Schadrach

The reason black men are disproportionately charged in the US with crimes is due to white supremacy, including within the police force, which has been information in the public knowledge since BLM protests so stop playing stupid.

You can make that argument for things like nonviolent drug charges and the like (and that’s why you’re saying “crimes” and not “violent crimes” or “homicide”, and to be clear I absolutely agree with you that police are more likely to arrest black folks for nonviolent crimes than whites), but I specifically was pointing to violent crimes and in particular homicide. The “fun” thing about homicide is that it’s hard to invent homicides whole cloth, and you can’t just plant a homicide in someone’s car to “discover” when you search them or w/e. And when you get into homicide, in most cases perpetrator and victim are the same race.

So in your scenario how would police white supremacy cause the effect shown in the stats? Do the police just ignore dead white folks, because they are more likely to have been killed by other whites? Do they send extra effort investigating the deaths of black folks, because they were likely killed by other blacks? Is there a secret, nationwide conspiracy whereby every law enforcement institution secretly murders black folks and then manufactures evidence to frame other black folks for it at a later date, and everyone from officers to coroners to forensic techs to prosecutors, judges and jurors are all in on it?

But to double down on my original argument, when you start looking at criminal justice stats, usually when there’s a racial gap that harms black folks there’s also a sex gap that harms men. Your argument that racial gaps are definitely just bigotry but men are just violent monsters who should be (for example) disproportionately killed by police, be more likely to be prosecuted when arrested, be more likely to be arrested for nonviolent crimes, should receive higher bail for the same charge and longer sentences for the same charge, etc, etc? And you don’t see the bigotry in saying that?

…and yet federal domestic violence law in US was full of explicitly gendered language and until fairly recently (I haven’t read over the last two revisions of it in detail), had things like having the standard anti-discrimination boilerplate and then following it with that funded programs were allowed to discriminate with respect to actual or perceived sex or gender if the program felt it was necessary, so long as an alternative was available (no requirement to even give lipservice to it being equivalent), but elsewhere that all funded programs must serve women (hint: they weren’t thinking about non-binary people when they were thinking of who that would exclude).

Or Title IX implementation. Title IX literally says that federally funded educational programs cannot discriminate with respect to sex. The implementation of that very simple notion includes things like if a girl wants to play a school sport but there isn’t a girls team she must be allowed to try out for the boys team and be allowed to play if she can perform at their level. If a boy wants to play a school sport but there isn’t a boys team, he’s SOL. Equality! https://www.nfhs.org/articles/title-ix-compliance-part-iv-frequently-asked-questions/

The first men’s DV shelter in Canada was repeatedly denied funding specifically because it wasn’t a women’s shelter until the guy running it couldn’t keep it open from his own finances and private donations. When he shut it down, he hung himself in the garage.

The right occasionally pays lips service to men’s issues, the left mostly ignores them. Neither generally actually does much.

“Feminists” that base their feminism on pure misandry are counterproductive to the movement

…but are also quite common and not called out or excluded for it.

Hell, I can point you to the sexual assault researcher who is the origin of that 1 in 4 number you hear thrown around and also coined the term “date rape” asking in confusion how a woman could even hypothetically rape a man and when given an example where the man was drugged into compliance declared it to be “unwanted contact” and not, you know some kind of assault or rape. This was about ten years ago, not like back in the 70s or something.

Most serial killers, most violent offenders, are men.

In the US, violent offenders are also disproportionately performed by black folk (including being an actual majority for homicide and robbery). I suspect you don’t think we should make assumptions about black folks being violent though? I doubt you think when someone is killed we should simply assume the killer is black because the killer is usually black?

And note, I’m not arguing that we should - I’m using it as an illustrative point of why this line of thinking is bullshit.

Wow, think of the example he’s setting. If his kids were in that marriage, would he recommend waiting for 1/5 of their life to go by with a horrible person? How will his kids even know how to have a loving relationship if his parents are that fucked up?

