job to do that, and they really can't do anything about how you feel.

[–]jostler57 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Utopia is always something to strive for, but something we can never fully achieve.

100% safe feelings at all times is a utopian concept that will never come to true fruition.

Closest I can imagine is permanent drugs that simulate safe feelings.

[–]zane17 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He pretty clearly said it isn't a goal for the exact reason that it isn't tangible.

Hopefully we can all realize that if we met in person we would realize how respectable we are to each other's causes. As such understand that he is objectively correct to say that law should only pertain to consistent and objective matters and that you can go fuck yourself.

[–]unitedamerika 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He talking about how "feeling safe" a subjective goal and not achievable. He clearly in favor of people being physically safe and health.

I honestly don't understand why you are strawmanning someone and insulting them. It wasn't even a long post, I don't really see where the misunderstanding could come from.

[–]pm_me_math_proofs 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Statistically, Americans are safer than ever. Of course, being safer doesn't mean safe, but people don't 'feel' safe simply because the standards of safety keep changing.

I'm not trying to make a point here, rather I'm raising a question. Will humans ever truly feel safe? As long as there is murder and rape in the world, people will not feel safe. Is there a future in which humans never commit such crimes while also not being effectively lobotomized? Part of being human is making mistakes (and facing the consequences of those mistakes - like societal condemnation/punishment). How far do we legislate against the ability(/right?) of humans to make mistakes in our pursuit of safety?

Also, scarcity means competition. Competition means people will frequently find it in their self-interest to act against the interest of others in making small micro-decisions in their lives. Preventing people from harming others can be tantamount to preventing people from acting in self-interest. What kind of person exists in a world where nobody feels threatened by another?

[–]StealthTomato 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not explicitly. He never mentions legality. It seems like he's trying to get banned by making it ambiguous.

Free speech is a right, but it's not a legal one unless the government infringes upon it.

[–]simjanes2k 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Free speech is also a concept disassociated with the way it is protected and enforced in the United States constitution. As in, the ability to have a dissenting opinion without a culture crushing it through means other than legal prosecution.

Which is why banning people from a sub for disagreeing is not illegal, but it is shitty. And calling it shitty is okay.

[–]StealthTomato 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Going into a sub intentionally trying to get banned so you can post about it on an opposing sub is also pretty shitty, but, well, here we are.

[–]Kyrond 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There quite a few comments discussing the actual problem of feeling safety and laws about that.

About the ban, why not discuss the issue, not ban the user?
If I assume (possibly wrong) the interaction is the whole picture, there should be arguments from both sides and if he advocates for terrorism/assault, then ban him.

[–]Hamakua 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It does not include this one - and it's a golden mean fallacy to suggest it.

There are very few bannings on this subreddit and those that happen tend to be directed not towards critics or those with opposing views, but those who seek to use the sub as a platform for either advertizement (old school manhood101 spam) or seeking to bring irrelevent topics up over and over after many warnings (we had a ron paul poster who would spam political ron paul talking points weaved very slightly into MR issues, think 99% ron paul, 1% maybe MR). and the only censorship that happens is when it could get the sub itself banned.

Just because feminists choose not to participate on this sub - in general - does not mean they aren't allowed to, as a matter of fact they are welcomed to. Most don't at this point because any and every single argument they could ever come up with was already debated ad-nauseum years ago on this sub - and most ended up being top-voted /r/all submissions.

This subreddit does not strive to become an echo chamber and I challenge you to provide objective evidence that it does.

[–]Lindsiria 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

This should be at the top of the thread. It won't be though as it's too logical and not enough hate against feminists.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]deschutron 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's currently at 4th place, whatever that means.

[–]Fascists_Blow 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Huh. Apparently there is some common sense in this subreddit after all.

[–]Sushiandcat 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Female 50 here, I tend to agree that ensuring people are safe is more important than trying to make them feel safe. I think being safe is a generic male and female, adult and child, issue but what makes someone feel safe is an individual issue. I don't think we can guarantee anyone's safety but we should strive to create a society where everyone is valued and in that valuation people are made safe because if you value something you tend to protect it and keep it safe. I think it was inappropriate to ban you for raising a point of view which was not particularly offensive, derogatory or anti women.

[–]Xavenne 179 points180 points181 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

What does this have to do with Men's Rights? Aren't we pro-men's rights, not anti-feminism?

[–]SkyGuppy 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot of feminists claiming feminism means equality for all so we don't need a men's rights movement, we should work for men's rights under the umbrella of feminism. It is therefore often discussed here to show ways in which that is an impossible task.

Many MRA's are people who have been feminists but gradually realised men's issues were not acknowledged and if they brought them up they were shunned. Discussion was not allowed. Showing this to a wider audience is an attempt to make more people aware that feminism isn't a neutral place for discussion about equality.

[–]ohms_law 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is exactly why I stopped supporting feminism.

[–]snuffybox 58 points59 points60 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Was thinking the same thing...

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people see at as a black and white issue. It's sad and pathetic.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thenopornographers 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is the most childish (and ignorant) thing I've read all day

[–]ASocialistOnKeyBoard 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Many people (I include) believes that many folks use "Men's Rights Movement" as a platform to bash feminism. And this could be the case for this site since half of the posts do it and the other half tends to focus on the idea that women are taking away the rigths of men or that men are actually the ones who are worst off in life.

So, if you ask me, this site is not pro Men's Rigths is Anti-feminist.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many people (I include) believes that many folks use "Men's Rights Movement" as a platform to bash feminism

Considering how much feminism bashes men... would it be surprised that a men's rights movement would have much of the same.

I mean, it's not like Men's Rights advocates are setting up rape helplines and telling female victims that if a male raped them, it's not rape, and they must have deserved it. (And I have personally been told this... by a feminist... at a rape helpline... because my rapist was a woman).

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ebonifragaria 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bashing feminism is not the same as hating women.

