Yes absolutely. Thats called Solidarity and is a big part of what I stand for as a leftist. Its not all about me and not everything has to only bother me for me to fight it. Im a withe men. Sexim or Racism aren't issues for me personally. Im lucky. But im obviously still against Sexim and Racism even tho only other people are suffering from it.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
34 points (90.5% liked)
No Stupid Questions
42081 readers
877 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question 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.
Questions 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 META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, 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.
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. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You know, sexism and racism would probably be a much better allegory than vanilla perfume...
Those feel different. One is active hate towards others (that's the point of it), and the other is doing/using something you enjoy that happens to negatively affect others. They may be adjacent, but not the same.
I'm pretty sure some people enjoy being sexist/racist and some even get off of watching people being sexist/racist. However, there are people in both groups who also understand it's a problem and stand against it, except with consent in private.
Neither sexism nor racism needs to be active hate towards someone. If you just absentmindedly select a white person for a job, you might not even be aware you did it nor do you need to hate the black applicant. Some biases are stealthily part of our psyche.
Most people who have sexist or racist opinions don't know their behavior is sexist or racist, most of it is conditioned socially.
So maybe the perfume analogy is good?
A person might not be aware is harmful, but there's information about it, they just don't seek it out. Maybe someone tried to explain their perfume is overwhelming, making it difficult for a small group of people to concentrate, but they've ignored them. When they see groups trying to get their perfume banned from public places they think those people are overreacting because they like the perfume. The perfume clearly isn't hurting anyone because anyone who would be affected by it has left their workplace, or decided not to say anything because they keep getting ignored, and management thinks they complain too much, and they can't lose their jobs. Socially, anyone who doesn't like the perfume already avoids them. The perfume can't be that big of a deal.
Generally yes, For me it depends on how significant the discomfort is and how broadly it impacts people, but also, how much doing the thing really matters a lot to someone.
Like, there’s a point at which “ok someone else’s discomfort about this thing is marginal compared to how much it matters to a large number of people” at which point I get annoyed at someone trying to force other people to stop doing something that matters to them, even if I’m not doing the thing.
This makes sense!
t which point I get annoyed at someone trying to force other people to stop doing something that matters to them, even if I’m not doing the thing.
That's why I said that, in the hypothetical, you already agree with the ban! Otherwise, you'd be upset that someone was infringing on someone else's autonomy for no good reason - in other words, you'd be upset that someone is being upset. Which, yeah I mean it's really the same thing, in reverse, I guess.
Last year on the 4th, I was walking home from the big fireworks show, and I saw a teenager on a scooter, who was briefly crouching down and not being safe. But he came up beside a lady and surprised her, and she swatted at him and tried to push him over, which would have crashed him into several people walking. More than just a startle response, and the kid stopped, looked back, angry - but he was a black teenager and there's this white lady and her beefy white boyfriend/husband staring him back, so he turns and disappears back into the crowd.
And I'm instantly furious.
"That's assault," I told her.
"Mind your own fucking business" she says. Several other people are watching.
Thankfully my husband and her husband pulled us in different directions and the crowd separated us.
But I was so fucking angry, and that lady looked like she had started a fight or three in her life. Her boyfriend looked like he wasn't happy to be there in that moment.
So yes, but it has to be something serious.
I'll take "broad questions that can only be answered in context" for $200 Alex.
Seriously, ask me this question on 10 different days in 10 different ways and I'll never give the same answer.
Even in the context of your vanilla perfume hypothetical I don't have enough information to answer. How severe a reaction, what percentage of the population is affected, where is the perfume wearer at the time, why hasn't it been banned and/or what makes me an expert who's oppinion is worth a damn, etc etc etc?
From what little info I have on the hypothetical, no, I wouldn't be upset. I didn't see anyone being harmed, the perfume wearer wasn't doing anything illegal, and I've got my own shit to deal with.
Eating an allergen loaded sandwich to yourself - A-OK.
Coating yourself in allergens and going on tour - No.
Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.
For matters of personal preference, I would invite the offended to suck it up and deal with it. For anything with consequences beyond offense, each individual situation is nuanced and common sense should apply. Maybe don't eat that PB&J just before meeting a bunch of people for the first time.
Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.
Well, that's why I said you already agreed with the banning, as part of the hypothetical. Dang, I really feel like quite a few people got kind of hooked on that... I asked this in a Discord server and several people just said "well I wouldn't want it banned."
Just out of curiosity - and some frustration - what do you think would be a good abstraction for asking this question?
