×

gildings in this subreddit have paid for 8.54 months of server time

1
1403
1404

Deltas(s) from OPCMV: Liberal news sources have lost a lot of credibility because of the way they have reported on the Muller investigation (self.changemyview)

submitted by LiableFlickertail2

2
45
46

CMV: the supposed rarity of false rape claims or false claims of hate crimes is not grounded in evidence (self.changemyview)

submitted by peekabookpenguin

3
3379
3380

Deltas(s) from OPCMV: Using race as a factor in U.S. college admissions is, under all circumstances, wrong. (self.changemyview)

submitted by the_FUEGO_2

CMV: Using race as a factor in U.S. college admissions is, under all circumstances, wrong. by the_FUEGO_ in changemyview

[–]anildash 290 points291 points 2 (0 children)

I’m Indian American. We are not disadvantaged in any way in college admissions; this is obvious by our overrepresentation on statistical grounds on many well-regarded colleges.

That mathematical reality aside, I want to make the case for race-aware admissions, specifically for black students who have historically been excluded from “elite” schools. Most of these universities were explicitly white-only until legally forced to be inclusive just one or two generations ago. Nearly all of the schools which practiced explicit white supremacy in their admissions policies now offer advantages to “legacy” admissions. This, in fact, accounts for up to 1/3 of admissions in many of the most competitive schools, and more than accounts for any barriers to admitting even more Indian American students if these institutions wanted to.

Put simply: schools are denying admission to qualified students in favor of explicit set-asides for white students exclusively on the grounds that their ancestors took advantage of white supremacist policy.

Worse, the advantages of their parents or grandparents benefiting from white supremacy have accrued over decades, in everything from economic gain to access to social networks. Even if you are willing to participate in the current white supremacist attempts to put Asian Americans against black students, you cannot retroactively go back and gain the benefits of your grandparents having been handed the wealth and opportunity of being on the receiving side of Jim Crow policies.

Thus, this inequity cannot be solved without taking race into account, because it was caused by taking race into account. Obviously, we don’t want a fair solution, because a fair solution would deny white students access to these institutions for hundreds of years. Instead, we should pursue a just solution, and justice is making sure the students who were systematically excluded on the basis of race are systematically included with consideration of race.

If you want things to be fair, begin by dismantling the white supremacist practice of legacy admissions. It is by far your biggest barrier, and the only reason that’s not obvious is if you’ve been distracted by people trying to put you against the very African American community that made it possible for you (and me) to live in America as full citizens in the first place.

CMV: Criticising conservatives/right wingers (and even people like Trump) for the crime committed in New Zealand is hypocritical when you oppose criticism towards the muslim community for isis and other terrorist attacks. by MentalAir in changemyview

[–]McKoijion343∆ 206 points207 points  (0 children)

It only seems like there is hypocrisy if you don't see the deeper split. The defining battle of our lifetime is one between cosmopolitan globalists and ethnic nationalists.

Cosmopolitan globalists believe all humans are equal. People should be able to move to any country around the world. People should be able to trade with anyone around the world. All cultures are equally valuable (e.g., all religions are equally valuable, or all religions are equally wrong). They favor a meritocracy where they would rather hire the best person for a given job no matter where they are from in the world.

Ethnic nationalists believe that their tribe is better than other tribes. So a white supremacist would say white people are better than or different from other races. Muslim extremists would say that Muslims are better than believers of other religions. Hindu Nationalists would say that Hindus are better than Muslims. Jewish Nationalists would say that Israel should dominate over Palestine and Muslims. They tend to promote restrictive immigration to keep people from other tribes from entering their country. They tend to limit economic cooperation with other tribes. They favor loyalty where they would rather hire their kids, their friends, or their tribesmen instead of a more qualified person from another tribe.

Trump is a white nationalist. He believes that white Americans are better than Muslims, Mexicans, and the various minority groups in the US (e.g., blacks, homosexuals, Asians). It's not exactly based on race, but there is an in tribe (e.g., you can be black, Jewish, Asian, etc. and be part of the tribe as long as you respect the dominant culture). It's more of a political thing than a purely race driven thing.

The same thing applies to Muslim nationalists or Muslim extremists. But the catch is that most Muslims aren't Muslim nationalists, just like most white people aren't white nationalists. Many of them subscribe to the cosmopolitan globalist viewpoint. So blaming a Muslim globalist for Muslim extremism is like blaming a liberal homosexual in San Francisco for the KKK.