He’s a coward who cares more about money than about being a good person or dad.

Sounds more like he’s a realist who knows how this will go. Kentucky requires the court in contested custody cases start from a presumption that equal custody is best unless there’s a good reason not to and a preponderance of the evidence for that reason. A few other states require the court to at least consider the possibility, but the rest leave contested custody cases entirely up to the judges preferences and biases. The result is that the court tends to be biased against men because “a child needs it’s mother” or some similar BS. Couple that with a lot of these cases involving Mom staying in the home and Dad having to find somewhere else to live, and suddenly it’s in “the best interest of the child” for Dad to see them every other weekend, at most.

And that’s most men in these relationships. Men would rather cheat and lie than be honest and extend basic respect and communication to their partners. And then get upset when women finally initiate divorce for the broken shitty relationship.

They’d rather be in their children’s lives and able to at least try to take care of them than risk losing them altogether while paying their mother for the privilege of being her former victim and just kind of hoping she’ll use at least some of that for the kids. And I’m not even going to start on the fundamental “man = bad” presumption here.

1 is questionable, in part because of the claim that we don’t know how under reported it is in 2. But also because there have been studies going back to the 70s suggesting that most violent relationships involve mutual violence, and the ones that don’t aren’t a large majority of men abusing women. For example, the woman who founded the first women’s refuge in the UK had written that many of the women entering her shelter were as violent as the men they were leaving, giving a number a number that was pretty close to numbers Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz came up with from their research in the 70

Those studies get questioned or minimized not because they have particularly bad issues with how they are done, but because the field is essentially subject to ideological capture and research that contradicts the goals of the activism at the time is worked against.

There’s also some playing with terms and definitions that works against men in this kind of thing. To use a trans example, all women in the UK who rape are trans - this isn’t because trans women are particularly likely to rape, but because rape is defined in the UK as requiring the perpetrator to penetrate the victim with the perpetrator’s penis, which means cis women are incapable of “rape”, but if you’re a TERF and need something to support your point… For an example regarding men, Mary Koss (a prominent sexual assault researcher, enough so that you almost can’t talk about the topic in the US without touching something descended from her work) was asked a question about men being raped by women about a decade ago in an interview. She responded with incredulity, asked how would that even happen, and when given an example who had been drugged into compliance was told by Koss that that wasn’t rape, but “unwanted contact” and in other places she’s made a point about the importance of keeping rape a word for female victims because men just don’t feel hurt or shame in the same way.

Or NISVS where you see a couple of interesting things. One is playing with definitions where if a man copulates with a woman against her will it’s “rape” but if a woman copulates with a man against his will it’s “made to penetrate”, with the latter being a subcategory of “Other” so as to obscure any kind of direct comparisons between them or that the two are as similar as they are. You also have this clearly demonstrated phenomenon that they seem to actively avoid discussing where previous year rape numbers are pretty similar (if you consider being “made to penetrate” equivalent to “rape”) but in lifetime numbers men’s reporting drops off drastically. I suspect this is caused by men not categorizing what happened to them in this way, in large part because they get told again and again that it doesn’t count, that they were lucky, or similar until eventually they believe it.

The Bible actually gives instructions on how to induce an abortion

It really doesn’t. What it does is describe a religious rite that’s a sort of combined paternity test/abortion if she’s unfaithful. The idea being that the priest does his thing, she drinks the dusty water and if the child isn’t her husband’s she’ll miscarry on the spot. If she doesn’t miscarry, then God has proclaimed it’s his kid and he should have more faith in his wife.

There’s nothing in the description of it that would tell one how to trigger an abortion without divine involvement.

The true culprit is men,

Being pro-life or pro-choice isn’t strongly genedered. It’s not like men as a class oppose abortion and women as a class defend it. I think you’d be shocked at the sheer number of women out there who oppose abortion, and the number of men who don’t. It would be more accurate to say that a swath of religious folks (Catholics and certain flavors of evangelicals) oppose it, and those in their social reach get pulled along with them, along with traditionalist conservatives who are all about controlling sexuality.

