deleted by creator

Now and laters used to be actually hard when you first put them in your mouth and softened up as you chewed. I know it was terrible for my teeth, but I miss the ultra chewy texture those had dearly.

Look, I’m not going to sit here and debate the ethics of a precautionary behavior with you because you, like many other men, misinterpret the behavior itself as a slight against men as a whole.

There’s no way I can do that without venturing into the realm of defending that kind of prejudice, which you’ll inevitably take as an invitation to just say is wrong on principle.

I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.

Here’s the thing. The kind of person you’ll be responding to will cover their ears and say prejudice of any kind is wrong. You won’t convince anyone that way.

I literally had someone tell me the last time I had this discussion that the act of determining to do something based on the gender of someone is the very same as determining to do something based on their race. So it’s also racism.

There is no winning that. Once someone is bent on being against prejudice on any order, they will make false equivalencies to bludgeon their point.

that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.

Let me ask you something: For a solution short of reeducating the world’s men, how come the onus is on women to be forced to take a chance with someone who they don’t know how they’re going to react?

Why are we looking at a situation where a woman might say “I shouldn’t walk alone from the gym to my car because there was this one guy staring at me and I saw him go out just before me” and saying “That woman is obviously a bigot, what can we do to correct that behavior?”

I honestly don’t think there’s anything to do about this. There’s no way to make women be less prejudiced against men in these situations that doesn’t also inherently raise their risk of being assaulted.

The only thing left is a man who will insist that a woman take the chance of raising her risk so that his feelings don’t get hurt. But here’s the thing. The worst that can happen to that man is his feelings get hurt because a stranger doesn’t trust him. The risk to a woman is an actual, physical thing.

I remember seeing those nuts on Facebook and Twitter. But I’ll concede that they’re primarily from 4chan

They all conveniently sequestered themselves to truth social. They’re still out there, they just don’t share a forum with regular people anymore

How come?

I directly answered that in the same comment. Unfortunately, people who are offended will find a reason to take exception of the situation. There’s no amount of drawing examples that will satisfy the type who only sees that they personally are being attacked and not that it’s more about mitigating risk.

I try to illustrate the reasoning every time. As I have with the following example I made to you. The usual reaction is “well actually the woman in question is still a bigot for avoiding me on the street because she doesn’t know me”, or a similar sentiment in which the offended person runs head first into the point and still misses it.

I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.

Well first, I’d like to congratulate you on being the only person I’ve encountered so far who’s interested in the discussion and not the reaction.

But also, I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.

No one is going after men who take offense at that line of logic so much as those men who are loudly voicing their misunderstanding of a concept which goes on around them all of the time that they have only just noticed. It seems that your concept of “going after those men” is just people who understand the situation trying over and over to explain it.

As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.

I’m interested to hear how you might improve an exchange with someone who doesn’t allow the reasoning that women should be allowed to cross the street 100 ft before crossing you in the interest of their safety.

You’re completely correct. Normally, I’m on the side of not assuming people’s gender and I’m of the mind that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover.

But, because of the safety and personal ramifications crossing the wrong person can have, I think it’s important that we acknowledge a woman’s right to seek safety in a situation she perceives might possibly go south for her. That includes the prerogative of not putting herself in a situation that she perceives as risky to begin with.

Maybe that concept would be better accepted if it were expanded to “Anyone should have the right to avoid danger they think they might be in”

Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.

Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.

Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.

Unfortunately, people who take offense will find ways to deny the situation. The fact is, if you’re walking down the street and a woman 100 ft out moves to the other side before crossing you, she understands that there is a slight chance you might be a danger to her.

That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.

What I’m saying is, women don’t think all men are like that. That would be completely ridiculous. But statistically, enough of them are to warrant not being immediately trusting of strangers that can biologically overpower them in every situation.

I’m sorry but receiving end of what?

Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men

1 in 3 women experience sexual assault of some kind in their lifetimes. 99% of the perpetrators are men.

It’s not unreasonable for a woman to avoid putting herself in a situation that a potential predator can take advantage of or retaliate against her for. Talk to a woman you know about this. I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.

So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement

You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you. It’s not about you, especially if you aren’t a predator.

It’s not a hard concept to grasp. Thank you for saying it, and don’t pay the salty dudes here any mind. I readily tell the ones that argue on behalf of their egos to just talk to any woman they know about this, and I always get some half-cocked “well they’re bigots too” line.