However, I do agree that the people here too often tend to get into this whole "fucking women amirite" thing. This is why I don't really consider myself a men's rights activist, despite strongly agreeing with the overall position. I don't want to listen to people shit talk women in general; it makes me feel like garbage.

[–]LukaCola 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men need the right to tell women they shouldn't feel a desire to feel safe?

Fuck if I know.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism actively suppresses men.

Look at the family Court system.

Look at the justice system when women commit crimes vs the same outcomes when men do the same.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Haggle4DeezNuts 56 points57 points58 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but men are worth less, if not worthless. It doesn't matter if we are sad or unsafe.

[–]probably_a_squid 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Society is judged by how it treats women. There are two groups of people: the people who matter, and men and boys.

[–]si31[🍰] 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Women feel unsafe more often because they are physically not in a position to put up much of a fight if it comes to that. Sure, you can do martial arts or some women are power lifters and all that but the majority is not and therefore can be overpowered quite easily by the average man.

I'm not saying that there are more crimes committed towards women than men though.

[–]Riktenkay 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not in position to put up much of a fight, I have no training in any kind of self defence and am kind of a weakling. Was around a friend's place the other night and tried lifting some of his weights, and couldn't. A girl that was there with us... could.

I know there's always a chance of being attacked but I don't go around being scared all the time, it's just not something I think about. If it happens it happens, being scared all the time isn't going to help.

Feminism propagates fear, it's constantly telling women how scared they should be (of men).

[–][deleted] 92 points93 points94 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In other news water is wet.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I got banned for something similar. Was having an argument with someone about crime against women (I think?) and how there's never been a safer time for women (or the rest of us) in western civilization. I quoted a few sources proving my point and asked if they truly believe that civilization 20, 50, 100, 250, or 500 years ago was safer?

She replied that my idea and sources were good, but she still feels like she isn't as safe as before and that's all that matters. I was banned shortly after.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

She feels unsafe because a man she perceives as ugly made eye contact with her at Starbucks. Nothing unsafe would ever happen and the man did nothing wrong, but she felt like her world was going to explode.

[–]MR_SHITLORD 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't be scary if the guy was hot tho

I have to work on my smile more..

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly.

[–]Indigoh 115 points116 points117 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

This is dumb, but it's not a Men's Rights thing. Men's Rights are not at war with Women's.

[–]korushi 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, I'm pretty tired of the whole boys vs girls, girls vs boys mindset that's so prevalent on both sides of the internet. The two movements are obviously going to have different outlooks on certain scenarios, but that doesn't make them exclusive.

Advocating women's rights doesn't mean you're trying to withhold men's, much like arguing with a woman doesn't suddenly make your argument pro men's rights either. Yes, I agree the ban was heavy handed. No, I don't agree with banning disconcerting opinions. That doesn't at all make this post relevant.

[–]overtmind 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Advocating women's rights doesn't mean you're trying to withhold men's

I disagree. You can't advocate for women's rights without falling down the rabbit hole of feminism these days, and feminism is objectively about making women protected from men by marginalizing the opposite sex's rights.

[–]babythrowjrr 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't you think you're kind of assuming things here? You CAN advocate for women's rights without being a full-blown feminist. You phrased it as if it's an inevitable thing. About the whole feminism objectively protecting women from men, I disagree. I think it DOES downplay men's rights though which is why I don't identify as a feminist. I mean, it's a bit of a double standard because feminists are barking the same thing -- they think advocating for men's rights makes men full-blown sexists, which is NOT true. I respect your opinion though, but not everything is black and white - not everything is one side or the other. I think both men and women should have rights. Men need more of a voice though because their issues do tend to get pushed to the side.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]blewpah 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Not as a whole. Some are. But some MRA's are at war with women too.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DougDante 123 points124 points125 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad this is a safe space for us to share diversity of opinions.

/r/feminism is rendered unsafe by censorship.

The admins should step in and ban that entire subreddit.

(Just kidding, I support their right to their bigotry )

[–]worldnews_is_shit 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

(Just kidding, I support their right to their bigotry )

You were only pretending!

[–]1TARDIS2RuleThemAll 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes way too much sense for that sub, they couldn't handle it

[–]LulLizard 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stop mansplaining you cis male scum

[–]Potato_Soup_ 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Before I ask this I should clarify; I hate the whole bullshit radical feminism movement, as you all do. I believe a lot of those feminists are whining about bullshit. I agree with a lot of things posted here, And no I'm not some green haired liberal cuck, just trying to have a civil discussion because I'm confused.

Why should someone not feel safe walking down the street? There may not be anything to warrent panic, but why shouldn't people feel safe in society?

[–]shartyblartfarst 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I guess it's because feeling safe is entirely subjective, and people are afraid of different things. It would be fantastic if everyone felt safe all of the time, but what if someone didn't feel safe around people from a different race. Should society change for them? Hell no! Some people feel unsafe for really stupid reasons, and if we pander to all of them then society would go to shit. Think of all the things people with phobias can be afraid of. What would society be like if it changed to protect them?

[–]JimmyLongnWider 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Was banned myself. Go figure.

As a male, you can participate in only three ways within r/Feminism:

  1. You can say nothing. This means you are part of the problem you misogynistic piece of shit.

  2. You can agree that women have legitimate issues and point out how men face the same issues sometimes, and other issues other times. Men face issues? I don't think so, you misogynistic piece of shit.

  3. You can grovel and apologize for your very existence and agree wholeheartedly with every single thing your feminist masters say. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. You're still a misogynistic piece of shit, but we'll let you stay and carry heavy things for us.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why were you banned?

[–]JimmyLongnWider 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Someone was talking about an example where a bride was making a speech at her wedding about all the men she dated in the past who couldn't handle her "strong personality," but she finally found a man who could. (All those other men had problems, see?) I pointed out that if everything were reversed and a man talked about all the women he dated and didn't marry, people would automatically and comically assume he was the reason, meaning he is hard to live with, like a woman cannot be difficult. After a few exchanges. Banned. New Feminists can do no wrong. The evil patriarchy acts upon them. They are powerless.