Regardless, sounds like a reasonable answer.
Edit: Wait, now I'm confused.
Do you think coating yourself in allergens and going on tour is OK or not? And is banning an allergen because of a small fraction of the population OK or not?
Sorry, should have been clear. Lethal allergen tour = bad. Banning completely = also bad.
My main point was that there is a line between discomfort and danger. That line can move based on the situation, so it is awkward to abstract without getting down to specifics.
If say 5% of the population suddenly developed a tendency to go into anaphylactic shock on exposure to vanilla, then you could easily see it disappearing from fragrances altogether and becoming a non-problem in that regard. Yet it would still have culinary use and join many friends on the bolded ingredient lists on food.
There is a turnover point (that I cannot explicitly define) where the onus is on the afflicted to ensure their own safety, rather than the population at large going out of their way to ensure it.
I am fortunate to have no issues like this. In 5% Vanilla-Death-Land, the smell of the stuff would still give me pause, as I probably know someone who could well die from the idiot that just walked in the door honking of it.
If the same person instead just brought in a vanilla milkshake, I probably wouldn't bat an eye.
If I agree with the moral logic behind it, then yes - it’ll upset me even if I’m not personally affected. If I hear someone shouting slurs at a black person, I’ll obviously take issue with it, despite not being black myself.
On the other hand, if I hear someone say, for example, “this thing is retarded,” then even if society broadly considers that offensive, I still wouldn’t personally have a problem with it - because I don’t agree with the reasoning behind that judgment.
My response might be sligtly convoluted, but I'll try to keep it simple. It relates to allergies.
For me, I am extremely allergic to oysters, and largely also allergic to shellfish. I'm so badly allergic to oysters that I cannot be in the same room as someone else eating them, the smell alone makes me gag, my eyes water, and makes my bronchial tubes swell where I can't even breathe.
I however am luckily not allergic to peanuts. Regardless, I totally understand how potentially deadly a peanut allergy can be to those with the allergy, and if I'm in a public place around strangers, I tend to assume that anyone around me might have a peanut allergy.
Last year, I was in line at a gas station, and the woman in front of me waiting to pay had bought boiled peanuts. And she was fucking shelling and eating the peanuts while waiting in line, the bitch couldn't even wait to pay for them, with cash, and exit the store first.
I called her out on it, and even pretended that I did have a peanut allergy, and what she was doing was not only nasty, but also a danger to others handling her peanut juice covered money.
She proved to be a Karen and not give a fuck, but I did speak my mind, on behalf of people that could possibly fucking die over her nastiness and carelessness.
For me, I am extremely allergic to oysters
Damn, that must suck balls...
I called her out on it
Good on you, dude! I wish I called dog owners on their leash-less dogs more often...
Even though the woman proved to be a Karen, the cashiers working the store that day totally understood why I was upset. If only they had or enacted a policy of don't consume any products in the store...
As far as the dog on the leash thing, we're about 99% in favor of that, only exception being when we take our dog out to our city park, where we adopted him from as abandoned.
Brownie knows every inch of the park and I feel it would be wrong to not let him roam free occasionally when there's not many people or other animals around. Those sort of days are few and far between though, so 99% of the time he's on the leash.
IDK, frankly I'm just straight up a dog hater. That's why I posed a hypothetical. With dogs, I just really can't stand them... Aren't there like, dog parks or something, where the whole point is that they get to roam free without bothering people? Maybe that's not available where you are. Maybe you're really reasonable with when you do it.
I don't know... I really find it hard to keep my [strong dislike] out of my thoughts here!
If it's an off leash park it's fine. If it's on lead have them on lead. It isn't about your dog it's about everyone else's dogs. Dogs on leash are significantly more reactive when another dog runs up to them, so it's important to have control of the dog, lest one of the dogs gets badly hurt.
Our park is mostly a water park for kids at the front, with a couple pavilions, and a boat ramp and senior citizen center in the back. So yes, it's not an official dog park, but unofficial its accepted as one by pretty much everyone.
We keep him on the leash when there's lots of people or other dogs around, but on days when the park is practically empty, we let him roam free and burn his calories.
He was abandoned for like 5 months out at the park before we decided to adopt him, so most regular park visitors already know him. Police officers approve, they even helped us adopt him.
He's a medium size dog, and mostly chill, just sometimes playful. He's never hurt anyone.
Of course that's not true for all dogs though, hence why we're very careful regarding what sort of days we might let him roam around off the leash.
