• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 21 days ago
cake
Cake day: November 25th, 2025

help-circle
  • I absolutely agree. In my mind this is an example where people could be “yes-and”ing the law: Yes, female victims absolutely need more nuanced protection, and male sexual assault victims need more nuanced protection (for example).

    The reason you don’t see a lot of these folks arguing for a men’s equivalent…is they know that it’s functionally not a problem…which also undercuts their own argument.

    I can imagine…I work in poverty outreach and with at risk youth…I hear some grotesque things from across the spectrum.

    I’m a full Reddit refugee…a few months ago I got a 3 day auto ban for directly quoting Worf from Star Trek. Not going back, this time…the time I was away from it made me realize what an enshitified mess it has become.














  • No, it does not imply that other murder is less serious. The notion that you seem to believe it does is evidence of the problem that it’s trying to address. It take a certain type of flaw in logic to assume that because a group is “getting” something, it means another group is losing something. The legal system isn’t zero sum.

    There’s no outcry when somebody is charged with infanticide, and there should (logically) be no outcry here.

    Yo would be able to tell what the charge means if you read the law, instead of trying to guess. Nowhere in the law does it say “by a man”,for example. You’re projecting injustice where there is none.