[–]tommygunz007 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ever go to R/Relationships?

R/Feminism is not a place for facts and stats. It's a support group for those to vent about their feelings. I had to stop going to r/relationships because instead of pointing out the obvious in the posts, people really just wanted to have others share in their pain or relate to what they are going through. It's like, Woman A says something bad about Guy B, and even though we are only looking at a snapshot of time, not the entire relationship, and we are also only looking at one side of the story, the reality is you should always side with the OP on r/Relationships. Why? It's not about finding out the TRUTH of what is happening, it's about OFFERING SUPPORT to the person with the issue. Those are two VERY DIFFERENT things, and I would bet r/feminism is exactly the same. You are there to offer support, NOT find the truth. I think this is important for many of us, women or men, that we get some form of support for what we are going through.

IN your case, you went against the OP. That's where you went wrong. You were there to support the OP's post, but instead you looked for TRUTH.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was banned because I was talking about men's issues and someone told me that yeah, men's house has a kitchen fire, but women's house had a four alarm fire. Where should the fire crew work first.

I pointed out the male suicide rate, the male on the job death rate, and a bunch of other male death issues, and stated that I felt that men's house had the four alarm fire, and women's house had a kitchen fire, but that it was ok... working towards true equality from two directions can only end in equality.

The official reason I was banned? Because it's rude to indicate that men's issues are more important than women's issues.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Echochamberchamberchamberchamberchamber

[–]Tableau 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Are you talking about r/feminism or r/mensrights?

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/r/everysubredditevercreated

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]LILwhut 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's plenty of people here agreeing with the ban without getting banned. It's pretty clear that he isn't referring to /r/mensrights.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't see us banning feminist subbers.

[–]hooliganmike 71 points72 points73 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Their comment didn't deserve to be downvoted by you op. Please don't downvote just because you disagree.

[–]ILikeAnalAndImVirgin 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

90% of reddit uses it that way anyway.
The mechanics are at fault. Not the users.

[–]JohnSudo[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re absolutely right, my bad on that front.

[–]ttstte 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it really important for citizens of our nation to feel safe and secure? What am I missing?

[–]contractor808 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are missing that the concept of feeling secure is subjective and does not reflect the actual quality of service that emergency services and law enforcement provide. How safe someone feels does not necessarily reflect how safe that actually are.

[–]Taintroast 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The fact that they make themselves feel so insecure around men because they think we are all capable of rape.

[–]silverscrub 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This can be both correct and incorrect entirely depending on context. If you work at a gas station and someone robs you with an unloaded gun you will be safe. You will definitely not feel safe though. If a woman is afraid she will get raped by ever man she meets she probably needs therapy more than anything.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]pizzamage 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you're understanding what the OP was saying. If someone does feel safe at school it's because they've already been threatened, or abused in some way. If a person had never had any of these altercations, and yet STILL felt unsafe because of some idea that MAYBE something will happen, how is the school supposed to cater to one person when there has been no wrongdoing?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's an old saying that's something like.. you can either wear shoes or you can try and pave the world in rubber. Which is more practical?

[–]__word_clouds__ 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Word cloud out of all the comments.

I hope you like it

[–]ThirdProcess 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Definitely not on either side here. And also have no cobext. But if your feelings of safety were irrelevant we would have intimidation laws. "But Officer there were no bullets in the gun, he was never in any real danger." You can completely ruin a person's life by keeping them in a state of fear. Hence anti-stalking laws. Even certain types of torture like fake executions are on the no no list. A feeling is very relavent. Consider the issue of Police Officers using lethal force, they have to feel threatened.
So feelings are important. It just raises a more complex question of "was your feeling reasonable?". If there isn't some guideline and restraint we'd all be at the mercy of over reactors. (Not real) example: 12 year comes at cop with a whiffle bat. If the cop is not very brave can they claim the felt threatened enough to use lethal force? Let's hope not.
Ignoring feelings is just wanting things to simpler then they are. Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

[–]ECU_BSN 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh!

Can I also be banned from r/Feminism !!!

Please????

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]socsa 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So brave

[–]definitelyjoking 220 points221 points222 points 9 years ago (107 children) | Copy Link

You're wrong though. People have a right to feel safe from imminent harm. It's why assault is a separate crime and tort from battery. The limitation is that the apprehension of imminent harm has to be objectively reasonable, so unreasonable feelings of imminent harm aren't protected. We absolutely say that you have a right not to fear imminent harm though, and assault is a pretty ancient cause of action.

[–]treasrang 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are protected under law from being directly threatened, your feelings on the matter or percieved fear don't come into play, one way or the other.

[–]shayshahal 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Will have to disagree. Society can not ensure the feeling of safety for every one, because every person can feel unsafe by diferent things. Therefore the right of feeling save can't be fulfiled to every one. What can be fulfiled though is the right to be safe. And in a perfect world where society does keep you safe, you eventually will also FEEL safe, even if you didnt before.

[–]StealthTomato 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

We can't really ensure anyone any right, we can only offer them redress if a right is violated. I feel like there's a common-sense standard of the right to feel safe that we can all agree on. For example, groping and catcalling would both violate that right.

[–]DoverBoys 74 points75 points76 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Let's say a woman walks into a street with a lot of men around. The street is perfectly safe, every person there is a law-abiding citizen, but the woman feels unsafe. Is it the city's responsibility to limit the amount of men on that street?

[–]definitelyjoking 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. That would not be a reasonable fear of imminent harm.

[–]AlaskanWilson 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

That's a strawman argument and not the type of scenario being discussed. Don't be obtuse

[–]DoverBoys 78 points79 points80 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The idea of making sure people feel safe is still ridiculous, even if you want to call my example a strawman. You make them safe, not feel safe.

[–]Nowin 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You say it's a strawman argument, but it's exactly why men have been asked to move seats on airplanes.

