discyours

[discyours]

Undocumented immigration is not a violent crime. It is a misdemeanor.

Capitalism is the violent criminal.

[discyours]

📢📢📢

[discyours]

if you want to actually start to end homelessness, you need to give homeless people unconditional homes, including when we use them to do drugs or sit around drinking. either housing is unconditional or it isn’t

someone sitting at home alone, an active alcoholic, squandering your charity, drinking all day is better situation than a street homeless alcoholic. someone using drugs in your charity house is better than them doing the same w no shelter

most of you would not like most street homeless people, I definitely don’t and didn’t when I was street homeless. for every one person who uses unconditional shelter to turn themselves around, someone else will do jack shit and very slowly, if ever, work through the issues that made them homeless, will maybe never be able to live independently. still better than street homelessness, still worth doing. ultimately either you believe that shelter should be universal or you don’t

homeless people actually can’t be rehabilitated if you want to end homelessness. we either affirm the right to shelter for the worst drunken, lying, filthy, cheating, self destructive homeless people that exist, genuinely irredeemable wankers, or we concede that shelter is not a right

[discyours]

radical feminism does not offer debate. They present the philosophical position of oppression based on critical legal theory, which is based on class struggle theory. It takes for granted that the speaker's perspective is true, circularly, and that they are an Oppressed Minority. And how do they know they are an oppressed minority? Because they declare the other as their oppressor, therefore the existence of their category is oppressed and the relationship is to an oppressor, of course.

They present this as clear cut self-evidence and expect other people to accept it as indisputable fact, with velvet rope around it. This is where the entire discussion about inequality/oppression and minority status begins. This is not up for debate, as far as they're concerned.

But they will allow talk about "examples" of this specific take on oppression by the male sex (or, gender, in modern parlance) and acknowledge real life disparities, but only viewed through the lens of their class struggle theorist dichotomy.

This dichotomy does not care about the number, the severity, or the history beyond the impression of precedent that reinforces the class struggle theorist interpretation of the debate. It cares only about muddling the class struggle theorist definition of oppression (where regardless of the society, its rules, or the statistical crimes occurring in it, they'd still consider women oppressed because they're women in a non-socialist non-Feminist society, and therefore consider it patriarchy) with legitimate oppressions and historical, legal inequalities, and trying to sneak in critical legal theory into the background without allowance for argument of whether it belongs there or not.

Unless and until the feminist/gender debate swings around to put the basis for this discussion into focus, which is Marxist nonsense trying to use genuine social issues as protective layers and sneak in to frame discussions and even general, neutral words with its own infectious inflections, we'll never properly dismantle Radical Feminism from real gender equality that does NOT put gynocentrist Marxism as the fundamental building blocks of the conversation.

No class struggle theory, no feminism. Just gender equality.

Current top contender for highest number of words used to say absolutely nothing, congratulations anon

[discyours]

Gustave Courbet: The Origin of the World, 1866

[discyours]

it’s always when you open tumblr in public when an 1866 painting of a vagina shows up on your dash

[discyours]

STILL THINK WE’RE OVERREACTING?

[discyours]

I sent my inner child to work at a steel cable plant to make some extra cash and it got mangled in an industrial accident and died in the hospital so I really don't have to protect it or whatever anymore. good luck with your self care stuff though

[discyours]

male civility is a facade.

[discyours]

[discyours]

i think as adults it’s our responsibility to be nice to kids and treat them with the respect we wish we got at that age and im not kidding or exaggerating in the least

[discyours]

OP: the stall owner I often order spicy 炸串zhachuan(skewers) from whipped out an impromptu Inner Mongolian grassland dance

[discyours]

[discyours]

i am increasingly convinced that the wedding industry is having a statistically significant impact on young women leaving the mormon church. has anyone looked into this?

[discyours]

[discyours]

(About porn)

Correct me if im wrong but it sounds like you are mostly concerned with the safety/abuse side of porn and porn industry? I ask because i wonder if you are also concerned with the mental effects of consuming it. Let’s say hypothetically if there was a bulletproof sureness that there is no abuse/issues with consent/exploitation going on the industry would you, then, be okay with it and your partner watching it to get off?

The ethics are 100% my primary concern and I couldn't imagine being more concerned with my partner, idk, developing skewed expectations about sex, compared to my partner directly funding human trafficking.

I'm aware that you can't necessarily choose how the content you consume influences you but I wouldn't be that concerned about my partner becoming "porn brained" just because I know him and how he handles expectations. Society as a whole presents a certain image about how women's bodies are supposed to look and how your sexuality is supposed to work and I do not fit that image, letalone the even more skewed one that is presented in porn (and still would be, I assume, in your hypothetical scenario).

He's never showed the slightest hint of putting expectations on what our sex life would look like based on what's normal for other people, and was happy to have a relationship with me even when I thought we might never have sex. I wouldn't see a person like that occassionally watching porn and suddenly becoming pushy about X and Y sex act "because these other women do it" but I guess you never know. Not really a concern for me since your hypothetical scenario doesn't actually exist. As far as getting off to other people in general and whether that's acceptable in a monogamous relationship I think that's a personal choice. I'd feel weird about it but that's because I can't seperate it from the actual reality which is that in order to give verifiably enthusiastic consent for someone to get off with/to you you generally need to establish some kind of relationship, which isn't a very monogamous thing to do.

[discyours]

Are you okay with your partner watching porn? (Assuming he does)

I would not be comfortable having any kind of close relationship with a person who's able to hear my reasons for not watching porn (supporting a deeply abusive industry, risk of accidentally consuming revenge porn/CP, and in no case can you know whether someone gives ongoing consent for the material you're watching to remain online, which is a base requirement for any kind of ethical sexual activity), shrug them off, and keep watching regardless.

My partner did watch porn before we met (and I used to too, I think that's near universal for our generation) but he heard my arguments, was immediately disgusted at the thought that it was nearly guaranteed that he's unknowingly watched CP at some point, and as far as I know has not watched porn since.