It's confusing for nationalists because they are fighting against both globalists (which is a pejorative term they invented), but also nationalists from other tribes. A Muslim nationalist in Pakistan hates the Hindu nationalist in India even though they have very similar views. They are just playing for different teams.

So if your title was accurate, it would be hypocritical. But it's a bit off. Left wing cosmopolitan globalists can criticize both white nationalists like Trump and Muslim nationalists like Osama Bin Laden. But they can't criticize all white people or all Muslims because they would be criticizing the globalists too. From the nationalist perspective, it's better to paint people with a broad brush because if they say all whites or all Muslims were bad, it makes their political argument stronger.

CMV: There is or was large scale manipulation by reddit stakeholders in an attempt to make 'gold' a thing people actually want. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]pillbinge83∆ 289 points290 points  (0 children)

Direct evidence to prove the contrary is impossible to come by.

I have 5k points myself and have gifted redditors with gold/silver because comments they made make me laugh out loud. I have premium so it's no big deal. Why is it easier to believe in a conspiracy theory regarding reddit gold than that redditors like using a symbolic token system? Gold takes away ads still, I believe, and Reddit could easily just keep in ads if it's about money.

CMV: There is or was large scale manipulation by reddit stakeholders in an attempt to make 'gold' a thing people actually want. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iamfromouterspace -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Could you please sir, could you please give me some gold?

CMV: There is or was large scale manipulation by reddit stakeholders in an attempt to make 'gold' a thing people actually want. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]sexyspacewarlock 22 points23 points  (0 children)

People don’t get much satisfaction from upvoting, because anybody can do it. People don’t get much satisfaction from being upvoted, because anybody can do it.

People derive a great deal of satisfaction from giving gold, because not everybody does it. People derive a great deal of satisfaction from receiving gold, because not everybody gets it.

I literally can’t make t any simpler I’m sorry.

CMV: Transgender athletes shouldn’t compete in the categories of gendered sports they identify as. by Hey-I-Read-It in changemyview

[–]birkir1∆ 245 points246 points  (0 children)

Here's Brynn Tannehill's argument, I re-ordered it a bit, hopefully without losing any important meaning:

Quick test: name a transgender Olympian off the top of your head.

You can't, because since the IOC started allowing transgender people to compete in 2004 there hasn't been one. The NCAA has allowed transgender people to compete without surgery since 2011, and there has not been a single dominant transgender athlete anywhere in college sports.

These constitute large scale, longitudinal tests of the system with millions of athletes as a sample, and the IOC and NCAA rules for transgender athletes are clearly sufficient to preserve the integrity of sports at this time. 15+ years and millions of test subjects is bigger, and longer, than any clinical trial of a drug that I can think of. The development and deployment of the F-22A, the world's most advanced stealth fighter, lasted roughly as long.

The clinical evidence and subject matter opinion aligns with the observed results: removal of testosterone for a year is sufficient to remove competitive advantage. In terms of testing this hypothesis, there is literally no disagreement between various results. The arguments from the other side are either anecdotes (What about so-and-so who won some mid-level event?), or are a form of fearmongering (Transgender women will start dominating women's sports in the future!) that ignores the large scale, real world testing of the policies.

If, at some point we start to see a disproportionate number of transgender women winning high level athletic events, then it would be appropriate to reevaluate the rules for participation. Athletic leagues do this all the time: if something is giving people a competitive advantage, they ban it (but not the players, unless they cheat on the new rules). Steroids, weird golf clubs, aluminum bats, corked bats, intake manifolds with laser holes in them... But for now, there is no data-based evidence that the system is broken. The empirical evidence all points one way. We have years of data and huge sample set.

Testosterone, which the NCAA and IOC regulate, is a key factor in performance. Because trans women lack it, they cannot hope to compete against men. And there simply aren't enough transgender people for them to "get their own league", nor would there be enough public interest to fund such events even if you could find 32 world class transgender fencers. Or 16 crew teams, etc... The alternative is hurting a minority group for no measurable gain (you can't have less than 0 trans Olympic athletes). The implied "solutions" of "Well, they can compete against men or get their own league" replaces a speculative harm with an actual one, because no harm to sport is happening now, but either of the proposed "solutions" represents a de facto ban on transgender athletes.

On top of that, segregating transgender people from society, and driving them from public life, is what the right wing wants. When asked about transgender people in 2016, Ted Cruz replied "Can't they just do that in their homes?" Separate but equal never works out that way.

