A 10 hour video is too much imo. These people need to learn how to edit

I love those videos. They’ve done more for safety awareness than any ad campaign ever will

Tested got me through covid

Yeah, it’s not an incoherent position, just one that could cause potential issues if the need to unionize does arise and it’s used as an excuse for why that shouldn’t happen. I don’t know that LTT would do that, but I’m also not confident that he wouldn’t.

Cool. Shame that he showed he wasn’t as knowledgeable about politics as he was about matsci.

His takes are bad anyways

Me getting a 1 hour long crash course on dishwasher powder (I do not use dishwasher powder) and enjoying it

I saw a great comment that he really enjoys boxes that make things hot/cold/wet/dry

His response in the past has been that he doesn’t think his employees should have to unionize. That tracks with his overall mindset…

Damn didn’t know that about Gus. Spot on about LTT. Who is AVE?

Eh, you can have good content or frequent content

Yeah I get this one

I do, it bothers me lol

True! I’m glad for this thread. (And, to be clear, I’m not arguing against protections for femicide-- just arguing for extending those protections to cover more scenarios). I think my response to you in the other comment chain conveys my feelings well.

I think I just see the purpose of creating laws differently than you do. To me, there is an abstract ideal law that we should aim for. The relative necessity to current society of different potential laws is not something I consider important to what laws shpuld be added; if we are adding the femicide protections, it makes sense to also add them for other genders, even if those protections are not currently needed to the same degree, and the urgency to add them is therefore lower. But it seems like you are viewing the act of adding a law as something meant to address the problems in current society, and that we should focus on the laws that are most immediately helpful now, because that will do the most good, regardless of if those laws could be improved before passing to cover lesser issues like I am pushing for. I think that’s a sensible enough way to operate-- you can’t make the laws perfect before passing them, so doing the most good you can by passing the most important laws first and coming back later to fix lesser issues that may still exist afterwards makes sense-- but since it’s not the perspective I’m coming from, it took me a while to realize how you are thinking about this issue.

(Sorry for wall of text)

Edit:

Generalizing the law implies that the problem is equal

This is a good example of a disagreement caused by how we view the act of passing laws. To me, modifying a law to cover more scenarios makes it “more correct” and should always be done. But if you believe that more important laws should be passed first rather than revised to be more complete for theoretical future scenarios, me claiming that the law should be extended to all genders is implying that all genders have the same need for the law to be passed, and therefore that the issue is equal across genders, which is clearly incorrect.

I don’t think it’s valid to pretend my arguments are entirely pointless and then dismiss them because it’s a serious issue. Of course it’s a serious issue; that’s why I’m arguing about it. I’m not calling your arguments hysteria or illogical just because they’re motivated by different reasons than mine are. I am perfectly willing to know why you believe generalizing the law would make it less effective; I explicitly asked, even. But if you do not feel that it is worth it to go into detail then I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by continuing this discussion.

It wouldn’t duplicate an existing law, it would provide additional protections to people who are murdered because of their gender. Again, this would not remove a single protection from women. Stop making zero-sum arguments when they don’t apply.

but legislatures don’t tend to pass laws to protect something that figuratively doesn’t happen

I’m saying it would be better if they did.

I don’t think this discussion is going to be much more useful, I think we’ve said everything we need to at this point.

and it would remove specific protections for the very people it’s trying to protect

Does it matter whether the protections are specific to that gender? General protections would still apply to women.

My argument is not performative or based in a “men’s rights” movement, but yes, it is somewhat semantic. I think the law would be more “complete” and overall better if it protected all genders, and so that is what I am arguing for. Although codifying punishments for femicide is good, adding protections for all genders doesn’t remove any protections for women, it just extends them to everyone else. Giving someone something doesn’t have to take it away from someone else.

If you are right that men and women require unique approaches to gender-based protection though, then yes that would be a barrier to making the law gender-agnostic. What do you believe would need to apply differently to men vs women?

I think your humanist approach makes sense, but that doesn’t mean that improving the completeness of the laws is not also worth pursuing. I am concerned about the safety of men and do advocate for improved sexual assault laws; but in this case I am also concerned that the law appears incomplete. Maybe that’s why I’ve been arguing in here so much; my view of the problem does not align with how others are approaching it, and that creates a mismatch of assumptions.

Edit: To elaborate on what I mean by “complete”, I think that the law should always provide equality. Equity should be sought through other (primarily social) avenues. The purpose of the law is to be an impartial judge of what is acceptable, not just to solve the current issues in society. Of course those issues have the greatest motivation to create laws to solve, but the ideal (and, unfortunately, unreachable) form of the law solves not only these problems but many others as well. It should be a solid framework upon which we build, not a series of patches to address single issues.

It’s curious you mention “other identity-based hate crime laws”, because Italy happens to not have categories for homosexual people like other jurisdictions might - for example.

Interesting

I guess I just don’t get the reasoning for not making the law cover all genders. It’s good that we covered one, but why not the rest? Yes, there are infinite motivations for murder, and we can’t cover them all; but that doesn’t mean we should exclude certain motivations when it would make sense to cover them. The impossibility of making a perfect law should not prevent us from makingg obvious improvements.

You could pass a law simultaneously against all gender-based hate-motivated murder by just specifying any gender in the law. You don’t need to enumerate every category.

I’m not seeing how anyone is being harmed by making it easier to prosecute men who commit violence against women when it’s a massively disproportionate problem.

Nobody is being harmed. Codifying punishments for femicide into law is a good thing.

I’m not seeing a better alternative

Making the law cover all genders covers more situations, so it would be better. You could still advertise it for its primary purpose of helping women to try to change the culture and get many of the same benefits.

I’m not seeing anything but a lot of guys in this post who are obviously hurt by this but can’t explain why. Maybe add value to the argument by making an argument and explaining why it bothers you.

It bothers me because I think there is an alternative that makes more sense-- that’s the whole reason I care here. You can assume whatever else you want about me or my feelings towards the matter, but these assumptions haven’t been correct so far, so I doubt they will be accurate in the future either.