CarbonIceDragon

from the perspective of any less powerful creature from any part of the universe that isnt earth, so are humans?

I am saying that if what is to be given and then not is money, then it is punishment, but if it is sex, it is not, because these things are fundamentally different in a way that makes it reasonable to take one back without justification but not the other

I cant really take the people that act as apologists for Russia seriously as real leftists. Like, forget the failings of the Soviet Union at implementing communism for a moment, Russia doesnt even play lip service to it. It is literally just as much a capitalist state as a place like the US, it is just as much an example of a country benefiting from the legacy of European colonial empires as countries like the US, UK, and France (and even still retains most of its old empire), and it is certainly imperialist, because it is actively seeking to conquer the territory of other peoples by military force, right now. You would think that an actual communist should hate it, for taking one of the most prominent examples of a communist revolution, implementing the ideas so badly as to discredit them in the eyes of much of the world, and then ultimately betraying that revolution outright and slipping back into autocratic capitalism again. It is perhaps one of the least leftist countries on the planet right now. And yet, somehow it has convinced a significant chunk of those that count themselves among the left that it can do no wrong. I could sort of understand it from people living in Russia itself, criticism of one's own country can be hard sometimes, but so many of its defenders seem to be Americans who take "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way past the point where it ceases to be reasonable.

This is a different situation though, for a few reasons: first, I actually don't agree, once you've promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn't what we're talking about) to give them once you've made those promises. I don't recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn't like they "were going to get it" already.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the stakes for business and personal relationships are different. We don't generally require continuing and revokable consent for giving someone money, the state can for example issue someone a monetary fine, and that's considered an acceptable consequence for many things. If you promise to buy something, and they then come to deliver it and you decide "actually I've changed my mind, keep it, I'm not buying it from you anymore", the other person can in a number of circumstances sue you for breaking your agreement.

However, if the state were to mandate that someone enter into a relationship, or have sex with someone, as a penalty for something, that would be considered a human rights abuse where the monetary fine would not, and if you were to tell someone that you found some type of flower super romantic, and then they came over with those flowers to give, but you then told them you weren't feeling a connection, no reasonable person would take their side if they tried to sue you to force you into a romantic relationship with them.

To put it a simpler way, if you promise someone a raise, the default state once that promise is made is getting the raise, as in professional matters, honoring promises and agreements is fundamental, revoking it later is therefore taking something from them, because you're changing that default state to something worse for them. Personal relations do not have the same dynamic. It is well known and understood that people sometimes change their minds on romantic and sexual relationships, or sometimes just aren't in the mood anymore. Promises don't carry the same weight, when there exists an absolute right to revoke consent at any point and have things not continue. As such, the default state is "not having a relationship/encounter with a particular person", right up until it happens. If the person in question never decides to enter into that relationship, because they have decided that they don't want to even deal with having one at all, they haven't taken anything from whoever else might have been interested in them, because they haven't changed that state. There was never a reason for a guy to expect one of these 4b women would date them in the first place, and no reason to expect that they wouldn't one day leave again if they did.

Technically, you still can determine what is behind the door and therefore win, because this is a universe where doors cant be opened and not "a universe where doors cannot be destroyed or circumvented by cutting a hole in the adjacent wall"

I mean, arent they swearing off dating as well though, not just sex? You wouldnt even get that situation of going on a date and then telling the guy that if they arent even going on dates in the first place.

I do actually agree that this might not be the most mentally healthy reaction, at least for straight women that actually would otherwise want to date men, but I dont really think that it is really the fault of the women themselves, I think that it is the kind of angry or fearful reaction to being put in a dangerous situation that, while it might not really help, is at least understandable and not some failing on the women's part. The problem, in my mind, is the situation that leads them to be this upset in the first place.

The way Ive have been thinking about this is to work backwards: I dont think that you can have a situation where someone is morally obligated to date someone (at least when dating vs not dating is the limit of the situation. Obviously, if you add more negative things, like a trolley problem where it was somehow the only way to save people, that would be another matter, but nobody has set up such a thing here), because a forced relationship is quite harmful to the person so forced.

I suspect that you agree with that, since you acknowledge that "nobody is entitled to anything". I also think one has a moral obligation to not act in a bigoted manner (this feels pretty much self evident to me, since bigotry harms people). Third, I consider misandry a form of bigotry, pretty much by definition, since I would define that term as "bigotry against men".

If we consider some other case that would be clearly and obviously misandry, such as, say, someone firing an employee specifically because they were a man, in a case where the man himself had done nothing to warrant the firing, and everyone involved knew this and just didnt want a man, it would seem clear that the ethical thing to do is to not fire the guy. Depending on how the law in the place in question worked, it may or may not be a legal right, but morally speaking, I would say that since the motivation is bigotry and there is no other reason to justify the firing, theres a moral obligation not to do it.

But, if we apply that same reasoning to the situation of a woman deciding to swear off dating because they want to punish men for many of them shifting to the right, and we assume that this is misandry, we would then have to say that, since misandry is bigotry and doing bigoted things is wrong, the "not dating" must be wrong, and therefore that there is a moral obligation to date. But that is a conclusion that, as I said in the beginning, I dont think makes sense. And since it seems like it should follow from adding the assumption that a woman swearing off dating men is misandry, I think I have to conclude that that assumption must be wrong. I cant necessarily explain how it is wrong, just that I think that it leads to a nonsense conclusion if it is correct, and so cannot be even if it appears that it should be on first glance.

the thing is though, its not really punishing all men. Not dating someone, or not having sex with that someone, is not a punishment. Like, I'm a guy myself, and I also happen to be asexual. Do you think that I am in some way punishing everyone around me by not dating them, because I dont happen to be attracted to them? Functional relationships cant really be forced, so if something leads someone to not feel safe dating, they're not obligated to force themselves to go through with it when they dont feel up to it, just because not engaging denies other people the chance to be with them. I just see this as the state of the country leading some women to not feel safe, or just not enjoy, romantic and sexual relationships as much, because the real and perceived risk to engaging in them has increased. And if they dont feel up to it, and so decide not to do it, and then meet up with some other women that feel the same way and assign a label to it, why does that suddenly make them misandrist?

Would it really be (serious question, as I dont know a whole lot about legal matters)? My limited understanding was that perjury is lying under oath, and sarcasm, while it does involve saying untrue statements, isnt considered lying in everyday speech because what it actually communicates is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Since laws deal with humans and not computers, my assumption would be that it probably works in such a way as to depend on what message a person is actually communicating rather than the precise syntax by which they communicate it?

I mean, it isnt like it is the job of women to sleep with men in order to prevent them from becoming incels, that would be essentially like victim blaming at a population level. Im also not really sure that it would do much: most women arent going to do this, so the impact on average men's dating prospects is much smaller than the total lack of dating for any women that actually go through with it, but nobody is seriously suggesting that doing so will turn them into something akin to incels.

I dont expect this would really help much, beyond the obvious personal benefit that not becoming pregnant in a state that is hostile to women's reproductive health would have, but incels were going to hate and complain about women regardless of the sexual habits of those women, so I dont see it really making things worse in that regard either.

I mean, deport him where? Any other country would probably deport him right back here.

It wasn't until this comment that I understood it was the windows operating system and I was wondering what aspect of the online left I had somehow missed that complains about being able to see out of buildings