Like yeah sure, every woman is explicitly taught by other women not to put themselves in a potentially compromising position with a man because all women are secretly bigots.

The male ego is such a fragile thing.

Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament. The salty dudes on Lemmy won’t let you get away with telling them otherwise.

I’ve been in a handful of conversations over the last couple weeks with men on this platform that don’t understand the concept that women have to treat men a specific way for fear of the few of them that can be violent.

Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.

I can see the argument for credit card tips not being necessary, especially given that it puts the onus on the restaurant to be honest and distribute that tip correctly instead of just pocketing it (thanks subway).

But if I choose to give a server a dollar, that should be my right as an individual. Micromanaging who I’m allowed to give cash to is a step in the wrong direction.

Ok so…

Mandatory voting

I think this can get messy. It would require a system to prosecute those who don’t vote. That kind of registry can be very easily used for nefarious purposes by politicians or just anyone with access to that information. Also, it would really depend on what degree of mandatory this is. If you get thrown in jail then we are going to see a lot of poor people in prison for no reason. If you get just a fine then we are essentially introducing the inverse of a poll tax. Not voting is a protected form of free speech for a reason and can be interpreted as protest.

Merge house into senate

Last time something like this was posted I got flamed for asking what the point of this one is. The Senate is a representation of the states rights we have in our constitution. It serves as a safeguard against heavily populated areas dictating the laws for much less populated states. I’m all for reform but eliminating the Senate all together seems like a step backwards.

Ban tipping

I think this is another one where the spirit of the idea is right but the execution is wrong. What we need to ban is allowing restaurants to pay tipped positions far below minimum wage, and stop allowing restaurants to take a cut of the tip at all.

The act of tipping itself is a cultural thing that needs to be addressed culturally. If you can’t tip someone for something, complications in the law arise that may disallow giving money to people in general. For example how do you distinguish between tipping a server for a meal and giving the server a dollar as a gift?

Supposedly they will be unlocking all the new heroes for anyone who doesn’t have them yet also. But brand new players will still have to unlock the roster of classic heroes in the same way they do now.

1. This move seems geared towards recovering players they lost when they started locking heroes behind the battlepass. I know two personally who took this news as an invitation to get back into Overwatch just today, so there’s substance there

2. Time spent on brand new accounts to unlock old heroes is most likely a measure to deter smurfs, which is why that’s probably not going to change.

Edit:

3. It also was probably done as a response to the drama they created in competitive modes by making the free tier grind for the new heroes. Not everyone had new or even recent heroes at their disposal, making for inherently unfair games

This conversation is really stupid. You win, the march of technology advances endlessly and changes will be made.

The beginning of this thread was a small vent that didn’t mean anything on a meme. Way to completely overblow your response there, captain verbose.

So it’s acceptable for you to call me a pedant

And lastly, yes.

Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

You are being the literal dictionary definition of pedantic. If I had known you were going to write several paragraphs over how a visual preference is irrelevant because of technological advances, I wouldn’t have engaged you.

On that note, I’m done engaging you. You beat me, I’ll eventually shrivel and die preferring something you don’t agree with. I hope this incredibly unnecessary conversation gives you satisfaction, and thanks again for wasting my time to tell me that my preference doesn’t matter.

Later.

What I’m telling you is that it’s literally a visual element. I already said, it could be optional. Professing it as some sort of inevitably of ui change is just as stubborn.

Frankly, you’re coming off quite hostile about what is literally a texture. Equating this whole line of reasoning to “this is why technology changes” feels like grandstanding to justify defending an obscure ui decision for no other reason than you just prefer it.

Which by itself is fine. You’re allowed to prefer modern design ui. It starts getting ridiculous when you decide to tell other people why their preferences are wrong.

It’s a secret. You’ll have to ask his uncle

That’s because he is his uncle. You’re seeing the source material, be amazed

My friend, obsolescence as a concept can apply to a functional necessity. Obsolescence doesn’t apply to a design choice like a texture on a window element.

If your entire point is that scroll bars aren’t necessary anymore, fine. If you’re going to type up a long winded response as to why scroll bars shouldn’t have the little lines on them anymore, you’re just being pedantic.

It’s a design choice, not a question of obsolescence. If it were, we’d be talking about their decision on removing the scroll bar, not changing it.

At the very least the style change could have been optional.