this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
488 points (98.8% liked)

World News

39161 readers
1909 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

India's largest budget carrier, IndiGo, is the first airline to trial a feature that lets female passengers book seats next to other women to avoid sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with a man in a move designed to make flying more comfortable for female passengers, according to a CNBC report.

The airline's booking process is fairly standard except for the seat map which highlights seats occupied by women with the color pink. This information is not visible to male passengers, according to the airline, CNBC reported. IndiGo did not immediately respond to CBS MoneyWatch's request for comment on the new feature.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (14 children)

You just speak about women in a dehumanizing way that removes agency. It feel gross. Reminds me of doctors from the 90s that said we need studies to tell if inserting IUDs causes pain.

[–] Allero 1 points 3 months ago (13 children)

Thanks for pointing it out. I will see what I can do to correct it.

Is it something about the way I put it, like if I decide for women how it would be better for them?

Because my real position here, outlined clearly from my point of view but maybe not from someone else's, is that we should better study the consequences of that approach to make a more informed decision.

One could come from a strictly individualistic approach, to allow and empower people to act as they see fit, but the moment we set examples of things already resolved, people start thinking otherwise.

I'm gonna get another hate wave for this comparison, but this is just illustrative example, so hear me out first: should we allow white people to make separate white-only spaces on the same planes? We can absolutely try and justify it by the same "giving agency" argument, all while pointing out people of color do more crimes and can be, on average, more "dangerous".

All of which would be complete bullshit that omits any nuance that the very segregation puts people in conditions that promote such behavior and there is nothing about being black or hispanic or whatever in itself that promotes it. So we should absolutely fight back against any such idea.

Similar themes here, except the conditions here are less material (in fact, men even have somewhat of an advantage here) and more purely social. Externally isolated communities often promote dangerous behaviors, and to combat that, we should avoid forming such communities by not alienating them by the arbitrary category of gender in the first place. Otherwise, we are gonna see communities similar to incels grow and get more dangerous.

I just suppose that the risk of alienating men and them getting more violent may outweigh the immediate benefit of increased plane safety, eventually turning against women themselves. But to prove or disprove that point, I'd love to see more numbers. Before that, I do not welcome radical solutions that are not informed by a solid body of evidence, as they often carry questionable consequences.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm gonna get another hate wave for this comparison, but this is just illustrative example, so hear me out first: should we allow white people to make separate white-only spaces on the same planes? We can absolutely try and justify it by the same "giving agency" argument, all while pointing out people of color do more crimes and can be, on average, more "dangerous".

Big, "People will call me racist for this" energy. You knew what you were gonna say was gonna be racist and shitty, but you said it anyway...

Do you have a humiliation fetish or something? It's like you want the downvotes...

[–] Allero 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Not that I care of downvotes when I'm right.

Yet you don't seem to listen, instead going for labels and trying so so hard to make it personal in several threads at once.

I don't think this kind of conversation can remain productive.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)