26 pointsby lifeisstillgood11 hours ago3 comments
  • Planktonne5 hours ago
    Violence is a morally acceptable response to being oppressed and controlled; women were not given a fair stake in society, and therefore it would be unreasonable to expect them to be bound by its laws.
    • jpfromlondon4 hours ago
      The suffragists arguably achieved a great deal more, without them the measures of the suffragettes would likely have set women’s rights back further.

      Yet they are all but forgotten.

      • Planktonne4 hours ago
        I don't agree that the suffragists are forgotten. Beyond that though, I'd say that lots of successful liberation movements have had multiple wings with different methods.
    • scotty794 hours ago
      What about modern non-wealthy? They neither get a fair stake in society nor even a voice that matters. Voting pretty much doesn't work. How much the issue is supported by non-wealthy voters has no bearing on the laws that are going to be written that affect it.

      And by non-wealthy I pretty much mean anyone that has to work to live, regardless of whether they can find the job or not.

      • jzemeocala2 hours ago
        After having spent 20+ years growing up in rural FL, I've been telling people for years now that: "poor people are the new negro".

        If you are poor, than you look poor usually. And people ABSOLUTELY treat you differently from the government to the local store.

        I lived in one really messed up part of FL called interlachen that really opened my eyes to that fact.

      • Planktonne4 hours ago
        Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all.

        However, if we get to the point when control over their own lives is denied to people, it won't be unreasonable for them to resist. We've had slave revolutions before, and they weren't morally wrong.

        • bluefirebrand25 minutes ago
          > Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all

          I disagree pretty strongly.

          If the system is rigged in such a way that you mostly get the same outcomes no matter how people vote, that is only a razor thin line away from not being allowed to vote at all

        • scotty792 hours ago
          > Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all.

          How so exactly? Do you think that the fact that people in russia, for example, can vote is far from them not being allowed to vote?

          • Planktonne2 hours ago
            I wouldn't have a moral problem with people in Russia engaging in violent resistance.
            • scotty792 hours ago
              How about US? It's just one step removed. Or maybe half a step?
              • Planktonnean hour ago
                1. It feels like you're trying to walk me into some imagined rhetorical trap; if that's the case, feel free to speed up.

                2. It's completely possible that justified violence could happen in the US; it would, as anywhere, depend on what violence by who for what reason, but there's nothing that makes the US special in this regard. In the past, on multiple occasions (resistance to slavery, for example), political violence in the cause of freedom has occurred, and I don't think that was immoral.

                • scotty797 minutes ago
                  Sorry. I was just curious about your response. Thanks.
  • sohex3 hours ago
    Shout out to the best named feminist group of all time, W.I.T.C.H. The Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell.
  • stefantalpalaru6 hours ago
    [dead]