We have thoroughly field tested the hypothesis that transgender athletes will dominate if they are allowed to compete, and statistically we can reject this hypothesis with high degree of certainty. So, when I point these things undeniable facts out, and people still want to argue, I have no issue with calling them bigots and transphobes. They are immune to facts, logic, data, and expertise. But they are willing to hurt trans people based on their own "gut" feelings.

CMV: Transgender athletes shouldn’t compete in the categories of gendered sports they identify as. by Hey-I-Read-It in changemyview

[–]AJFierce 673 points674 points  (0 children)

Mack Beggs presents an issue of fairness because of the point of view you have set out- he's a trans man, and due to his being trans he has been forced to participate in women's wrestling instead of men's. Since he has high levels of testosterone and has essentially gone through male puberty, he has an unfair advantage over the women, both trans and cis, with whom he is competing. To remove this unfairness is simple- have him compete with and against other trans and cis men. In essence, his existence should HELP change your view.

The rapper Zuby entered a sporting competition with the explicit intent of making it harder for trans women to compete; he does not identify as a woman and is not transitioning, and claimed to do so to enter a competition which I will happily agree had poorly written entry procedures. He lied to enter a women's competition as a political stunt, and while I agree that should not be possible, he is not a boogeyman taking over the women's competition; he's just an ass who decided his anti-trans-competition point was worth derailing an entire women's competition to make.

I'd like to refer you to the fact that the olympics has had guidelines for allowing trans folk to compete in the gender with which they identify for 16 years and made it easier for trans athletes to compete 3 years ago in the Rio olympics. The net result?

Zero trans athletes won gold. Zero trans athletes won silver. Zero trans athletes won bronze.

So we know for a fact that over 4 olympic games in which trans folk could compete as themselves, they have not been dominant in any way. Measurement of hormone levels and meeting the requirements laid out by the IOC ensure fair play.

Now, it's going to take time for the entire world of sport to catch up- the olympics sets a high bar- but this is a solved problem. Your view is one that the world of athletics took into account and solved a decade and a half ago.

CMV: Transgender athletes shouldn’t compete in the categories of gendered sports they identify as. by Hey-I-Read-It in changemyview

[–]moonflower72∆ 27 points28 points  (0 children)

If you are going to start taking issue over terminology, then ''cis women'' is not only offensive but also inaccurate, because ''cis woman'' is a ''gender identity'' which does not describe all female people, and OP wanted to convey the meaning of ''female people'' - so if you must take issue with the word ''woman'' you could replace it with ''female people''.

Suggested alternative: Male people are better at attaining society's female beauty standards than female people are.

CMV: Transgender athletes shouldn’t compete in the categories of gendered sports they identify as. by Hey-I-Read-It in changemyview

[–]Godspeed3111∆ 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Why are you trying to dictate what is acceptable to believe to people? You tell them to reconsider their language because it doesn't sound like they believe what you believe? How arrogant. Trans women are not women and trans men are not men. I believe that.

CMV: Transgender athletes shouldn’t compete in the categories of gendered sports they identify as. by Hey-I-Read-It in changemyview

[–]tnadna 33 points34 points  (0 children)

You are forgetting that we are entering an era where trans people are transitioning before puberty. Bone structure, for example, is not set in stone at that early of an age.

When a kid can't vote, drive a car, drink alcohol, have sex but they can irreversibly change their biological sex?

You cannot seriously think this is ok.

CMV: Transgender athletes shouldn’t compete in the categories of gendered sports they identify as. by Hey-I-Read-It in changemyview

[–]KamuiSeph2∆ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your words indicate that you do not believe trans women are women and trans men are men.

...Does anyone?
Being trans/transitioning does not change your DNA.
Your use of "cis" is unnecessary. Women are women and men are men.
How is this an insensitive thing to say?

CMV: It's not anti-semitic to question the US's commitment to Israel. by into_devoid in changemyview

[–]Nepene169∆ 456 points457 points  (0 children)

Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.

As fox noted she has a history of conspiratorial comments, suggesting a mystical and grand power of israel.

People critique things like that, or the idea that some grand cabal of jews are buying politicians.

In reality, there are much stronger lobbying forces against them. America likes them because they're a reliable ally against communism and Islamist terror, an ideologically similar ally and a religiously similar ally. No big conspiracy needed.

