Epically terrible take of the day: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/incels-sex-robots-redistribution.html … (And an excellent example of why we need a consent-focused approach to sex, not an acts-focused approach)
-
-
Replying to @girlonthenet
Christ, what sort of world have we built where the NY Times is openly publishing "maybe we could reduce terrorism by letting the [white] terrorists have whatever they want"?
1 reply 3 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Andrew_Taylor @girlonthenet
Publishing doesn't mean agreement. Candid specimens of a sort of thought might be just the sort of tool to examine a way of thinking. And avoid cultivating it. Make its existence less deniable, the direct link to the results less ambiguous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alakest @Andrew_Taylor
You should be put in prison forever. I don't actually believe this, I just wanted to spark a discussion, you know? Let's discuss it at length, until you fear for your personal safety. After all, it'll let us 'examine a way of thinking'.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
But please don't mistake me saying that example is of utility for encouraging discussion of such for entertainment value. That an "incel" mindset exists tests my credulity, but apparently it does. Much like other psychiatric maladies.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.