Concur about the lack of black and white. Interestingly enough, a major portion of your list of evils are things that I consider good. Addictive drugs are bad… everything else has a helpful, practical use, but could also be bad if used by a bad person.
I’m really only familiar with Meetup from that list, and yea, I agree. I think they inherently aren’t intending to do harm as a company, but what if domestic terrorists / cultists were to use meetup to find other likeminded individuals? Meetup may be in part responsible for getting harmful people together and they may never be aware of it. Sure, it’s a hypothetical, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility.
IMO, mistreating and underpaying people does make the world worse. It’s not the company mission, but yea… the whole capitalist machine thing. It’s hard to escape the output, which tends to harm at least someone.
There’s exceptions, but almost every company harms at least someone, or some thing through their existence. Maybe not the world as a whole, maybe just a small portion of it, but considering the nature of doing business itself, it’s a difficult problem to get around.
I don’t work for Google, and you’re not wrong, but I am not sure they’re totally wrong either. I honestly believe that a majority of companies around today are making the world worse, at least, for most companies there’s an argument that can be made. I’m having some difficulty thinking of an exception right now.
Are you daft or just wanting to be combative?
$1 has absolutely nothing to do with the context of this conversation.
One death does. There should not be variations in criminal penalties based on the victim’s gender. It’s textbook sexism.
Fighting sexism with more sexism; par for the course of conservative governments. I just thought people on Lemmy were smarter. I guess not.
it is explicitly and intentionally discriminating on the basis of gender
How.
By the very definition of the word. The victim can only be female. That is an inherent discriminating point.
We’re not talking about the victim; we’re talking about the crime… the act of murder itself. Murder is a broad category and it covers everyone of all genders. Femicide is a specific type of murder that only applies under certain circumstances; but one of those circumstances requires the victim to be female. That is a gender based discriminating factor.
It’s nothing about “preferential treatment;” it’s about having different outcomes because of an intentional and explicit consideration based on gender.
inexact and unnecessarily emotive. You’ve hinged your argument on a fallacy.
What fallacy? There will never be a male victim of femicide. It’s not possible by the very definition of the word.
Femicide requires very specific circumstances to be surrounding the crime of murder
Are you planning on killing women for misogynistic reasons? Are you planning on taking domestic abuse to its all too comment conclusion? Are you, in short, planning on committing murderous hate crimes?
Concur. The circumstances require the perpetrator to be male and the victim to be female… along with everything else you mentioned. None the less, because of the first requirement (gender specificity) it is explicitly and intentionally discriminating on the basis of gender; which is textbook sexism.
In order for a murder to be femicide, it specifically needs to be perpetrated by a man and the victim needs to be a woman. Any other combination =/= femicide. In Italy now, femicide has a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison. Murder has a mandatory minimum sentence of 21 years. A woman is inherantly 100% immune from being charged with Femicide by definition of the word. Thus, kill a man in Italy the mandatory minimum sentence is 21 years. Kill a woman in Italy, the mandatory minimum sentence is 21 years but in some cases the mandatory minimum is life in prison. It’s an unequal application of penalty based on gender… sexism.
The one where I oppose sexist laws? Which stance?
If you’re unable to process that the penalty for killing someone should not vary based on their gender, you, and the conservative government of Italy need help.
I read about it during my lunch break. Turns out, it’s just another sexist law applied by a conservative government.
In terms of symmetry, I mean that specific to the outcome of murdering an individual. One death = one death. The end result of the act of murder is genderless.
I’ve spent a few minutes on google during my lunch break. Turns out, it’s as sexist as it sounds actually. Femicide is a crime that uniquely qualifies the victim as a woman, and the perpetrator as a man. In Italy, that specific crime now has a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison if convicted. Prior to today, I assumed that life in prison was the minimum sentence for any murder in Italy, but that was an improper assumption. The mandatory minimum is 21 years for murder in Italy. Femicide now has a higher mandatory minimum.
Par for the course of conservative governments.
You do realize that people have conversations on here, right? If everyone just went to google – why have lemmy?
Why do the rich pay proportionally more tax than the poor?
You have this backwards. The poor pay proportionally more than the rich.
On a different note, I’d argue that the situation in question (murder) IS symmetrical.
My comment is very clearly specifically in reference to the term “femicide” and the official recognition of it within Italian law. It’s murder. If a woman kills another woman, it is not a femicide, that’s just a murder… the penalty is the same in the end… right??? Overall, it seems a relatively unnecessary level of specificity.
Is murder typically 21 years though in Italy? Yours is the only answer that’s a reasonable answer if you’re actually correct. In reading other comments in this post, I came to the understanding that the penalty for murder in Italy was life in prison already. I’m not versed in the punishments for breaking laws in Italy… I doubt a lot of people on Lemmy are.
Spot on! That’s exactly how agreeing with people works!
When I agree with women, I turn into a woman! When I agree with doctors, I become a doctor!
I didn’t go to google to read the article, it was on Lemmy… thus, I asked Lemmy. You could probably infer that if you gaf but it seems your aim is to be combative. The word “completely” threw you off? It wasn’t the sarcasm implying that “racism is cured now because of awarenes?” Best of luck…
deleted by creator