You mean when he finally dies and she inevitably releases a tell-all book to capitalize on the opportunity?

By extrapolating from there…there’s gonna be someone that is gonna make Trump look good.

This progression is necessary, otherwise the Democrats would not be able to sell every election as “the most important election of our lifetimes.” The escalation of stakes is required.

They left out one other important thing - like how you can see and interpret with users on other instances, each instance also has its own communities, and the community names are also @ whichever server hosts them. For example, there are multiple politics communities.

And groups hosting a Lemmy instances range from the Lemmy devs to a bunch of tankies to instances like the one I’m from, which is run by a group called SDF that’s been around since the 80s and had its start as a dialup anime BBS.

Not true, we had anti-vaxxera long before Trump, of both the vaccines cause autism and crunchy hippy varieties. The former just mutated into an aggressive new form after being exposed to a novel virus and consequently a novel vaccine.

Texas killing this child for losing a pregnancy

Texas didn’t kill her for loosing a pregnancy - Texas killed her by making her losing the pregnancy take too long by terrifying doctors out of speeding the process along, causing her to be in and out of hospital ERs repeatedly while doctors essentially played “hot potato” with her despite all of them knowing what needed done out of fear of being thrown in prison for a century if they did it, causing her to eventually develop sepsis and die.

It’s much, much worse than “killing her for losing a pregnancy”, and exactly how awful it is and how it got to that point needs to be spelled out in detail. Otherwise you’ll have people pointing out that the Texas law has an exception for medical emergencies, and it needs pointed out and doubled down on that by the time the doctors were reasonably certain that a conservative Texas court would agree with them it was a medical emergency (aka she’d already developed a systemic infection), she was already doomed.

Are they? It literally points out “Who you voted for is secret” on the ad, right above where it says that people will know if you voted.

Tusday was maybe the best a thousand years ago but who cares?

Closer to two hundred years ago, since the law in question was passed in 1854. But the point was it’s that way for a reason, and that reason was a good reason at the time it was done. It seems so weird now because of social change that has since made it inconvenient.

It can also be changed if Congress wanted to, as it’s just a regular law and not part of the Constitution or something else that would be harder to change.

On my instance you just click “Communities” at the top and it gives you a list of communities with three options at the top Subscribed/Local/All just like the main feed. Click all and you can browse or search the list of all communities, though the search is not great.

It’s on Tuesday because that was actually convenient with the flow of business at the time. Most were Christian and wouldn’t work or travel on Sunday if possible, it often took a day’s travel to get to the nearest town with a polling place, and Wednesday was market day.

If Sunday and Wednesday are right out and you need a day’s travel time (which also can’t be Sunday or Wednesday) you’re basically left with Tuesday or Friday. And if you’re going to be in town for the market anyways then Tuesday makes more sense.

It is in November because that’s after the biggest harvests, but not so far after that the weather is likely to be rough. And it’s the Tuesday after the first Monday so that it can’t overlap with All Saints Day.

On the upside it could be changed with a regular old law, it doesn’t require an amendment or anything.

And sometimes that goes the exact opposite way. For example, Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted on an insanity defense and spent less than two months in counseling.

Puerto Rico periodically votes on whether or not to pursue becoming a state, becoming a state doesn’t win except in one vote that was specifically a non-binding vote on the topic and that had much lower turnout than other votes on the idea.

DC was literally created specifically to not be a state, so that no state held the seat of the federal government.

Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.

I imagine it depends heavily on the field. In some fields there are ideas that one can’t seriously study because they’re considered settled or can’t be studied without doing more harm than any believed good that could be achieved. There are others subject to essentially ideological capture where the barrier to publish is largely determined by how ideologically aligned you are (fields linked to an identity group have a bad habit of being about activism first and accurate observation of reality second).