Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

Ruin said:
Yet another reason not to offer feminists a ride.

[img=http://s23.postimg.org/7w2bhay7b/1459121238533.jpg]
Click to expand...

Copy-
Untitled-1.gif


That's the most delusional tweet I've ever read. Is that even legit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChurchOfGodBear
An Ounce of Vagina said:
Which is probably a factor in why Trump seems to be doing so well, pissed off former progressives see him as someone who will accept them.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a single person who calls themselves a progressive who supports Trump.

His base is among blue collar, largely uneducated voters who might have voted Democratic but got screwed by both the Democrats and Republicans along with the rest of labor and the middle class. If disgruntled progressives went anywhere it's to Sanders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja and ChurchOfGodBear
AnOminous said:
I can't think of a single person who calls themselves a progressive who supports Trump.

His base is among blue collar, largely uneducated voters who might have voted Democratic but got screwed by both the Democrats and Republicans along with the rest of labor and the middle class. If disgruntled progressives went anywhere it's to Sanders.
Click to expand...
I think @An Ounce of Vagina is talking about the alt right who usually were progressives in their teen years before rejecting leftism rather than typical trump supporters. It is similar to how the foreign fighters with ISIS are the most visible but most are syrian
 
Related: a week or so ago, there was some discussion on the net as to whether tampons were a human right. TL;DR- both sides sperged endlessly and a fairly minor topic got a lot of people angry for no real reason.

What I'd ask is, if women don't want to be spending their "hard earned dollars" on tampons, and if some taxpayers don't want to do it either, why not push for menstruation cups instead? They're reusable, and would cost a lot less than disposable products over a several-year lifespan. And, although I don't need them myself (take a guess why), I've heard from women who do use them that they'd never want to go back to disposable products.

Now, I'm not trying to push one option over another, rather, I'm just asking why people don't look to alternatives rather than argue over stupid shit. Oh, that's right, SJWs and Internet.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Flamesoul the Diabolical, Dynamite Ninja and fire_fly
ChurchOfGodBear said:
Related: a week or so ago, there was some discussion on the net as to whether tampons were a human right. TL;DR- both sides sperged endlessly and a fairly minor topic got a lot of people angry for no real reason.

What I'd ask is, if women don't want to be spending their "hard earned dollars" on tampons, and if some taxpayers don't want to do it either, why not push for menstruation cups instead?
Click to expand...

Considering women live longer and spend longer on the taxpayer-paid medical programs that exist for the benefit of old people, why not make them pay higher taxes? It seems paying for tampons is a drop in the bucket toward achieving parity on this.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: autisticdragonkin, Dynamite Ninja and Positron
ChurchOfGodBear said:
Related: a week or so ago, there was some discussion on the net as to whether tampons were a human right. TL;DR- both sides sperged endlessly and a fairly minor topic got a lot of people angry for no real reason.
Click to expand...


I don't know if this is related to the argument over value added/sales tax that is on going in the UK.

In Europe women's sanitary products, not just tampons, are taxed as luxury items and attract the highest sales tax, where-as razor blades are considered essential items and attract no sales tax at all.

I'll be honest and say that I can see women's gripe here.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Oracle, Silver and autisticdragonkin
Chemical snorfare said:
In Europe women's sanitary products, not just tampons, are taxed as luxury items and attract the highest sales tax, where-as razor blades are considered essential items and attract no sales tax at all.

I'll be honest and say that I can see women's gripe here.
Click to expand...

I do as well. I can't see them as being any more of a luxury item than razors. The question over taxation is a fair one, and I side with the people saying these items should not be taxed.

However, the word choice is really loaded. In the US at least, there's a tendency to call something you want a "human right", and then assume that because something is your right to have, the government must pay for it because to let you do without is to violate your "rights". This isn't as big of a deal when it covers things that the government has historically supplied for a very long time, such as education and food, but gets a lot dicier when you try to apply it to things that have always been something the individual purchases themselves, such as health care or cell phones. (examples picked due to their timeliness, and not an effort to politifag).

The ultimate question that both sides keep avoiding answering is "If we establish that something is a right, does that mean the government must do it, or merely that the government cannot prevent you from doing it yourself?" Or in other words, the difference between negative and positive rights.

I'm pretty confident that if the article was kept to questions of unfair taxation, and left the words "human rights" out of it, we'd get a lot less arguing and see a lot more agreement on the issue. But progress and agreement don't get clicks and ratings, so :stupid:
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: neverendingmidi and Alberto Balsalm
ChurchOfGodBear said:
I'm pretty confident that if the article was kept to questions of unfair taxation, and left the words "human rights" out of it, we'd get a lot less arguing and see a lot more agreement on the issue. But progress and agreement don't get clicks and ratings
Click to expand...

The main argument comes from the UK gvmt actually wanting to abolish tax on sanitary products but European tax law not allowing it (unfair completion, wyminz will buy their jam rags from UK not their local supplier argument)

I see a load of American 3rd wavers discovering an issue is an actual example of discrimination and and getting underprivileged envy. They need to turn a simple question of taxation into a rights issue in order to feel hard done by.

It turns out its not just UK/Europe thats having this issue

http://archive.is/V4oCs

I agree that the "human right" argument is hyperbole. It would be much simpler to argue that sanitary products are for a medical need, and if they're not then razor blades arent either.

I think (as I still have some SJW traits) that you'd win the argument quicker by campaigning to add 17% to a £20 pack of Gillette bought by policy makers , than trying to knock 17% off a £1.50 pack of tampax bought by their wives and mistresses.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, chimpburgers, ChurchOfGodBear and 1 other person
ChurchOfGodBear said:
I do as well. I can't see them as being any more of a luxury item than razors. The question over taxation is a fair one, and I side with the people saying these items should not be taxed.

However, the word choice is really loaded. In the US at least, there's a tendency to call something you want a "human right", and then assume that because something is your right to have, the government must pay for it because to let you do without is to violate your "rights". This isn't as big of a deal when it covers things that the government has historically supplied for a very long time, such as education and food, but gets a lot dicier when you try to apply it to things that have always been something the individual purchases themselves, such as health care or cell phones. (examples picked due to their timeliness, and not an effort to politifag).

The ultimate question that both sides keep avoiding answering is "If we establish that something is a right, does that mean the government must do it, or merely that the government cannot prevent you from doing it yourself?" Or in other words, the difference between negative and positive rights.

I'm pretty confident that if the article was kept to questions of unfair taxation, and left the words "human rights" out of it, we'd get a lot less arguing and see a lot more agreement on the issue. But progress and agreement don't get clicks and ratings, so :stupid:
Click to expand...
This is why I get leery whenever they start up the "Internet is a human right" talk in the US. Human right will devolve to subsidies for everybody who is supposedly poor, with the resultant fraud and waste.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChurchOfGodBear
I don't know, I think it would be a human right just because I wouldn't want to sit in a chair somewhere that has period blood all over it. ;) Besides, would you consider toilet paper a "luxury item"?

(And I've talked to some women who didn't have very much luck with menstrual cups.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oracle, Silver, Dynamite Ninja and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back