Fair enough, as long as there's respect to other dogs and dog owners. Many dog owners near where I live who selfilishly let their dogs off lead in busy on lead areas and obviously causes problems.
Would you do the same for someone eating gluten and getting it everywhere?
I don't even have half an idea what all foods do or don't contain gluten, but I am still almost equally inclined to call out people just plain out being nasty, especially in a public space where they're about to exchange paper cash.
Like shit, I totally respect paper cash, but FFS, try to make sure your hands are clean when handling or exchanging money. And definitely don't be literally eating food with your bare hands right at the register before even paying for it.
Correct me if I'm missing information, but I was the head chef at a restaurant that did gluten free stuff years before it became a common menu option. Additionally, I lived with a celiac for a few years. Admittedly, I've been out of the industry for a long time.
As far as I know, gluten allergies are only related to injestion, if people can have fatal responses to airborne particles, that was never a part of our food safety protocols. With celiacs, which behaves a bit differently from an allergy - they can have an extremely painful response to even small amounts of gluten, but it has to be injested. I mean, I baked bread with my roommate and he'd be fine, but he would have a reaction if he accidentally used my butter after I cut it with the same knife I used for bread.
No, not in general: too much unjustified outrage & self-absorbed idiocy in the world over unreasonable shit. Karens, bigots, culture warriors, pearl clutchers, holy wars. Too many people need to cool it & chill the fuck out.
There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ.
They need to be justifiably upset. Only then is it understandable. However, getting upset over it is not generally a good move: it may lead to poor decisions. Better to stay collected, acknowledge the problem, apply fair judgement to correct the matter.
I feel like you might've misunderstood the question?
When I said "upset" I didn't mean that you would fly into a fit of rage, I didn't even really mean that you would confront the other person (though those are things that you might do, I suppose), just that you would find that it sat wrong with you and you would feel that the other person was wrong to do it. Perhaps "upset" was the wrong word to use there, sorry about that.
There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ. They need to be justifiably upset.
That's why I said that you already agree that the thing should be banned! The whole point is that you already think that they are justifiably upset, and that what the people are doing is wrong and shouldn't be done.
Sorry... I did get some people before saying that my hypothetical wasn't very good. I see that it's caused some confusion for several people.
Bans are rarely justified. Strong emotions aren't a good reason to ban much. If there are minimally invasive alternatives, and we can let others be, that's typically better.
Emotions aren't a good reason for anything, really. I distrust feelings & prefer to understand & make sense of them before I allow myself to indulge them in myself or others.
Judgement of right & wrong can operate on reason, and it's better that it does. If someone is (justifiably) upset over a wrong, then a wrong exists, and knowing that suffices & is better than feeling it.
If I understand and agree with the reason for being upset, yes.
Like I agree with banning peanuts on airlines because of allergy issues and think people who are upset about that are wrong so their being upset doesn't impact me at all. Although I am not able to have an abortion, seeing people being upset that their rights are being denied does make me upset as well.
Then there are tons of things I either can't relate to or understand and I don't really care either way. There are lots of things I think people should choose to do voluntarily, but don't want it to be required. I don't get upset when I see people not do those things, even though they really should.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
but don’t want it to be required.
That was a key point of my question - that you agree that it should be required - but maybe it shouldn't have been... Could you elaborate on this?
What would be something that upsets others, but you think shouldn't be banned/required, you still think people should act in a certain way, but it doesn't upset you when they don't?
People should queue up when there are more people than things to interact with, and generally they do. I don't care if someone lets someone with one thing ahead of everyone else as long as it still moves along. I would hate for ad hoc queuing to have enforced rules because doing it ad hoc is better overall and adding rules would make it more cumbersome.
It is required to have dogs on leashes here, but sometimes I see one off leash and if it is well behaved I don't care. They should be on a leash as a best practice, but leashed dogs that are aggressive are worse than a well behaved but unleashed dog so I let the unleashed and behaved ones slide. The unleashed and aggressive ones are the worst.
There are a lot of things where it is best to do something a certain way in general, but when it doesn't directly address the underlying issue or there are exceptions then I don't get upset. Like people should use crosswalks properly, unless there is no traffic and they have no real benefit...
Right, OK, I get what you mean.
Well, other than this:
but leashed dogs that are aggressive are worse than a well behaved but unleashed dog so I let the unleashed and behaved ones slide.
Why?
Getting shot in the head is worse than getting stabbed in the calf, but I still think you shouldn't stab me in the calf! Obviously that's a very extreme example, but these rules exist for a reason.