People view these things as anti-Semitic because there is a long history of muslims seeing jews as evil and genociding them, and she is a Muslim who believes jews are magical people with hypnotic powers of mind control who Allah must protect us against.

CMV: It's not anti-semitic to question the US's commitment to Israel. by into_devoid in changemyview

[–]NoHeadacheThrowAway 131 points132 points  (0 children)

Counter points;

RE: "All about the Benjamin's"

The controversy began with a tweet on Sunday night, when Omar responded to a journalist who accused the Republican minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, of “attacking free speech” by targeting Omar and Tlaib, who is Palestinian American, for expressing a divergent view on Israel.

“It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” Omar responded, a reference to Benjamin Franklin, whose face is on the $100 bill.

That tweet generated a response from a Jewish journalist who asked Omar who she believed was “paying American politicians to be pro-Israel”. The congresswoman replied: “AIPAC,” referring to influential pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

Hell, the WSJ basically said the same thing (Even if their wording was far more careful):

Aipac, the pro-Israel lobby, raises more than $100 million a year, which it spends on lobbying politicians for U.S. aid and sending members of Congress to Israel

Does that make WSJ also antisemitic due to the "Jews and Money" canard?

To note, Omar has repeatedly apologized about her choice of words, but not for calling out AIPAC.

Also this thread by Mehdi Hasan points out hypocrisy in the discussion on this in regards to Saudi (which FYI, Omar also attacks them their influence regularly, to the point that She and Talib are attacked by Saudis), Additionally as Peter Feld (who is Jewish btw) argues in this piece which i think you should read in its entirety;

Like “hypnotized,” Omar’s comment on “Benjamins” was said to employ the anti-Semitic trope of secret Jewish control. Much has been written about this awful demonization of Jews, about how it has been repeatedly used to falsely depict one of history’s most marginalized and oppressed peoples as all-powerful.

The problem is, all lobbies, by definition, are designed to exert secret control over policy, using money. That’s what they do. For example, we’re just now learning about a Russian plot to launder money through the NRA and help Republicans. Good times.

And so, unless you want to deny that there even is an Israel lobby, it can’t be off limits to point out that it works in secret and uses money to bring about policy outcomes.

Now, it’s quite true that not all pro-Israel lobbying is Jewish these days. Much of it now comes from evangelical groups and other entities that tend to favor US intervention abroad, and who see strategic importance in Israel.

But it’s also true, almost a cliche in political analysis, that American voters pay little or no attention to foreign policy. So, even as polls continue to show general support for Israel (though now polarized by party, and crumbling among Democrats and younger voters), few voters would be very upset or even notice if the US stopped doing the practical things we do for Israel: $38 billion (a lot of “benjamins”) in military aid, protection at the UN from international accountability and, under Trump, official support for territorial annexation.

For crucial decades before the rise of Christian Zionism, the lobby that produced wall-to-wall congressional support for Israel was AIPAC. Like Omar, academicians Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer were slandered as anti-Semites for merely writing about “the Israel lobby,” though this is no longer tenable and the critics have mostly backed off.

Also

It’s AIPAC, not the evangelicals, who made the Israel Anti-Boycott Act a legislative priority and got 292 House and 69 Senate cosponsors from both parties to place protecting Israel from criticism above their own constituents’ constitutional rights to free speech.

Not all these Congress members hate the First Amendment — many just thought it would be no biggie to sign on to a bill AIPAC cares about. And it was AIPAC who helped force a different anti-BDS bill, S.1, to the Senate floor three times this winter in the midst of a government shutdown.

Note the above also feeds into the next point (Kept it here since it's the same source);

RE: Dual Loyalty Bullshit.

Ms. Omar didn’t say that Jews have dual loyalty. For instance, in one tweet that got people so worked up, Ms. Omar said, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/​pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” You’ll notice she didn’t say or even imply anything at all about Jews. She said that she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true. Many on the right have called for her to be removed from that committee. Her argument, to repeat, isn’t about how Jews feel about Israel, it’s about what is being demanded of her.

Adding to that the push for Anti-BDS legislation, which literally makes it so you can boycott the USA itself (within the US borders) but not Israel (Which courts have ruled unconstitutional because Boycotts are a form of speech protected under the constitution), at a time where we were suffering from a government shutdown is absurd, does somewhat allude to politician "loyalty".