[–]Denadias 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a strawman argument and not the type of scenario being discussed. Don't be obtuse

There was no specific scenario being discussed and the one you replied is a fairly common one, people are afraid of walking alone in the dark.

Dont be an ass and try to dodge the question.

[–]FallacyExplnationBot 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi! Here's a summary of what a "Strawman" is:


A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in a fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Tedesche 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, u/definitelyjoking is correct, and our laws reflect that. Making threats of violence is illegal for this reason. People who have unreasonable fears (such as fearing all men) are not protected from their perceived threat (all men) under the law though. u/JohnSudo's argument should have been that certain fears are unreasonable, not that people have no right to a feeling of security.

[–]definitelyjoking 90 points91 points92 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, it has to be a reasonable fear, which that is not. That doesn't mean there is no protection for feeling safe at all though. We very much protect that right, and we have for a very long time

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]definitelyjoking 90 points91 points92 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No. It's objectively determined rather than subjective. As I already said. This "slippery slope" right has existed for hundreds of years. It predates the United States and even the American colonies. I think we're gonna be okay.

[–]Starknessmonster 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Idk why you're getting downvoted. You're stating the relevant tort law exactly right.

[–]subdep 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's actually illegal to threaten physical harm/death, so in that manner there already are laws that make it illegal to make people feel unsafe for their physical well being.

For example, if I point a gun at your head and say "if you ever look at me again, I'll blow your fucking brains out," I'd be willing to bet you would feel unsafe.

And in fact, that would make it illegal.

Now, same situation, but this time before hand, we agree that the gun is fake, and we are just roll playing. Now when I do/say the same things as before, this time you feel safe because you know I'm not threatening your physical well being.

That would be legal.

Safe and unsafe feelings being the only difference.

[–]Drag0nV3n0m231 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, you're wrong. You can make someone feel safe in reasonable terms and bounds. Obviously you can't base it off of ones unreasonable standards of safety, but, like how the law (in the us at least) commonly works, it can be based off an agreed upon and reasonable standard of "feeling safe". You are assuming that it would work based on someone's personal feeling, which just isn't how law works.

[–]PassifloraCaerulea 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Look. As soon as you limit things to objective "reasonable terms and bounds" you're no longer talking about individuals' feelings. Feelings aren't rational. A reasonable expectation of safety (a rational thing) is just not the same as a (legal?) right to feel safe (an emotional thing). The latter is what we're arguing against.

[–]poppaman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A reasonable expectation of safety (a rational thing) is just not the same as a (legal?) right to feel safe (an emotional thing).

This is exactly right, and it's why this post is really causing controversy. People arguing that "You cannot control how people feel" are talking about the Ultra-SJW "I get triggered by anybody using a certain word" and those against it are arguing that a feeling of safety from harm is part of society. Both are correct in their arguments, but the overlap between the common wording of two very different topics makes these posts look a bit ridiculous.

[–]XkF21WNJ 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Just because you can't control what people feel, doesn't mean you can't control to what extent other people are allowed to affect those feelings.

Sure you can't make someone with an irrational fear feel safe, but you can still forbid other people from actively making someone feel unsafe. This usually falls under harassment.

[–]pewpewlasors 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No, you are wrong. People don't have a right to "feel" safe. People can "feel" threatened for any retarded reason. You are wrong as fuck.

I've literally had a cop pull me over, while WALKING, because someone called them because "they didn't feel safe, because of a scary looking guy, walking down their street".

That is the type of RETARDED BULLSHIT you are defending.

[–]definitelyjoking 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Calm down dude. Swearing and random caps are unnecessary. What I'm discussing is assault. Which is not what you're talking about at all. I don't approve of that sort of police enforcement, but they'd go after you for loitering or something if at all. It's not related to assault even a little.

[–]acolyte357 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You kinda moved the goal post there by adding the word "imminent".

Of course assault is a crime, however if I said in a public place that "I hate all green people" and that made some one feel unsafe there is nothing the law will do to hurt me or protect them. Nor should it.

[–]definitelyjoking 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, I didn't. OP made a really broad statement. There is a right to feel safe. It is, correctly, a right with limitations, but it is fundamentally a right to feel safe.

[–]acolyte357 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is no such right. There are laws against threatening individuals, that's it.

If feeling safe was a right protected by law, hate speech, news about war/terrorism, etc should all be illegal.

[–]definitelyjoking 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a right with limitations which I spelled out. That's why it isn't illegal to show scary news. That it is a right is maybe best illustrated by it being a tort in addition to a crime. You can recover if someone violates you by making you fear an imminent harm; even with no actual damages you can get an award.

[–]grayk47 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nations are built and destroyed on people's feelings and moods. If I have the feeling that I am not going to be able to provide for my family and put bread in their bellies due to a tsar's inane policies, I may end up going out on International Women's day in February of 1917 and demonstrating (this would be the start of the February Revolution that brought down the tsarist system in Russia). If I do not feel that a certain candidate will be the best option for my future and the future of all citizens in the country I live in, I will vote for someone else. I mean minorities have the right to feel safe from groups like the KKK or neo-nazis.

[–]fluffstravels 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

This is my first time posting in this sub but honestly this is pretty stupid. Society actually does make an effort to make people feel safe and it's fine they do. There's a point where it can get in the way of free speech and that I disagree with.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Society actually does make an effort to make people feel safe and it's fine they do.

Makes an effort.

It is not a Constitutional right. Rights are inalienable.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]balorina 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I think his point is that you feelings are not rights. You have the right to be safe, but nobody can make you feel safe. If I locked you in a lead box making you immune to all existential threats, you still wouldn't feel safe because you would become claustrophobic.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you aren't in on the circle jerk be prepared to be banned

[–][deleted] 58 points59 points60 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Lol what? You both are really dumb. Why not have people feel safe through sensible goals and legislation if necessary? This war on feminism has become a pissing contest with both sides yelling at one another too loudly to listen and make progress. Some of y'all are worse than the SJW you bitch about. Extremism is never good.

