men really think "if it weren't for us other men would rape you" is an argument for why women need them

@georgia What's untrue about it? We've abstracted it in modern societies to ethics and laws so you don't have to think about it anymore, but if there were no threat of retaliation you would probably get raped.

@boob thats literally a protection racket.

@georgia Yes, that is how the world works. It is the entire justification for the concept of nation-states, and any Union, really. Mutually assured destruction didn't begin in the Cold War.

It's not fun, but that's the only way women can live safely and comfortably, which is why we do this whole society thing in the first place.

@boob @georgia Agreed, the world is not nice, we make it nice-ish through properly applied violence. Undoing civilization simply removes the stool holding in place the carefully balanced violence, turning it from relatively positive to nightmarish.

Our world is built on social contracts, "I don't hurt you if you don't hurt me". On paper, emancipational feminism sounds really good. In practice, it's an absolutely suicidal idea. The very bottom barrel is that men need women to not have the species die within 80 years (though to be fair that is the case for women too), while women need men to not die from violence, as there's no point in witholding destructive impulses and the drive for unethical pleasure if you're doomed to extinction anyway. We've always needed eachother to not burn within a generation, and always will be, we're a binary species meant to cooperate in good faith.

There's also the argument of, without men, women being enslaved by other women that see the profit in capturing others to then sell to men since reproduction is a need. Kinda like how Africa screwed itself with slavery and realized they had made a big fucky wucky when there was no way to go back.

@nerthos @boob
So are you guys saying that the iron fist of law and order (as enforced by judge dread) is the only thing stopping your from raping someone today? Or is it the classic "the inhuman scum of this cursed world (<- not me) will ruin everything, if I, the righteous descendant of the heavenly angles (<- me), don't keep them at bay with my holy might".

@georgia

@namark @nerthos @georgia It’s not just law, it’s also social accountability. But that only works internally. The rape threat comes from agitators outside of a community, historically. I recommend you take a look at the 3rd World for practical demonstration. (Hell, we aren’t that far out from the Mongol Invasions.)

@boob @nerthos
So pretty much the latter for both of you, as I understand. Not sure what 3rd world is, but I am in a country from the "other side" of the world (spooky), where there is currently war, for no reason other than the "us and them" mentality that you guys also preach here.
@georgia

@namark @boob @georgia War is unavoidable and cyclical, give a nation enough time and a faction will arise that so deeply resents the status quo or the values of the rest that they'll destabilize the nation and cause one, regardless of how prosperous the nation was. All we can do is try to get the side that doesn't need constant policing to not do things like rape or loot to lose.

@namark @boob @georgia Oops, *to win, screwed up that last sentence

@nerthos Not sure why you particularly mention rape and looting at war. Do you mean it's worse than the actual killing?
There is no righteous side in war, though both sides will claim it to justify their attempts to trump each other in cruelty, since that is the only way to win.

A: You were targeting civilian population!
B: No you were targeting civilian population!
A: Cause you were hiding artillery among them!
B: No you were hiding artillery among them!
A: You all are subhumans that should not exist!
B: No you are subhumans that should not exist!
C: What the hell is going on here?!
A: I'm just defending.
B: No I'm just defending!

@georgia @boob

@namark @georgia @boob There is a very clear difference between the use of violence, restricted in its scope by military conventions, to prevail in an armed conflict, and the use of violence simply for the pleasure of enacting it on others or for personal gain. Shooting a soldier of the enemy army during an operation isn't the same as setting someone's kid on fire before their eyes to make a point on paying protection rackets, or celebrating the taking of a city by raping every woman and kid in it. Violence is sometimes necessary simply to prevent violence in a much bigger scale, or negative peace with comparable suffering to lasting war.

This point should be self-evident for anyone with basic morality.

@nerthos That's not how it works though. You can't be the good guy at war. If you don't target civilians, I will hide my artillery among them and I will win. And when it comes to atrocities, there are plenty of desperate people on both sides that would commit them without a second thought specifically because of the nationalistic indoctrination. To you it might mean "we are just more civilized" but there will always be less fortunate among you to whom it will mean "they are not human", and those guys would be leading the charge.
@georgia @boob