This is further messed up when you see stuff like this;

Take, for instance, the wave of state laws passed in recent years in opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in which a state would refuse to do business with anyone who supports BDS. In some cases, those laws require that contractors sign a document promising not to support any boycott of Israel. It’s illustrated by the case of a speech pathologist in Texas who sued over a requirement that she sign such a pledge to work in a public school district. That is literally a demand that she pledge her loyalty to Israel. She’s not Jewish, and the officials who demanded that she do so aren’t either; the Texas Republican Party is not exactly an organization dominated by Jews. When Gov. Greg Abbott (R) — also not a Jew — proclaims that “Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies,” he’s expressing his dual loyalty.

It REALLY doesn't help their argument when you see someone like representative Juan Vargas say something like this;

It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community. Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable. (1/2)

Israel has and remains a stalwart ally of the United States because of our countries’ shared interests and values. I condemn her remarks and believe she should apologize for her offensive comments. (2/2)

as Mike Merryman-Lotze says;

Indeed, Rep. Juan Vargas tweeted, “questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”

Isn’t stating that it is unacceptable to question the U.S.-Israel relationship (and presumably Israeli policy) effectively the same as calling for unquestioning support of a foreign country? And isn’t conflating non-specific criticism of pro-Israel actions and positions with criticism of Jewish people or Judaism itself dangerous and problematic

Additionally, if you were to read the full text, it's obvious she wasn't trying to use the canard as pointed out by Joshua Leifer

But what she said was not antisemitic: on the contrary, the full text of Omar’s remarks shows that she was careful not to conflate the pro-Israel lobby (which is also comprised of non-Jewish evangelical Zionists) or the state of Israel with all Jews, nor did she employ the dual loyalty canard, which asserts that Jews are more loyal to each other (or Israel) than to the countries they live in.

In other words, She didn't say what everyone is accusing her of saying (Jews have Dual loyalty) and what is being bounced around the internet as "fact", If someone can find a single quote saying "Jews have dual loyalty", I'll rescind this comment, but her comments literally allude to "congress members" and/or AIPAC members (of which the majority aren't Jewish).

1/2 due to response limits

Edit: Thanks for the Gold Stranger!

CMV: Demisexuality should not be considered part of the LQBTQ+ community by MoonSurferLN in changemyview

[–]sflage2k192∆ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I imagine you meant someone other than me, but I will say that this is why I sometimes take issue with the Q in LGBTQ (and definitely the plus sign). Not always but, for example, I know a cis, (at least externally) heterosexual girl who "came out" after the Pulse shooting as "low key femme queer". Like... what exactly does that mean? You're a little off the mark? Just because you're uncomfortable sometimes in your daily life doesn't make it discrimination, and it doesn't mean you need a movement to represent you in your plight.

​

The way I personally define people within the LGBT umbrella is people that suffer acute discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender presentation, plain and simple.

​

And really (despite what some other posters have said) LGBT is about discrimination-- that's why it was created in the first place. If there was no discrimination at all there would be no need for a movement for equality. If people want to assign labels to themselves that's their own business, but the LGBT group, and the movement, is defined by its intention to end unfair discrimination that impacts people's lives in very serious, dangerous, and upsetting ways.

That's also why I say 'acute'. Discrimination is not just people getting annoyed with you or being grossed out. I don't care if people think the way I have sex with my girlfriend is gross and don't want to hear me talk about it. I care that depending on the neighborhood, I'm scared to go to the park and hold hands. I care that if we want to get married we maybe couldn't in some states. I was scared as a kid that if I said I had a crush on a girl, my parents would hate me. I care that in some countries I could be legally murdered or raped because of an inherent and important aspect of who I am.

These are real issues of discrimination that people face. It's not just "I'm uncomfortable" or "sometimes things get awkward".

​

Take furries for example.

Furries are considered weird, but its just a fetish/sexual act. If, however, research were to come out that said that furries are born with their furriness, and furries themselves started coming out and saying they wanted to live a particular lifestyle and the inability to do so was causing them immense psychological pain and suffering, and if anti-furry activists started organizing to pass legislation against them, or beating them or killing them, then I think they could come under the LGBT umbrella.

But, in the end, they're not. No one is going to be denied hospital visitation rights because they dress up as a wolf on the weekends.

​

The LGBT group is about sexuality (and gender presentation), but it's not about sex specifically. To make it entirely about how people have sex is belittling the movement-- the movement is about love and family and personal freedom to present yourself to the world the way you want to be.