The dog may seem well-behaved for now, but what if it gets bothered by something random, as dogs do? The whole point of the rule is to prevent aggressive dogs from bothering people, because owners seem to always think their dogs wouldn't hurt a fly. If you only complain about a dog being unleashed after a dog misbehaves, then aren't you just asking for an issue to happen, instead of preventing it by enforcing the rule?
You get what I mean?
Then again, it does bother me when people don't use crosswalks or cut in line lol
Aggressive dogs on leashes often pull themselves free or drag their owner close enough to start violence with other people and other dogs. Well behaved dogs tend to avoid confrontation.
It isn't saying that any dog couldn't be suddenly aggressive any more than saying any random person couldn't suddenly become aggressive. Odds are higher that a dog who is frequently aggressive but on a leash getting close enough to bite or scratch than a well behaved one not on a leash.
While I am perfectly fine with the leash laws being enforced, not being on a leash when well behaved isn't asking for trouble. Leash laws are there to address less well behaved dogs and the fact that it is impossible to know how well behaved a dog is the first time you meet them.
I used to think leashes should be optional until I had a dog who was perfect off-leash. I could be anywhere from a wooded path to a crowded sidewalk and that dog would be right beside me, but I only ever took her on hikes or through calm neighborhoods. Plenty of people knew my dog was friendly and would stop to pet her when I was out.
My boyfriend at the time had her just as long as I did, but couldn't control her off-leash as well as me. He tried anyway. He walked her next to a highway, she got overwhelmed, went chasing someone across the street, through traffic. Both him and the dog almost got fucked up on the highway when he tried to get her under control.
After that I only let her off leash in places where it was safe and allowed because she's a dog and it just takes one bad moment to get her or someone else killed.
Beyond that personal anecdote, if you look at pet insurance claims statistics there are hell of a lot of accidents and attacks that start with "Dog was off-leash."
Wait, I'm confused about the peanuts thing.
How would people who are allergic to peanuts have a reaction, just because someone next to them is eating peanuts?
I thought to have a reaction, YOU have to eat the peanut?
Nope. Some people just need to be in the same room (especially one with limited ventilation) and it could set them off. Everybody's reactions are different.
Oh.
Well then I fully agree to ban peanuts on planes. I didn't know that.
Given that the general population doesn’t even know how allergies work half the time, it makes even more sense to ban peanuts on flights
Anti-social behavior should be shunned. There are varying degrees of harm which people tip the scale on, but I think minimizing harm is an admirable attribute, doing no deliberate harm reduction is sociopathic, and maximizing harm is sadistic.
I think the latter two traits are rare, but education on effects is just as rare.
I'd say no, you can develop an allergic reaction to many things, doesn't mean we should ban it all because of that or because it's upsetting to some people. As for "upsetting" I think it's everyone's freedom to perfume however they want, if it's something socially concerning like idk, smell of puke, then feel free to raise an eyebrow at their choice and vacate the premises (if possible, if it's on a plane then yeah might need to get them to cover it up), but just because it's generally unacceptable to use that as an aroma doesn't mean it should be banned still, unless it directly causes death. Banning something should be a last resort.
If they effect others greatly and only reason to use them is for convenience it actually does bother me to be honest.
Like if some stranger tells me they often commit drunk driving I see them as assholes even if they never almost hit me.
Interestingly, how nuch I care would depend on physical distsnce between us. I care less if they are in a different state and even less in a different country.
I rarely care about stuff people do outside the continent I am living in.
Nah. Only when I need to be upset to fit in socially. Would that hypothetical vanilla smell upset me? Nah. They probably bought it before it went illegal, maybe even hoarded it because they like it.
But if it was socially needed to be upset about that to gain something, I’d probably be. That’s why I agreed to have it banned in the first place, because the situation at that time made it socially useful.
I think I’m kind of autistic/sociopathic? Didn’t get testet yet lol
A dog without leash shows that the owner hasn't bothered taking dog training classes or in the case of my country that they haven't bothered learning the law. If they can't be bothered to do that, I worry that they are not responsible enough to take care of the dog, and they shouldn't be allowed to own a dog. Dog ownership ought to require a license or mandatory training.
The person using the perfume might also not even know about the issue, but in that case, I don't think it makes sense to blame the consumer. There are simply too many types of products that are potentially dangerous when used wrong. Perhaps the seller ought to have warned about it, but I doubt that would make much difference. You can still be upset about it being produced. Lots of things are like that.
Sometimes you can blame the consumer and sometimes you can't.