Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about. If any other group committed 90% of serious crimes – let's say immigrants – people would be calling for them to be rounded up and exiled. But when it's men, that's just the way things are, nothing to be done about it.
But we know exactly what to do about it when we're talking about other species. We castrate male cattle because bulls are dangerous and steer aren't. Violent criminals typically have elevated testosterone levels. It doesn't take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.
What will be the other effects?
Men will be be weaker—Meh, physical strength is less useful now than it was in the past.
They'll have less hair on their bodies and more on their heads—Awesome.
They'll won't be able to get hard—That's what viagra is for.
They'll lose fertility—They can go off blockers while they're trying to have a child. Or you could just have a small number of uncastrated sperm donors.
I'm an anarchist, so I don't want to force this on anyone. But if I believed in prisons or police, I would also believe in mandatory castration.
Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about.
There's a feminist movement. One of the major theses of the feminist movement is the rape and murder overwhelmingly committed by men. I'd like it if a lot more people were feminists, but it's not correct to say that no one cares.
If any other group committed 90% of serious crimes – let's say immigrants – people would be calling for them to be rounded up and exiled.
And that would still be an insane reaction to that fact even if it was true, which no self-identified anarchist should support. Rehabilitation must still be the goal of any justice system.
But when it's men, that's just the way things are, nothing to be done about it.
Okay, that's reasonable. However, that doesn't mean that we should accept absolutely any solution to eliminate misogyny no matter the cost. There are wildly more creative and practical ways to go about this.
But we know exactly what to do about it when we're talking about other species. We castrate male cattle because bulls are dangerous and steer aren't.
Spicy hot take: we shouldn't be castrating bulls. Technically you would probably achieve your goal of taming a bull by castrating it, but at the disproportionate expense of the bull's personality, health, and bodily autonomy. Now we're not bulls or trained in bovine social cues so we don't miss the minds of castrated bulls, hence why there's no controversy; it's not obvious. However, men are
Violent criminals typically have elevated testosterone levels. It doesn't take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.
Correlation ≠ causation!
What will be the other effects?
The other effect is that men will have their bodily autonomy violated. Women have been suffering a related torment from patriarchal governments banning their access to abortion. Generally, women's bodily autonomy has been systematically disregarded, and they have suffered through bizarre mutilations and "treatments" aimed at making them more palatable to men.
I gotta be blunt with you: I typically let stuff like this slide. I understand that a lot of women and other vagina-owners have been put through a tremendous amount of pain by men, so I'm usually willing to give you space to vent. And if it's worth anything to you, I'm sorry that this stuff still happens, and we need to take concrete action to prevent rape and femicide.
But you wrote a really detailed paragraph defending sex-based eugenics. The thing about eugenics is that it never really went away. Seriously, go scroll through Reddit and see how long it takes before some "bleeding heart liberal" goes on a tirade about how people they don't like need to be castrated. The world is absolutely flooded with eugenicists ready to torture and murder people, and there's no telling what suffering they'll impart on humanity if we don't challenge them wherever they pop up.
It is especially irritating to see someone who claims to be a comrade express views like this. It makes me less confident to call myself an anarchist when my views are associated with eugenics. We already have a tremendous amount of ill will generated by "anarcho"-capitalists and "anarcho"-primitivists; we really do not need more bad takes.
Now I would prefer it if you dropped the eugenics, but if you really can't drop the eugenics then at least stop dragging anarchists through the mud. I'm sorry if I've been harsh...but just know that I'll be equally as harsh in your defense when the eugenicists come to neuter you.
I LOVE banana flavored stuff. When I say this, people will often say "even banana flavored Laffy Taffy?". Yes, that's the best flavor and it's not even close.
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.
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.
Sentience in humans begins at 4 years old (mental age). I don't consider humans younger than that to be people. I also firmly believe that you have to have some form of consciousness, self identity, and clear cognition to count as a person.
A human corpse is not a person, a brain-dead patient is not a person, and a human with severe mental disorder should not be held to the same standards as other people.
Similarly, anything that does have sentience is clearly also a person, and should be treated as such. Animals such as crows, parrots, octopi, dolphins, whales, and some monkeys and apes are demonstrably as or more intelligent than some human children. They should not be treated the way they are.
As a side note, I agree with that other guy. Polycules should be allowed to marry.
Also, names in this day and age are useless, at least official ones. We have computers, we already use government issued ID for everything, having a name just makes things confusing. Just use nicknames, either created by the person or by agreement from peers and allowed by the person. The concept of a parent forcing a name on their child is archaic and cruel.
And finally, real life security is horrifying. I expected things to be like in the movies, where you need a special skill or training to do those spy shit. But no. In comparison to real life, Google actually has good security and privacy. WTF people? Everytime I receive mail with my name and a description of what's inside just written on the box I cringe and go back to lurking online again.
I think it depends on the environment you're in. In my social circle, among family, friends, and coworkers, almost all of them believe that socialism is a poverty cult and a terrible idea that will lead to more human suffering, so when I express any socialist opinion, it will be unpopular in my environment. Obviously here on Lemmy, it's the opposite and socialism is popular here.
the world is overpopulated and everyone who wants to have children should require a license to do so (and it should cost a lot - like, a mid-tier job's annual salary).
This would only deter people who would otherwise plan a child. Those people tend to have fewer children in the first place and are more likely to take good care of them. I actually think the best approach to reducing the world's population increase is a heavy investment in education including reproductive education, especially in poorer countries which are the ones still actually growing fast.
It is already legal to have a sexual relationship with multiple partners at the same time. Bigamy should be legalised. That it isn't, is a result of entrenched bigotry and religious prudery.
If you're using God as a proper noun, capitalise it. Not capitalising it is potentially confusing. Eg. There are numerous gods. Zeus is a god and God is a god.
It is likely too late to avert climate apocalypse. Don't have kids and you've done far more than most to prevent climate change. (This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it.)
A lot of society's ills are attributable to arseholes not getting punched in the face enough. This includes the fact that we can't make it legal to punch arseholes in the face, because arseholes would abuse that right to punch people who don't deserve it in the face.
America has become so fat, that most Americans have a skewed perception of what it means to be obese.
Most sports are stupid. Michael Phelps can swim 6 mph. Fish can swim 10x faster than that. Fuck that. I want to watch a tiger chase Trump through a maze.
The already high male suicide rate is severely underestimated. A lot of male risk taking behaviour, including car/bike related accidents, is suicidal in nature.
In practice identity based politics is often used to divide and conquer and distract people from their true interests. Class consciousness is more important. You have more in common with your colleagues, than you do with Beyonce or Joe Rogan, just because they happen to have the same skin colour and/or genitals as you.
Too many people conflate the evils of corporatism and corruption with the general concept of "capitalism"/a market economy.
Now, I'm hardly an advocate of laissez-faire economics. But I'm not a full-on socialist either. I think the majority of problems people attribute to modern market economies can be corrected with aggressive anti-trust and pro-consumer regulation.
(The keyword here is majority. I'm sure it makes sense to socialize some things, but those details are best left to people smarter than me.)