[–]Denadias 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why not have people feel safe through sensible goals and legislation if necessary?

A woman walks home from work and feels unsafe because there are men walking in the same area, exactly how are you going to handle that?

The commenter wasn´t dumb, hes correct. You have the right to safety but not the right to feel safe because there are people who´s feeling of safety requires borderline retarded actions.

If someone feels unsafe walking in the dark, are we going light the whole world ?

If someone feels unsafe walking to their car, are we going to have escort service 24/7 available for them ?

You cannot seriously think that making everyone feel safe is even remotely plausible.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What kind of legislation?

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you on the original argument, and posted a comment saying as much, but it is pretty stupid he was banned for making it. Even if it's wrong.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The only difference is one side has the media, hollywood and governement backing them whereas the other has jack shit

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points77 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

How to look like an asshole, make a post bragging about how you got banned in a feminist sub.

Like honestly, does this make someone go "wow, he showed them! Feminism is evil and this guy has it figured out!"

You would have probably defended the UMN football players.

[–]lasermancer 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Like honestly, does this make someone go "wow, he showed them! Feminism is evil and this guy has it figured out!"

It does make me believe that the mods of that particular subreddit are too heavy-handed to the point that they stifle discussion. Even if you disagree with his point, surely you don't think those comments are ban-worthy. It makes me think that subreddit is more of an echo-chamber than a place for discussion.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

echo-chamber

Pot calling kettle...?

[–]lasermancer 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a subscriber to this subreddit. I came here from /r/all

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not speaking to you specifically. I'm saying if this sub is going to upvote something under that impression, it seems a bit hypocritical.

[–]lasermancer 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The fact that the mods here didn't delete your comments and ban you shows that dissenting opinion is at least allowed.

[–]Pompous_Italics 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah! They couldn't handle OP's devestating logic. He absolutely destroyed them.

I'm just glad I wasn't on that end of that rhetorical flamethrower.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, going into a sub you obviously disagree with fundamentally, arguing the semantics between "being" and "feeling", and the posting about how right you are after you get banned for obviously trying to stir up a reaction, to this well respected sub.

Congrats /u/JohnSudo, you made guys everywhere look good on that one.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's a hell of a lot of assumptions based on absolutely nothing. What's wrong with entering a sub you tend to disagree with, and then engaging with the members in polite discussion? The point of this post isn't to show OP was right, it's to show the r/Feminism mods are jackasses.

[–]Googlebochs 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"semantics dude. obviously we assume reasonable people feel safe when they are safe" - done. So either r/feminism sucks at communication or didn't actually hold the opinion you expressed.

edit: which actually in of itself doesn't point to a general fault/bias of the sub just one instance of failing that given the upvotes this topic recieved is actually pretty common or percieved to be. both are a problem worthy of discussion.

[–]stidf 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

I actually disagree with you a on the feeling of security. Without that feeling of security the social compact of society begins to fray. It also strokes people's flight or fight instincts which depending on the location and surroundings can cause direct bodily harm to others. People being crushed by stampedes of people or riots don't happen if people feel secure in their persons while in public. I would argue that it is next to impossible to pursue happiness effectively without the feeling of security.

[–]ProbableCause 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

Without that feeling of security the social compact of society begins to fray.

Source?

People being crushed by stampedes of people or riots don't happen if people feel secure in their persons while in public.

What? Source?

I would argue that it is next to impossible to pursue happiness effectively without the feeling of security.

No one has argued anything about happiness. The topic is whether a society should enact policy that ensures actual safety, or the feeling of safety.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JustMyAlternate 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You sound like a fucking parrot.

rip in /u/ProbableCause

[–]CriminalMacabre 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Does the pursuit of happiness ring any bell?
Constitution maybe?
And what can't be done if you don't feel safe?
That's right kids.
The problem with rad fem is that they perceive threats anywhere and demand action from society, when it's all in their head. It's our responsibility to provide better education and better mental health

[–]Tmomp 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Does the pursuit of happiness ring any bell?

Constitution maybe?

It's in the Declaration of Independence.

[–]JohnSudo[S] 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So you need to feel safe to pursue happiness? While feeling safe is good, being safe is really the only objective goal we can strive for in society as a whole. Individual mental states can only reliably be controlled by the individual.

So if you do not feel safe regardless of being realistically safe, that is your issue. If it presents a barrier to your ability to pursue happiness, that's your problem, not society's.

[–]Tedesche 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How do you objectively determine if you are safe? Are you safe right now from deadly airborne pathogens? Are you 100% certain you will not be struck by a rogue meteor in the next hour?

We don't and never will have enough information at our disposal to be 100% confident in our security. However, based on the information we do have, we can make educated guesses as to how safe we are. We do this as a society, and we do this as individuals. When we, as individuals, surmise that we are, in fact, safe, we feel safe.

So being safe and feeling safe, while distinct, are still quite related. As such, people do have a right to feel safe—reasonably safe. Sometimes people have irrational fears. It happens. I don't know what the context of your post was, and I certainly don't think you should have been banned for what you said, but what you said was technically wrong—people do have a right to not feel afraid, provided said fears are reasonable.

[–]JohnSudo[S] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How do you objectively determine if you are safe? Are you safe right now from deadly airborne pathogens? Are you 100% certain you will not be struck by a rogue meteor in the next hour?

From my post above.

So if you do not feel safe regardless of being realistically safe, that is your issue.

I never argued that you could be objectively 100% certain of your safety, only realistically so. The threat of a rogue meteor with a personal blood feud is quite unrealistic, so I have no right to expect protection from such an event, even if I felt threatened by it.

So being safe and feeling safe, while distinct, are still quite related.

Related yes, mutually dependent no.

people do have a right to not feel afraid, provided said fears are reasonable.

