Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
You've hit the nail on the head but not in the way you think. Let's dig into the things you state made young men no longer accepting of the, (1) "let people do whatever they want if it doesn't affect you" and (2) "every human should be treated equally".
The goalpost-moved, "we have to change the rules for the trans". What do you mean? The whole trans issue was invented by the right wing as a new bogeyman to attack. Gay people were accepted (after many decades of abuse) by the general public - so they were no longer an effective target. New target: trans. I had honestly heard about trans people about a couple dozen times in my life prior to 2010, and I knew two of them. It was just not any kind of big deal. Very easy to file under (1) and (2). Zero impact to anyone's life but their own. Then all of a sudden: bathroom bans, Jordan Peterson talking about them a lot, Trump banning them from military service, and so on.. And so forth. There was no great request that trans people suddenly made to society - they were just thrust into the spotlight as a new target for people who are scared of anything they're not familiar with (conservatives) to fearmonger into the right ("teachers want to let your boys wear dresses to school and turn your kids trans!").
Next "we have to give women privilege to compensate for misogyny". What privilege? Honeslty. I'm really at a loss on this one. The privilege of police having to actually take reports and follow then up when they claim they're sexually assaulted or raped, as opposed to the 90s & prior standard of "are you sure you weren't asking for it?" & filing it in the back of the drawer to never see light again? The privilege of MeToo which is where many women came forward about sexual assault that they were pressured against mentioning in the past? Again, anyone on the left was fine with the 'privileges'? as they firmly slot into (1) and (2).
Please elaborate, because details matter on these two issues you list as prime examples of the left moving the goalposts 'beyond their original principles' - because to me, a leftist, they seem perfectly in line.
Elaboration:
By women privilege I don't mean anything to do with rape or sexual assault. Although laws that say "doing X to a woman is sexual assault" could easily say "doing X to a human is sexual assault" and nobody would complain, but that doesn't score as much political points for leftist politicians.
I mean things like scholarships, entrepreneurship subsidies, gender-bas hiring quotas.
And many other things that used to be "micro-sexism" when it was done against women, now it's done against men.
As an example, here's some anecdotal evidence: my girlfriend studies mechanical manufacturing in a public school, they are about 10 people in class, 2 of them women. Every year they take photos/videos of students working to advertise their school. 2/2 times they "chose" the 2 women to appear in the mechanical manufacturing adds, 0 men.
Later on, each group made a project and submitted it for a government program for entrepreneurs. They only chose 1 group from her class (guess which one, the one with 2 women). When they attended the gathering of the awarded ones, they asked the organizers and they admitted that no group for their class was good enough, they only got in because they were 2 women in a mechanical manufacturing class.
Every time I say cases like this there is one of 2 responses from the left:
I never hear this reaction: 3. Yeah that's fucked up, the men in that class are 2nd class citizens in the presence of women.
You said no group was good enough. Is it possible they had to award somebody and just picked the group that'd look better? Because most of us will instead see the problem in needing a winner at all. If noones qualified, just don't award anyone
I don't know if they had to pick someone. But even if they did, they should choose the better of them, instead of whichever had more women.
A 4.5/10 project is still better than a 3/10, even if neither would pass.