September 17, 2013

When a hate crime occurs against gays, we talk about homophobia immediately afterwards

When a hate crimes occurs against a transperson we talk about transphobia immediately afterwards.

When a gang rape happens in Delhi, we talk about endemic misogyny in India immediately afterwards.


So why is it that when a massacre with a gun occurs, if we discuss gun politics suddenly we are politicizing a tragedy or expressing glee about a tragedy?

Isn't the best way to deal with a tragedy, to deal with root causes of said tragedy? Why is this considered some evil form of gloating?


I think it's extremely convenient to label people callous and insensitive to shutdown a debate you don't want to have at any given time. Before, during and after a massacre with a gun.

July 16, 2013

reposting in gd

April 9, 2013

If you don't want people to call you a sociopath when you are dead

Then don't fucking be a sociopath when you are alive.

you dont want people to say you caused death, destruction and despair in your obituaries, then don't fucking cause these things when you are alive.

(and yes, this was bothering me enough to make another thread about it)

April 3, 2013

Is there a feminist reason to go to war?

I was reading some articles about Syria and the use of rape as a weapon of war in Syria, and wondering this.

I am usually quite opposed to war, but can we all just ignore this humanitarian crisis in Syria? Can we ignore what is clearly a crisis that is disproportionately affecting women?

Is allowing this to happen without any international interference ethical?

"With every war and major conflict, as an international community we say 'never again' to mass rape," said Nobel Laureate Jody Williams, who is co-chair of the International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict. "Yet, in Syria, as countless women are again finding the war waged on their bodies--we are again standing by and wringing our hands."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/syria-has-a-massive-rape-crisis/274583/

January 25, 2013

Why be afraid of an opinion you dislike?

This logic is the dumbest on DU and here are the many reasons why

1. It is not brave to say things on the internet. Protected by anonymity with no threat of persecution or prosecution, there is nothing brave about saying anything. It would maybe be brave if you signed something with your real name, but unless you do, you're not being brave.

2. DU is a community. Communities monitor what they find is acceptable & not acceptable within that community.

3. DU by its raison d'être blocks opinions that we disagree with. This is neither brave nor cowardly, it's just this sites mission. This website was formed to promote democrats and liberal-ish policies.

4. To dislike an opinion or find it morally reprehensible does not mean i fear it.

I really wish DU'ers who do not plan on abiding my this websites TOS or by upholding its standards in juries, stopped agreeing to being on a jury. If you cannot and will not delete posts that clearly violate the standards of this website, it is unethical to participate in its juries.

ON EDIT: i am not talking about just this juror but a group of people who essentially make this statement on various juries