Reasonable fears and realistic fears are entirely different. Being afraid of sharks is reasonable, but your chance to be attacked by a shark is very unlikely, so expecting to have your fear of sharks validated and policy/laws created to make your fear of shark attacks go away is silly.

[–]CriminalMacabre 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being safe also involves feeling safe, or things like the shit brown shirts did in the 30's would be common practice.
"Hey boss, we aren't hurting anyone but maybe someone head may fall off if people don't do what we want"

[–]elebrin 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they perceive threats anywhere

Anywhere there are men, anyways.

[–]goatmebro 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wow. Feminists really piss me off. You make such a solid point that feminists should be like; hey that's a fucking valid idea. We should start focusing on behaviors of others not our own feelings.

As a women I am well aware that I will not feel safe walking down a dark alley at midnight. I will not feel safe if I am drunk and surrounded by strangers. I will not feel safe if I'm having an anxiety attack. But, as a logical human being I know these are all either situations I put myself in or are psychological in nature and have absolutely nothing to do with the actions of men.

Now if a man(or woman) came up to me and tried to put their hand down my shirt, I'd be not only afraid but fucking livid. That's an actions that's possible to police and should not be acceptable. It is not the same as a feeling.

[–]Drag0nV3n0m231 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You do have the right to feel safe. To feel safe to a reasonable extent is the same as actually being safe and having your rights be upheld. If my rights as a citizen and human being can be disregarded in a court of law, or infringed upon without punishment, it is reasonable for me to feel unsafe. Nobody said anything to conclude that their idea of being safe is unreasonable, you are just assuming that. You could be entirely correct that their idea of safe is unreasonable. But either way, you essentially saying that the general feeling is citizens should be ignored is just a rather childish way of viewing things.

[–]ProbableCause 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

You do have the right to feel safe.

Where are we explicitly given the right to feel safe?

There are laws that ensure our physical safety, and from those we can gain feelings of safety, but no where are we guaranteed to be able to feel a certain way.

[–]Drag0nV3n0m231 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

We are essentially given the right to feel safe because things like threatening terrorism or various other forms of violence are illegal.

[–]MeEvilBob 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Also where harassment is illegal, since no physical contact ever needs to be made.

[–]ProbableCause 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Harassment is defined a number of different ways, but generally it is "a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety." (https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/)

Now, I know a lot of people will focus on the putting a person in fear of their safety, but recall that these feelings of unsafeness need to be substantiated. If substantiated, this is dealt with a restraining order to restrict interaction.

[–]Atheists4Trump 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Guys, come one with this shit. You can legally defend yourself using lethal force because of feelings. You guys don't have the logical high ground here because the law is not on your side. I certainly have the right to feel safe, and if you threaten that I have the legal grounds to defend my safety. And to an extent you have that protected by the 2nd and 4th amendment, castle laws and stand your ground laws. If i see a person pointing a gun at my head I don't need to wait for anything more than my feelings of potential harm before defending myself.

I think Mensrights needs a overhaul. Getting banned by a sub with bad rules should not get you to all, its ignorant. We have actual issues. One of the biggest I see coming is only women will get maternity leave. We know two parent households are better. yet we actively encourage their destruction and the marginalization of our rights.

But why care about actual mensright issues when you guys trolled a feminist.

[–]Pompous_Italics 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It’s a common misconception that men don’t receive paternity leave. If you work for a business covered by the FMLA – be you a mother or father – you can take it.

Of course, we’re still pretty much the worst country in developed world when it comes to offering leave to new parents.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

They're right, though.

[–]FultonPig 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

About what?

[–]The_Sad_Deku 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was banned years ago for explaining in the most polite way I could that the wage gap is a lifetime earnings gap and how they are not the same.

[–]flee_market 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's also the fact that women tend not to negotiate their salary as aggressively as men. And the fact that fewer women pursue actual careers at all. And when they do, fewer of them go into STEM. All factors.

But lost on most feminists, who believe that the Y chromosome grants us access to a shadowy meeting once a month where we brainstorm new ways to oppress 50% of the human race.

[–]Thomasedv 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I do kinda disagree with you(both? Not sure what safe in that context means). I think you should seek for physically and mentally healthy people in a society. That involves feeling safe from verbal threats, and potentially material damage. Sure you might not be hurt, but even the treath of physical damage, not directly said, but a self thought out consequence of something, can be unhealthy.

That's not to say the ban was fair, but you very directly said their opinion was wrong, and that does very easily trigger those kinds of people, if that makes sense. A polite, "I disagree", might have been less likely to cause such an reaction. I think a lot of peole, with less mod power, also react badly when you outright state opinion as fact, but can only downvote, outside of banning. Those mods just don't have the objectivity to be a in proper control. (As in, they ban people that may only sound slightly rude, and not really breaking rules.)

[–]evilamnesiac 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Greetings from /all.... Why go to the sub in the first place? Its full of angry trogs. Try /r/aww/ Its a much better way to spend your internets.

[–]gnarcophagus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can i agree with both statements?

[–]stromm 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Similarly in the US, we do not have the right to BE happy.

We have the right of the PURSUIT of happiness.

To many people confuse the two.

[–]ChaosOpen 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, dropping a truth bomb in r/feminism is the fastest way to get the ban hammer.

[–]blueberryfruitcup 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I got banned by that subreddit for saying "Huffington post is a shit site" It's ridiculous.

[–]dentistshatehim 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Death threats are illegal. Our legal system guarantees more than physical safety.

[–]InfinityGems 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/r/feminism is an echo chamber for fucking autistic children. Daddy and mommy never told them that their opinions don't really matter, and their safe space bullshit is an excuse to not be an adult and deal with life.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell the truth and probably 90% of subreddits will ban you. Simple as that.

[–]R3DT1D3 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand why moderators ban people when the downvoting is already censoring their opinion. It's nothing but a power trip.

[–]Dr_Beardsley 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was articulated rather well. Good show sir, good show.