People can say they're whatever they want. They can assign themselves labels like demisexual, foot lover, albatross, whatever-- it's their own business. But until they are facing undue and damaging discrimination for those things, it has no place being labelled a part of an anti-discrimination movement.

CMV: The DNC is correct to exclude Fox News from hosting a democratic primary debate. by huadpe374∆ in changemyview

[–]NoFunHere8∆ 110 points111 points  (0 children)

I think this is wrong on multiple levels.

  • No candidate will win the general without winning the independents, and that starts in the primary debates. Independents watch Fox News as well as other stations so the party is reducing their chances of winning in the general.
  • Liberalism used to mean not only advocating for free speech (which isn't the issue here) but advocating for dialog with those you disagree with. It is effective. The gay rights movement didn't progress because of the people shouting down their opponents and calling them homophobes, it progressed through small changes in people's minds through civil discourse. Same with the racism, the great strides made in people's minds from the 60's through the 90's came from dialog, not race baiting. If Democrats truly want to change people's minds, they should talk to them.
  • With the decision of CNN to go far left and become the channel leading Republican hate, and MSNBC being there for a long time, do you support the Republicans keeping unfriendly media outlets out of the Republican primary debates? This is a bad precedent that could lead more to both sides just speaking to those who agree.
  • I believe the Democrats have a real shot of going too far left and losing middle America and suburbs in 2020. A debate on a conservative outlet will help moderates, which the party needs.
  • I believe President Obama was right when he warned of echo chambers. This is a step in the wrong direction.

CMV: I Think “Toxic Femininity” Exists, and is Equally as Troublesome as Toxic Masculinity by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]UnauthorizedUsername16∆ 3322 points3323 points 2 (0 children)

It seems like you've got a bit of a flawed understanding of what 'toxic masculinity' means, and therefor also what 'toxic femininity' means as well. That's ok - it's a pretty nebulous term and can be used to express a few different but related concepts, depending on the context of the discussion at hand.

But from my understanding, at its roots Toxic Masculinity is the concept that the culturally accepted gender roles for men, while they may generally benefit men, can also be harmful to men. It basically is restating the argument that the patriarchy doesn't hurt just women, it hurts men too. An example -- a 'real man' is supposed to be powerful, strong, and not emotional. On the one hand this means that men are generally seen as the stronger sex, and just as one example they're not questioned as readily when put in positions of authority, they're seen more comfortably in a leadership role than women are. But this also pigeonholes men into roles that they may not be comfortable in, or others them if they don't fit in. It leads men to suffer quietly from treatable conditions such as depression and anxiety. It leads men to exert their influence over others in a bid to show they're the most powerful or strong male instead of empathizing or cooperating.

Toxic Femininity, therefor, would be a similar concept -- that the culturally accepted gender roles for women can be harmful to women. That the patriarchy is detrimental to women. Except -- that's sort of already understood to be the case, isn't it? I mean, it's what the feminist movement is all about -- the gender roles for women lead to unequal treatment and we need to push to break past those boundaries towards equality.

Instead, you'll generally see discussion more about benevolent sexism -- ways in which the gender roles benefit women superficially, but also allow for individual women to get away with the sort of bad behavior I think you're talking about. Such as abuse committed by women being much less likely to be believed and get away with their crime, or lesser punishments when they are convicted.

All that said, I'm not sure I quite understand the rest of the body of your post. Can you clarify a bit more, perhaps in regards to the points I mention above?

20
1559
1560

Deltas(s) from OPCMV: Fear of girls getting abused is a poor excuse for opposing gender inclusive public restrooms (self.changemyview)

submitted by rickthehatman

CMV: Fear of girls getting abused is a poor excuse for opposing gender inclusive public restrooms by rickthehatman in changemyview

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have no problem with transmen using the men’s bathroom because statistically female people are not a threat to male people (I’m talking about big picture class analysis here, not anecdotes). Having said that, I am not a man and if men expressed a desire to maintain male-only spaces, I would support that. For some people, it is a dignitary concern to expose themselves around a member of the opposite sex- that’s not to say that we don’t respect trans people as people or won’t call them by their preferred pronouns, but it is to say that many people would incur a dignitary harm if required to expose their naked body in the presence of members of the opposite sex (regardless of how they identify). And for some women, it is against their religion to share an intimate space with a biologically male person. So what you’re advocating for would have a disproportionate impact on minority groups of women (e.g. Muslims, Orthodox Jews), sharply limiting their ability to participate in public life. Your argument is imbued with an indignant, condescending moral superiority complex, but make no mistake- what you are advocating for may indeed be “inclusive” to one minority group, but there are ways that it actively excludes and harms other minority groups. This is just ONE of many examples.

