this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
1074 points (96.6% liked)

Murdered by Words

1647 readers
1 users here now

Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.

The following things are not grounds for murder:

Rules:

  1. Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
  2. Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
  3. No bigotry of any kind.
  4. Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
  5. If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
  6. Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 61 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Deep Thoughts With The Deep.

I do love how the stupid comment is refuted by a purposely stupid comment that perfectly refutes the first stupid comment in the same realm of stupidity. This is gonna blow some idiots mind.

[–] crossal@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Hows the second one stupid?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MalarchoBidenism@hexbear.net 48 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, you believe in universal human rights? Have you considered that everyone has their own favorite color, and therefore we can never be equal?

spoilersmuglord

[–] Zoldyck 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

These stupid custom emoji's take up half of my screen. Wtf?

[–] WIIHAPPYFEW@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Sorry abt that, I’m hoping our devs figure out how to restrain their sizes on other instances

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Right until its sports

Or getting the kids after a divorce

Or giving birth

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago

"Who is bossy" versus "who has leadership qualities" in the corporate world.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Or fist fights. Or facial hair.

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or getting the kids after a divorce

Evidence that men experience genuine bias in custody hearings when they pursue custody is basically nonexistent. There's a persistent stereotype surrounding it, but it's not actually one borne out of evidence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] beta_tester@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago

The shadow of a ball and a cylinder would be nice as well

[–] wipasoda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Well to a certain degree I guess. They're never going to be as equal as numbers can. What is even meant by men and women being "equal"? Equality of opportunity?

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

Why do you ask?

It's been my experience that people who value equality don't care about the nitty gritty of what it means, because it's a value. An ideal. And if you hold equality as an ideal, that means it's always something to work towards. Inqualities are triaged, but they're all something that we should overcome in the name of fairness and egalitarianism.

Someone always brings up "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" when they want to disrupt and derail people who value equality by getting them to wrestle in the mud about how much equality is too much. And, to be frank, it feels like you're trying to throw the "equality of outcome" wrench into the gears here, and I don't believe that is ever done in good faith.

What's the problem with equality of outcome? What does it even mean? Where does the objection come from?

Simply put, it comes from resentment. It comes from the idea that "I worked hard, so I deserve a better quality of life than someone I choose to believe worked less hard!" And that's just a long way of saying "I believe I am more deserving than someone else".

But why? Often this comes from people who already have a certain level of comfort in life believing that they hold more right to that comfort, safety, and happiness than someone else. Too often in this sphere, it comes from people who liked tech and did well in technical subjects in school believing that that entitles them to a higher quality of life than someone who wasn't interested in or had no special aptitude for those subjects. But shouldn't one of the freedoms that comes from equality being the freedom to find joy in what you want? Why should I be rewarded more lucrative Ly than you for enjoying something different?

And if I don't enjoy it, should it really make sense for me to suffer at something I don't enjoy for the sake of wealth? Maybe the equality of outcome is really the equal ability to experience joy, and comfort, and security no matter what we enjoy and how we invest our time? If the world has the resources to allow it, then why should one person be punished for chasing their joy while another is rewarded?

The answer usually boils down to "I made better decisions, so I should be rewarded!" which is just another way of saying "people who make mistakes should be punished!"

And that seems like bullshit. What kind of world is that? Where people aren't safe to make mistakes (and this is ignoring the idea that someone's passion can be considered a mistake)? Where they're punished for trying something different? Or for not jumping on a trend? Where safety and comfort are used as crudgles to force people to do things that make them miserable?

Because that's really what "what do you mean by equality?" is really saying.

[–] Okokimup@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Dang, if this isn't a copypasta, it ought to be.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 23 points 2 years ago (15 children)

What is event meant by man and women being "equal"?

That we're all human beings who deserve to not have our gender determine what we can and cannot do? I think that's pretty obvious. In practice, of course, we're not there yet. Misogyny is rampant and insidious. But the goal in my mind is for gender to just legitimately not matter at all, outside of, like, romantic and sexual relationships.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago

And in the first place, aren't we all different?

Nobody is just man or woman and nothing else. We all have a huge number of traits that all together make us individuals. From the physical like size, hair and so on to the mental, what we enjoy, what interests us and so on.

King Charles, the Rock and me are men. Solely on gender we are the same. But people would be quick to point out all the differences.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)

Equity: equality of available options.

Plus a whole huge swathe of problematic gender expectations to squash to boot.

No, it's not about squashing the identities themselves, it's about squashing the gendered expectations. Women shouldn't be expected to know how to do laundry, cook, or avoid dirty jobs. Men shouldn't be expected to be tough and "walk off" injury and trauma, etc.

Sure, only some are "different", but remember: It's not about dissing or removing the identities themselves, (outside of the highly problematic ones like the very machismo man) it's about not setting them as expectations for everyone.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Laundry and cooking are basic life skills and most people regardless of gender should know how to do those tasks. No one should be expected to be doing those tasks because of their gender.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›