[–]MizterUltimaman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your phrasing could be better, but the point behind it is very good.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know why they couldn't accept that. OP is right. What could governments ever possibly do about controlling people's "feelings"? That's when you start getting into Orwellian shit if you try to control "feelings" and "safety"...

[–]All_hail_Korrok 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why did you downvote the person who replied to you? They were adding to the discussion and not spewing some random bs.

[–]StallinForTime 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can either be rational or you can be a feminist, but you can't be both

[–]Z0MGbies 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have no qualms with feminism, but fuck that sub (based on OPs post) and definitely fuck the mod that pulled that shit. I think this sub is a bit... urgh... at times. But yeah, feeling safe is not a matter of public policy at all.

[–]mojo_juju 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh my fucking christ. What an idiotic reply to the OP in that thread screenshot.

"You mean we shouldn't FEEL safe?!"

"Uhh, no you fuckin dipshit, no one can determine your feelings for you. You gotta fix that shit for yourself ya dumb cunt"

Lols.

Fuckin idiots and their need to ensure everyone else make them feel the feels

[–]ambulancePilot 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not sure I understand. We do strive to make people feel safe in most societies. Can you substantiate your claim?

[–]JohnSudo[S] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don’t agree that we strive to make people feel safe. We strive to ensure peoples safety, and as a consequence, you generally feel safe. So while the feeling of safety may be derived from being safe, being unsafe does not derive from feeling unsafe.

As such, society should be primarily concerned with ensuring the safety of its citizens, not their feeling of safety.

[–]lagspike 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

how to get banned from r/Feminism:

-have a three digit weight that starts with a number less than 2

[–]atheist4thecause 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

28,200+ upvotes (at the moment of me writing this comment)? Yeah, the Reddit community has been red pilled.

[–]NVRLand 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is like the most typical attitude ever in the /r/mensrights community. You get stuck on a semantic issue, "win" the discussion and see it as you have won over feminism. It's sad that this small semantic victory is treated like this huge triumph.

Why is it so important for /r/mensrights to not be about men's rights?

[–]BrocanGawd 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You missed the point because you want to take a swipe at this sub. Bravo.

[–]smexxyhexxy 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Society should have a right to feel safe. As long as basic universal rights such as freedom of speech, gender equality, racial equality, LGBT equality, etc are not trampled upon.

[–]Haggle4DeezNuts 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

freedom of speech

I agree that free speech is extremely important, except if it's offensive... you know? Can't just say anything.

gender equality

Totally agree on this one, but this one study says that women still only earn a nickel for every million dollars a man makes, soo... keep working the dangerous jobs and just hand women the easy ones pls.

racial equality

I agree racism is evil. Thank god you can't be racist against whitey. You see, while an individual can hold biases, racism is institutional and has power behind it. Parrot parrot thus parrot minorities parrot can't be raysis, you retarded cracker.

LGBT equality

For sure. So stop saying you wouldn't sleep with a 58 year old man who identifies as an 18 year old girl, you transphobic piece of shit! A hairy old dude with a penis is still a beautiful woman if she chooses to be!

[–]smexxyhexxy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kek. That was funny.

[–]jhorn1 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trying to have a civil discussion?

BANNED!

Nice subreddit you got there, r/feminism

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know why you downvoted the other person. They were absolutely right.

[–]jatjqtjat 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Society absolutely should strive to make people feel safe. Although actually being safe is more important.

Also if someone tries to make you feel unsafe that could qualify as assault which is of course illegal.

If you feel unsafe for foolish reasons then your being a fool. I think that is probably your point?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is cancerous anyways

[–]BeefyStevey 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What does this have to do with Men's Rights?

[–]supercraftyness 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You shouldn't have gotten banned, but you were definitely wrong. Feeling safe is crucial in today's society. Feeling safe is part of one's health. Without the feeling of security, you can develop paranoia and possibly other worse conditions.

[–]XGC75 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Feeling safe should be a secondary result of public policy, not the direct result. The direct result of public policy should be actually being safe.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You do have the right to feel safe. If you feel your life is threatened, you have the right to defend yourself. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean there is no legal basis for it.

[–]contractor808 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you feel your life is threatened, you have the right to defend yourself.

No, you have the right to defend yourself if you're reason for doing so meets the requirements set forward by law. Feeling unsafe is not enough. You need corroborating to prove taking action was the reasonable thing to do.

[–]Pompous_Italics 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Well, OP, you sound like a whiney, petulant Redditor who blames the fact he can’t get laid on “feminism,” and you made it to the front page. Congratulations.

And I'm actually laughing that you were so proud of yourself in this exchange, that you screen-capped it, and then re-uploaded it here. LOL, I mean, my god, dude.

[–]Kyrond 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

His issue is that he got banned for different opinion.

[–]CruddlesPlz 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You're assuming a few things because you need strawmen to fight?

[–]deschutron 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't be caught out by this poster's style, they're probably just trying to live up to their username.

[–]ehjhockey 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I dunno. A lot of people feel more afraid of terrorism than dying by falling in the bathtub. And that's a way more likely cause of death for Americans than terrorism. But if we worked as hard to prevent terrorism as we work to prevent bathtub falls, there would be a national guardsmen stationed in every bathroom across the county.

People's feelings of security are relevant to public policy.

See, coming up with a valid counter argument is easy. It's just lazy and disrespectful to ban someone for expressing an opinion that differs from your own. Shitty example of moderation.

[–]ComradeAri 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ugggggh why did the idiots of the movement have to be the ones who won the race to get the /r/Feminism subreddit name @_@

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

so is r/feminism a hate subreddit now?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As if this subreddit's mods and/or userbase wouldn't downvote or ban someone if they came into here with an 'as-a-matter-of-fact' attitude/manner.

[–]KingSmoke 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That feel when that guy is 100% correct but feminists are literally too brain damaged to comprehend it

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminism has reached post modernism. Men and women are treated equally in the eyes of the law save for child custody laws, where women are preferred over men. The movement has changed into one where not much else can be done so they move onto non issues such as safe spaces.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That subreddit is rife with fake feminists.