Maybe a trans woman is just butch.

This is extremely offensive and homophobic. I am a lesbian, and one of homophobes’ favorite tactics for bullying lesbians is to say we look or act like men/males. As if female people cannot look like, act like, or be absolutely anything we want without being called “men” for not capitulating to gendered stereotypes, and as if women have to be “feminine” to count as women. This is absolutely absurd and sexist of course, but it is what you are implicitly advocating for and I will always call out homophobia when I see it. Furthermore, butch women and transwomen are actually polar opposites- butch women are masculine females, and transwomen are femininized males. The groups couldn’t be more different and they do not overlap. Also, the majority of women are very astute at immediately distinguishing males from females, probably a skill we evolved to have for our own safety.

CMV: Fear of girls getting abused is a poor excuse for opposing gender inclusive public restrooms by rickthehatman in changemyview

[–]Wjmm 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I think you're mistaken in thinking it's all about the risk of male paedophiles to young girls.

It's also about voyeurism, setting up hidden cameras, and also the fact that many women will not feel safe in a gender neutral toilet (enclosed space, vulnerable as you will be taking some clothes off, etc.). Some men shout inappropriate comments and leer at women on the streets, so who's to say they wouldn't do that in the toilets if they were gender neutral? Why should women have to give up their rights to their own space just because some men say they 'feel' like women? Men and women are biologically different and both deserve sex-segregated bathrooms.

CMV: Superman is a really boring superhero. by Amaraux- in changemyview

[–]alaricus2∆ 759 points760 points  (0 children)

I think you misunderstand Superman at a fundamental level. That's ok though. I think a lot of writers do to, and they write bad stories about him that perpetuate that bad view of Superman.

Maybe its hubris on my part to think that "I'm the one who 'gets' Superman" but since I feel like I "get" him, and I like him. I'll try and break it down.

Practically invincible. Too many powers. Lack of interesting character development. Boring moral drive. Weakness is a green rock.

Practically invincible is not the same as invincible and too many powers is not the same as all the powers. We all have limitations, even Superman. What's interesting about a character, especially fables/heroics/superheroes is how they face those limitations.

Unless youre going to get into metatextual stuff about how they'll never kill a character as classic and popular with 3 or 4 titles at any given time, theres no reason to think that Superman can't fail. Superman can fail just as easily as Daredevil, because they each take on problems that fit with their level of strength. So Daredevil is a blind guy who can see that protects about 8 city blocks in NYC, and Superman is demigod that protects the whole planet, but there's no reason to think that Superman is any less capable of pushing away an asteroid as Daredevil is of dodging the knife that Bullseye just threw at him.

So long as Superman's challenges lay outside of his reach, it can be gripping.

In some Superman histories, his father dies of a heart attack. I personally don't like it because I think that Superman works best when he's actually a kid from a farm who visits his parents on Friday night for dinner, but that's me. The important part of it for the people who do like that story, though, is that even a person with skin of steel, who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, cant save his father from the simple weakness of being human.

Superman wins his fights, but so do Batman and Wonder Woman and Iron Man and Spiderman... they all win because they're superheroes and that's why we buy comics. But he can lose.

All of his villians seem like reskins of the same character. "I'm just as strong as Superman is, let me show you." Brainiac is the only exception, and even he has been known to just use a big superman-sized suit.

You don't need good villains to be a good character. Iron Man has dumb villains, and he's a great character. You need good conflict. Superman's real conflict, his real villain, is the fact that he can't be everwhere at once.

Pa Kent raised one perfect child, and he happened to be Superman. Any other person would have become a tyrant and bent the earth to their will and had us all doing what he wanted. But not Clark Kent. Clark Kent wants to help everyone, and he wants everyone to help each other. But he can't help everyone and we never really help each other enough.

That's the villain that he can't ever beat, and that's why the character is worthwhile.

His appeal is that he doesn't fully understand humans?

I've never liked that take on Superman. I've never liked Tarentino's "Clark Kent is the persona" argument. Clark was Clark when he was 5, 15 and at 35. He's a good kid who wants to do right for his neighbour. If you're a normal human, maybe that means helping someone change a tire on the side of the road, and carrying a neighbour's groceries in if they have arthritis. But Clark can hear the whole world's suffering, and he can stop a lot of it. (But not all of it)

Superman is a persona to inspire people to be better and to help their neighbour. If we all tried to be the best neighbours we could, there wouldn't be any need for him. That's the goal of the costume and the cape.

It seems like the only time he's ever interesting is when he's dying or losing a fight, and even then, you're half rooting for the other guy

This might be true in a straight up fight, but that's not where Superman shines.

I know that you say you're not moved to hear of a storyline, but you're also posting to CMV, so I'm going to ask you to give a couple of books a chance.

Check out All Star Superman by Morrison and Quitely, and Superman: For All Seasons by Loeb and Sale. (they made an animated movie out of All Star Superman, if that's easier) They might show you a side of the character that no one has bothered to show you before.

CMV: The electoral college is dumb, anti-democratic and doesn't even accomplish any of the outcomes its supporters claim are its purpose. by ThereWillBeSpuds in changemyview

[–]waqfhdhaalhara 91 points92 points  (0 children)

The point of the electoral college is to protect against the tyranny of the masses. Our founders were very much into enlightenment and Ancient Greek philosophy and one of the lessons from Plato’s work, The Republic, is that there is a hierarchy of forms of government with a tyranny being the lowest. The second lowest form, which may surprise you, is a pure democracy because it really isn’t that different than a tyranny. The most popular option is not always the correct option, so our founders decided that there has to be some safeguards for the minority opinion. This is incredibly important and it separates the United States from being a mere democracy, but instead a republic. Now originally, this was designed to protect the interests of smaller states against the interests of larger ones. It wouldn’t be fair to smaller states if more populous ones got to walk over them in every election so that their interests get prioritized. This is why a lot of the smaller states opposed the Constitution and preferred the Articles of Confederation. Today, the electoral college continues to protect the minority opinion. If we didn’t have the electoral college then the presidential election would always be decided by the large urban centers of our country, which as it is currently, tend to vote in one particular way. Another reason we need it is because it still protects the interests of the smaller states. My state only has a million people in it, but we have four electoral votes. So even though four is on the smaller side, it is a better deal for us than the popular vote because NYCs votes could all cancel out ours before you even finish counting the whole city. So basically it’s there to make sure that the entire country is being represented and not just the parts of the country that have the most people in them.

CMV: Millennials have to fix the world and have every right to be angry at the older generations. by lawtonj8∆ in changemyview

[–]SuzQP 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Gen X here. Remember us? No? Well, don't feel bad- nobody else does either.

We're going to be in charge before the Millennials get a shot at it, so don't freak out about shouldering the responsibility just yet. We're keeping a low profile, but we have the necessary skills. We're pragmatic, resourceful, and savvy. We've had to be, because we didn't get the societal attention, approval, and coddling lavished on your generation.

Nobody worried about our self esteem, our wellbeing, our entry into adulthood. We were the latchkey kids sitting on the steps waiting for the parents after school in the dark, the milk carton missing kids, the first generation to know how unwanted we were as our parent generation fought for the right to legally abort our potential brothers and sisters. (Keep in mind it was a different culture; for many of us, our first knowledge of abortion came from hideously graphic posters waved in our faces by fanatical adults on the streets. We didn't care about women's lib- we were kids- we just wanted to be wanted.)

Ours was the low point of American education results and the high point of teen drug use and pregnancy. As we entered the workforce, we were criticized as "slackers," losers, risk-takers, and criminals. Society was alarmed by us and a flurry of articles pondered what to do about us. It was generally decided that we were a lost cause- better to focus on the cherished "Next Generation," the charming and deserving Millennials.

But we abide. We were educated in the school of hard knocks. We're street smart and practical. Most importantly, we're willing to do whatever it takes to survive. We made the internet. We built the attention economy and the social media your generation lives to be righteous on. We aren't big talkers, but we get shit done. We don't mind taking the blame when things go wrong, and when they go right we'll take the cash but not the credit. We don't like slogans, we're loyal to no brands, and we don't do bullshit street marches. We're cynical. We're realists. We're pirates, cowboys, and free agents. We manage things and invent systems. When we see a chance, we take it. We don't talk about what to do, we just do it.

And when the lights go out or the shit hits the fan, you will need us for all of those qualities. So sit tight, little buckaroos. We've got this.

view more: next ›