Hey numbnuts, nice job giving us a textbook example of deflection. Not that we needed one

Maybe this is going to come across as just pedantry, but I really feel like some people are missing some pretty important things here. The thread started with this question:

Honestly, how is it any better to send young men there? I’m not wild about sending pregnant women and children there obviously, but…are we indicating that men don’t matter?

I thought it was wild to leap to “men don’t matter” on a post about pregnant women and children being sent to a concentration camp. That pivot felt misguided at best, and misogynistic at worst. I replied with a reminder that pregnant women and children are a more vulnerable group than men, as an alternative, *non-malicious explanation for why the article calls those groups out specifically. I was just trying to push back on the misguided notion of “media reports on group A, therefore they don’t care about group B.”

Neither would I, and I haven’t said anything of the sort.

You’re either misunderstanding me or I’m not being clear enough, but I didn’t say any of that lol. I’m gonna go step by step here and try to be really clear, but if I’m misunderstanding anything please let me know.

All people should be spared inhuman behaviour.

Yeah, I agree with you, and I don’t think I’ve suggested anything to the contrary. I’ve just said that certain vulnerable groups sometimes require more protection than men. Because they’re more vulnerable than men.

I’m sorry but “i don’t like equality” feels like nonsense to me.

It feels like nonsense to me too, probably because I didn’t say that either. But what it seems like you’re suggesting is to ignore the circumstantial differences between groups, even when one group is more vulnerable than another, in the name of treating everyone the same, i.e, “equality”. But I take issue with that, because that sort of thinking leads to inequal outcomes. As in, if a vulnerable group is treated exactly the same as their less-vulnerable counterparts, the vulnerable group will experience more negative outcomes on average, thus experiencing inequality.

Men should have every potection afforded to others.

In general, yeah, absolutely, except in cases where a particular protection only applies to a group that excludes men. The same logic applies to every group. Maybe this is just semantics at this point, but I don’t see the point of affording a protection to a group that it doesn’t apply to. All that is sort of beside the point though, because at no point have I suggested that any one group have protections taken away, just that some vulnerable groups require more protection than others in order to experience equality.

we should protect all people to the best of our ability.

One hundred percent agree. In my view, we do that by trying to figure out what everyone needs as a baseline, identifying the more vulnerable groups by figuring out who that baseline doesn’t satisfy, and then figuring out what extra things those vulnerable groups need. That’s all I’m advocating for - protecting vulnerable groups by figuring out what extra protections they need, not taking protections away from less vulnerable groups.

Ah, and there’s the air of superiority. Beautiful irony.

No, but you are fighting over trivial nonsense

Or, and hear me out here, instead of escalating to a “immature schoolyard shouting match” for whatever reason, you could look at a person’s pfp, have your feelings about it, and then move on to something that actually matters

But I am gathering that there are a lot of people who really enjoy schoolyard shouting matches and invite them because it makes them feel superior to fight others over trivial nonsense.

The irony of you saying this is not lost on me

Nope, just clarifying since you seemed to be confused. Anything else I can help with, let me know partner

Good thing my joke comment on a joke thread on a meme post didn’t imply anything of the sort then

Sure, just like it’s fully fair for people to clown on someone for judging them based on something as unserious as a social media profile picture.

Sure, but there are some protections that apply to pregnant women and children that don’t apply to men. Ignoring that in the name of “equality” or dismissing that as “loopholes in morality” seems off base to me.

Counterpoint: sometimes it’s just a funny picture I like, and sometimes it’s some anime titties I like. Assuming it’s always going to be a meaningful representation of the user is unrealistic.

This is a meme post about em dashes, dawg

I think it’s nice actually that we can recognize that pregnant women and children are more vulnerable groups of people that sometimes require more protection than men. I say that as a man.

True revolutionaries buy Sabian anyways

That’s usually what happens when a political nightmare assumes one of the most powerful offices on the planet

What an incredibly selfish and self-centered approach to this platform

Man, this false air of superiority you’re exuding is pretty weird. There are bad engineers, and bad skilled trades people, and bad managers, and bad business people. Every walk of life have people that are bad at their jobs, it’s by no means unique to any one class of worker.

Of all the things even vaguely related to this post to be upset with, you chose to comment on title casing?

Eh, splitting the party (or at least exposing the division within the party) is a long shot, but it’s really the only productive way forward if the Democrats want to actually change and fix things. Repeatedly exposing Democrats that vote against the people’s interests is the most surefire way to get those Democrats voted out and replaced with more progressive candidates. Failing that, breaking away from the Democratic party and forming a new more progressive party isn’t the worst long-term option, even if it (probably) won’t be very effective in the near-term.