[–]smackthelight 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Actkshually im a loyer and im here to tell you that you can legally make anyone feel unsafe as long as you dont hurt them

some examples

  • you can point a gun at ppl as long as you dont pull the trigger

  • you can follow a person throughout there daily life

  • you can send ppl fake bombs in packages

  • you can get naked in public and chase someone down the street

the reeson u can do this is because Law Book Page 5 says:

"REALz > FEELZ "

mic drop

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tbonecoco 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't the shitty part that he was banned though for having a differing opinion? I don't agree with OP, but I never like the idea of silencing a voice.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There were two different things brought up here. The first was the right to feel safe and the second was if a society should strive to make people feel safe. I believe we could debate the former but the latter is definitely true. This is all within reasonable limits, obviously. If someone is scared of cars driving safely on the road, then I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do for you. If someone is scared of being raped then that should (and is) reflected in our laws and in our hatred of rapists.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was banned for having an open discussion about the difference between gender wage gap and gender earnings gap.

[–]POTUSDORITUSMAXIMUS 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How are you sure you got banned for this comment and not the dozen of other comments you made in /r/Feminism

[–]harborwolf 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How did you get that second comment in?

They're slipping.

[–]drazzy92 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I love how this has over 12k upvotes and is on the front page. This is literally succulent. Feminist is finally circling the drain.

[–]FlyingHazards 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I totally disagree here. Everybody has the right to feel safe. I have the right to feel safe in my own home. I have the right to feel safe at work, when traveling, at school.

[–]QueenoftheDirtPlanet 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

can we have fourth wave feminism please

i'm getting tired of fat lazy women telling me i can't be pretty or subservient

[–]factsmakeyoumad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How fucking dare you point out logical reality! You're such a gods Damned SHITLORDE`!! /s

[–]hysteria_voucher 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists are banned from /r/feminism on a regular basis tbf. Even among the feminist community on reddit, the main mod of that subreddit is very controversial

[–]truthbombs22 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woman deserve equal rights and lefts....

[–]codefreak8 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seems like a substantial number of people who mistake a feeling of security for the real thing.

[–]zehamberglar 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reddit, the bastion of free speech.

[–]rebar71 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That opinion pretty much some up "progressive" policies in general. They do what feels good, not what is good.

[–]NATO_SHILL 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reddit mods and feminists are both groups with a high level of retarded membership.

[–]elhaupto 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is there something wrong with feeling safe, though? I can't honestly say it's a good thing that every other girl at my college thinks there's a 1/4 chance she's gonna be raped while she's there.

[–]docmartens 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, I was banned from /r/justiceserved for explaining how the legal system works and a MR mod didn't feel that some women were punished enough.

I was told to "go back to my safe space" which is a court room I guess?

[–]BITCRUSHERRRR 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was banned from there a few years ago for trying to find it within me to give them a shot. Literally all I said was along the lines of "I know there are some that give you a bad rap..." Banned.

Guess my assumption of them being fucking stupid was right!

[–]Aitchy21 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think his comment is unfair, having a right to feel safe is a bit optimistic, it's not like a right to free speech or to own a gun.

You could argue that both men and women don't feel safe, it's not just women, it's our society as a whole and where you live.

You can't demand the right to feel safe anywhere because that is not possible, no matter if your a man or woman.

[–]MildandFire 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is exactly what my therapist taught me. My feelings are on me, and never ANYONE else.

[–]rtmacfeester 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Aaaaaaand I found a new favorite sub.

[–]Kymate 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

there are a lot of troll subreddits that should get ignored, /r/Feminism is one of them

[–]stemgang 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I might be able to make someone feel unsafe.

But realistically, there is nothing I can do to force someone to feel SAFE.

So ultimately their demand that someone else make them feel a certain way is both absurd and a complete refusal to accept responsibility for their own emotional state.

[–]drazzy92 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That sure will show that dumbass. 23k upvots and 1511 comments. You were being downvoted in that conversation, but now they're eating their words.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You presented a concise and logical argument. What did you expect? Lol

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I doubt these mods made him FEEL safe.

[–]InformalCriticism 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can confirm.

I was asking /r/feminism what a meaningful difference between men and women was and got banned before anyone could reply.

When I asked a mod why I was banned, they squelched me from contacting mods for 72 hours.

Pretty much a fascist echo chamber that doesn't even pretend its not.

[–]Swinship 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a feminist how can you not see this and have fear or trepidation. There can't be so many militant feminists that they don't see this and think to themselves that a censored future is hell. Reasonable arguments get banned, eventually what they think is reasonable will be next when there isnt much controversy. They defeat themselves this way, do they not see it. It's like pruning a tree, you need to leave some branches lol or the plant dies.

[–]Traveledfarwestward 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/5ixalg/one_day_all_of_us_should_be_safe_regardless_of/dbcpr31/?context=3

Heh. It does work.

[–]beerbobhelm 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Safe is a state of mind. Designed to produce a response. Fight or flight. A responds to an event in your life will leave you with a scaled action to safe or not safe. Some people carry weapons. Some remove themselves from the area in question. Or any mix of the two. Fight or flight. Personally I carry a knife and avoid urban areas, most of the time.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would actually agree that everyone in a society has a right to feel safe, from physical to personal emotional attacks.

However, criticism of a person is not a personal attack. If I say to someone, "women are inferior and should be treated as such," then that is an emotional personal attack.

If I said, "Women have too many rights in some areas, creating an unequal society," that is not a personal attack. That is a criticism, and is not putting anyone in danger.

Even if you don't like it, which is fine because we live in a free society, you have no right to Infringe on another person's free speech as they have no right to infringe on yours.

[–]iSluff 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's almost as if emotional well-being is part of a person's general happiness

[–]AtomicBLB 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wish you worded your responses better, but I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism - A radical notion that women are overgrown children.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter