You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
7 points
*

This is very similar to male judges being hardest on fathers in family court, with mothers getting custody more often than not and men being forced to pay alimony + child-support in the U.S.

A rape victim being told to fuck off because she “can’t be raped” is similar to dads being forced to pay alimony? Am I reading this right?

Do you want lemmy to become twitter? Please tell me you don’t want lemmy to become twitter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Thank you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I did ask if I was reading this right. Which you may have read. Which might say something about your own reading comprehension, but I don’t know what.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
long-winded good-faith interpretation of the original

A female sex worker was complaining about a female police officer being harsh with her. This was compared to male judges being harsh to fathers in custody hearings.

The intended meaning was “Gender A is harsh to gender A, gender B to gender B, provably/hypothetically the A and B pairings are less harsh with each other”. Provably in the custody case, hypothetically in the sex worker reporting a crime case. (We only have an anecdote about that, the officer might simply have generally been an asshole. Could be tested with an implicit bias questionnaire on a larger population or such ask a social scientist not a stemlord like me)

None of it was about comparing rape to custody, that’s a waffle. Rule of thumb: If it sounds like someone implied something completely outrageous do a triple take you probably missed what they said.


Which might say something about your own reading comprehension, but I don’t know what.

Have you ever considered whether such a question can be considered an accusation. “Am I reading this right” cannot only be understood as a simple question, but “Retract that at once”. For that reason throwing such things out willy-nilly is toxic to conversation, it’s the exact opposite of “assume good faith”, two or three such comments in a row and you have a spiral and then you have twitter.

Whether I could read your mind as to which of the meanings you intended is irrelevant to the fact that it needed calling out to prevent a spiral. If you really simply want to ask whether you’ve missed something, “I don’t believe this is what you meant to say but I’m completely lost” or such would be a safe way to go about it.

And it’s always beneficial to try to find a good-faith interpretation, btw, even if you’re for sure dealing with an abhorrent commentor, or a random troll: Replying to the good-faith interpretation instead of what they meant to say is ludicrously disarming. They don’t know how to deal with it. Their hate goes unheard, the conversation becomes positive, it’s ultimate verbal aikido. (And just for the record no I’m not claiming I’m always doing it).

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Nah, you got the general sentiment right, I was/am obviously doubting your intentions and giving you opportunity to explain yourself in the event that I am misunderstanding.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Europe

!europe@feddit.org

Create post

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don’t overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don’t post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don’t troll nor incite hatred. Don’t look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia’s List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add “/s” when you’re being sarcastic (and don’t use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They’re cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don’t evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don’t show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

Community stats

  • 3.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 8.6K

    Comments