The rise of feminism has seen the steady devaluation of the contribution of men in those areas of society where they should be most active. Rather than celebrate and recognise what's right, the focus is on attacking what's wrong.
The majority of men are lonely, isolated and uncared for. Many feel unvalued, unsafe and vulnerable. There is less community support for men than there has been in the past, less institutional support, and a continued decline in the tolerance of men being in shared places. The minimisation of value in societal roles is yet another way that men are cut off.
This seems to escape the vision of feminism. There is always claim of ideological alignment, where the empowerment of women directly benefits men, but when it comes to any form of concrete action that helps men that need help, or celebrates men that contribute - it's nowhere to be seen.
Men kill themselves. They kill themselves. In their thousands. Leaving cratered families, trauma, guilt from the survivors, many of whom are female. Because they feel valueless, helpless and can't see a purpose to going on.
Accountability goes both ways. In demanding support from men, feminism must support men.
Because they feel valueless, helpless and can't see a purpose to going on.
I strongly believe this has nothing to do with feminism and is just a problem of the capitalist society we live in that only treats labour and hardwork like shit unless it can generate 1000x profits year on year. Building and serving a community isn't rewarded. Everything is about greed and more profits. Feminism can't solve capitalism. It can't stop people from feeling it's fucked up consequences like loneliness, feeling unvalued and committing suicide.
Blaming slow drivers for your dangerous driving to pass them immediately and dangerously has the same energy as a rapist blaming what the victim was wearing: The other person made me do it. I have no agency over my own reactions.
Wrong. Traffic laws in multiple states are "slower traffic keep right". Just obey the law, grandma, and everyone will be safe and you can drive as slow as you'd like.
This thread has almost 1400 replies, thats getting up there towards reddit levels of traffic. They are OK in the short term but the damage has been done and there is now a big viable alternative with decent amounts of traffic. I have noticed it is definitely quieter there
Most of us wouldn't, and the rest of us will probably get on board if you rephrase oligarchy as "under the control of out of touch rich elites" because a lot of us are reflexively against anything that sounds educated.
People who are strongly against nuclear power are ignorant of the actual safety statistics and are harming our ability to sustainably transition off fossil fuels and into renewables.
I feel this would have been spot on, in the nineties.
Right now the problems plaguing nuclear are economic. There is no guarantee you can build and exploit a plant and get to break even before either it becomes irrelevant, or you fall victim to regulatory jostling.
Nuclear was a missed opportunity, but the window is closing fast and it will probably remain a missed opportunity forever.
We have blown the concept of ownership way out of proportion. No one should be able to own things they have absolutely no connection to, like investment firms owning companies they don't work for, houses they don't live in or land they've never been to.
Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look "cute", and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages ("oh, but my child loves his cage") when they don't need hardwired unconditional lopsided "love" to feed their narcissism.
I do mean no exceptions. They rarely do "good things" for anyone.
Having a homeless shelter where you require the homeless to attend mass is not helping people, it's taking advantage of people in a bad situation and forcing your views on them. Just one example.
I upvoted you, but do disagree with this a bit, there are a few religions which set up food for anyone willing to come inside, like I went to eat langar at a Sikh temple during my friend’s wedding, and all we have to do is cover our head out of respect. Grab a plate, sit on the floor, and eat.
I randomly went with my friend a couple days later, and they still had food out, so it’s not a wedding only thing, but they actually have cooks in the kitchen most of the day.
My unpopular opinion is that people who keep throwing this stupid idea around have no clue what they're talking about.
Religions / churches are non-profits. Their only revenue is post-tax donations. The people who work at the non-profit churches still pay income tax. The moment you start taxing a church, you allow them to function as a corporation. Not taxing churches is a fundamentally great thing.
I don't disagree with you on principle, but in practice, allowing the taxation of religious groups would create massive opportunities for abuse. Tax code can be structured to promote one religion and punish another, and you know for damn sure that our elected officials won't hesitate to put their greasy thumbs on the scale.
Do they tax income? Investments? Real estate? Spending? Endowments? Salaries? Each of those would create a disparity in how much a specific group owes. Consider how the Mormons collect and spend money vs Catholics, or how Quakers don't have preachers, just elders, while evangelical preachers earn hundreds of millions.
Any tax gives a massive advantage to the religions of the wealthy. You'd end up with four mega churches and a bunch of underground religious communities meeting in secret and sharing holy books smuggled in from Canada.
While I'd love to see churches start paying their fair share, I also see the way our tax code works now. We can't get economic elites and the well connected to pay their fair share, what makes you think that it will happen with the religious economic elites and the religious well connected? It's always the little people who suffer the most.
That's a reasonable question, and I'm open to different points of view on what exactly that means.
In a general sense, I believe taxes are the price of admission for society. We all contribute, and we all benefit from roads and schools and firefighters and streetlamps and building inspectors and and and on. A church benefits as much as any other business, and really should be taxed like a business. They are in the business of fundraising, and money spent on fundraising and supporting the church should be taxed. I also think money spent on charitable works should be tax deductible the same way it is with other businesses. Money donated to churches in excess of the charitable work they do should not be tax deductible by the donor.
In an ideal world, that would mean paying income tax at the established rates, property taxes, payroll taxes for non-charity workers, and whatever municipal and state taxes are required wherever the church is located.
But as I said, that leaves the door wide open for abuse by politicians looking to promote their own faith. There are already corrupt policies promoting "social clubs" in dry towns, and morality taxes on products like cigarettes, HFCS beverages, alcohol, marijuana where it's legal, etc. Don't you think they'd find a way to tax the Satanic Temple into oblivion given the opportunity?
How many Christian holidays are promoted through the federal holiday calendar? Winter Break never doesn't coincide with Christmas.
So yeah, in conclusion, churches that don't operate as "not for profit" businesses should not be tax exempt, but keeping government out of religion is more important to me.
Ok, thanks for clarifying your stance, I think I understand now.
I can see how this could get complicated depending on the organization. For example, my church has distinct legal entities so that the "not-for-profit" side and the "business" side are kept separate.
I agree that keeping the government out of religion is extremely important.
The problem is, you and me wouldn't be superhuman. Being a broken-ass, second-rate, classic-style human in a world of superhumans would absolutely not be cool.
Personally, with the advent of gene editing I think breeding "superhumans" will inevitably become the way of the future.
It will likely only be available to those who can afford it and will create an even deeper rift between the "haves" and "have nots" than is already in place.
CRISPR is a really recent development, and I don't think people truly realize how earth-shattering this new technology will be. Natural evolution is dead for all intents and purposes and we stand at the brink of a new era where the reigns to our own evolution have been thrust directly in our hands. Shit's gonna be wild.
One thing that makes me think otherwise is how amazingly inexpensive CRISPR is! You can get hold of some for about $150 and do your own eugenics at home! And it isn't that difficult to learn to do either. Shit, all three of my kids are basically little Bashirs... but don't tell the government that!
"Superhuman" at what? I can't think of anything dumber than trying to breed "desirable" traits into humans - for every "desirable trait" you put in you are ignoring a plethora of traits that allowed our asses to survive for the last 2 million years.
the military is a cult that tricks children into dying for the wealth of the owner class. they tell you you're defending "freedom" but you're defending the gravest enemies of freedom that currently exist.
The military is also the only path to free college & free healthcare in the United States. I have a friend who's getting his second college degree that's entirely paid for by being a veteran