this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
712 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
82494 readers
4505 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean to be honest I'm not in favor of "population control" but I am basically a soft anti-natalist. I think we should stop reproducing entirely.
As for eugenics, I never said things would be manipulated along racial/ethnic lines, and that's typically the area of moral outrage when it comes to eugenics. And what with a few people in this very comment section pointing out that it'd be unacceptable to let white people say they're "uncomfortable" or "feel unsafe" around black people... well...
Like, you are being inconsistent at that point. Is viewing men as intrinsically less safe and validating that with prejudicial filters on ride sharing against them acceptable or not? If its acceptable, then just... simply not having more men is just a win/win. No one gets hurt, they're just not born. And its justified because you can point out that its literally acceptable to apply what amounts to an economic sanction of already living men, some of which rely on their income to live a life worth living or to even live at all, on the basis that they are just more dangerous. This idea is more harmful than what I am proposing. It will result in more suffering.
What you don't like is the emotions you feel when I suggest an idea that seems alien to you and have to mentally compare it to a worse idea that sates bitter catharsis or validates your desire to insulate and segregate for the aim of emotional comfort.
My idea is not me framing "birthing fewer boys" from some emotional perspective of "We should do it because we hate boys." I'm suggesting it because I legitimately believe it would be more humane than what we're doing now with everything, let alone considering this ride share filter.
I'm here because I have no self control. I keep telling myself I'll stop arguing on social media because it just makes me miserable but boredom at work just completely over takes my restraint. Why are you here?
Men are not born inherently more violent than women. That's a sexist assumption from the get and invalidates your entire reply to be honest.
Acknowledging the real outcome of the patriarchy that men are encouraged and allowed to use violence to further their own wants is not the same as agreeing that men should be killed or boys shouldn't be born.
It's not an idea that's alien to me, I did ask what in the 4B you were talking about for a reason. I just recognize a violent and sexist idea when I see one and yours is extreme enough that it makes me think you're doing it to further provoke gender wars on this site.
I never said they're more inherently violent on some biological level. I don't think it matters if they're "inherently" more violent. If men are statistically more violent and that is just a cultural effect, my solution would still be more humane than ideas like a prejudicial ride share filter.
And if your rebuttal is "We need to fix men's culture" my immediately question is how? Because that's not a proposed solution: My idea and the ride share filter are explicit and specific policy. They can be compared, their effects can be studied or if not studied, their assumed effects can at least be rationally predicted.
Fewer boys being born is absolutely not the moral equivalent of killing men. And I know the whole "Kill all men" line itself is a (usually) a troll. Engaging with that is boring.
That said, how do we systematically discourage men from committing violence exactly? Obviously with the goal of reducing harm. That is, in a way that is more humane, time efficient, viable, than either other solution we've already discussed here? I don't think this is a serious avenue to be explored to be honest, because I never hear any concrete solutions being offered. I'm open to being wrong. I want to be wrong because the idea that we can get men to just chill out with the violence and make everyone happy sounds legitimately like the best option, I just don't think that we can do that.
Provoke a discussion. Like I said I'm bored at work. I don't care about gender wars. I'm more of an equal opportunity hater. And lover.
If you must know, I avoided the "bear vs man" discussion. Now that was just a means to provoke gender wars bullshit.
Ew, I'm not at your beck and call to entertain you and your delusional ideas. It's laughable to push selective gender in utero as more humane than allowing women riders to seek out women drivers. I'm laughing at you.
Shoo.
You mean you're here to propagandize.