feels like Stop Antisemitism is really underrated in the “most evil domestic Zionist organization” department right now, this is literally a McCarthyist tactic

Seems like a pointlessly gendered classification.

sports bars by default cater to a male clientele, male sports, and male interests and therefore tend to have a “bro”-ey and “masculine” atmosphere that can often be offputting or outright hostile to the presence of women–women’s sports bars by contrast don’t, and generally have more interest in being inclusive community hubs and/or acting as substitutes to gay bars

in other words: no, it’s not really a pointlessly gendered classification in the current situation. it certainly is not what i’d call the norm (nor has it been my experience) for sports bars to have a code of conduct which tells you being homophobic or chauvinistic or ableist isn’t cool and could be grounds for your removal, as one of the women’s bars downthread has

i mean, you can research this for yourself. here’s what i found with about three minutes of Googling and following links

The Sports Bra:

The bar, which opened in Portland, Oregon, just last month, has already become a popular haunt for women and the LGBTQ community, especially since the city has lost all of its lesbian bars, a trend that has grown across the United States over the last several decades. There are only about 20 lesbian bars left in the country, compared to about 200 that existed in the 1980s. […] But Nguyen, who is gay, stresses that the bar is welcoming of everyone. While a majority of its patrons are women, she said, the Sports Bra is an inclusive space that also attracts a large number of families and even quite a few men — many of whom, according to her, say they prefer watching women’s sports because female athletes “give 110 percent all the time.”

1972 Pub:

1972 Pub represents more than just a place to gather — it’s a symbol of progress, representation, and the power of community. Having a women’s sports pub in Austin means more spaces where everyone, regardless of gender or identity, can feel seen and celebrated. ⛹️‍♀️🏆

A Bar of Their Own:

• has an entire code of conduct that is gender inclusive

the names and addresses of many of these bars: right here

i’m not exactly a fan of gender roles or the nature of “manhood” or “masculinity” or gender expression generally myself and am supportive of their total de-emphasis, so my presumption is that the case for this is something like “manhood as a concept is so toxic and so intrinsic to the worldview that creates patriarchy and men oppressing themselves and others that we cannot create a better form of it, we can only get rid of it.”

the problem is that this is almost exclusively the purview of radical feminism, and this was not productive for them historically (mostly it just took them very weird places, the SCUM manifesto being the most infamous manifestation of this). to say nothing of the fact that most radical feminism–and radical feminists–suck and have bad politics and analysis on queer issues in large part because of how that space of politics developed

Manhood ultimately will have to die though

bizarre take; i don’t see why this is true or necessary at all

well… no, because you’ve just described removing several of the distinct things that define what a karaoke bar is, lol

It’s bizarre but many cities are run by folks with no real knowledge of how cities are run, so it makes sense why it happens.

i don’t think this is particularly true–i think a lot of it just boils down to simple, short-term economic math. frankly, a lot of US land area is in an economic death spiral that makes a Walmart much more appealing than trying to maintain the existing local business community. you can’t count on people keeping businesses in the family in the middle of nowhere–but you can safely assume if you bend over enough for Walmart they’ll stick around and employ people. lotta mayors will take that consistency every time

i think contextually this article would make the point that it’s directed at white people considering wearing dreads and not other non-white groups, but yes it is pretty corny to effectively frame black people as the only group that has a cultural tradition of locked hair

i’m sorry but this is not the place to have a meltdown over this. you’re not the center of the universe and not everything is a personal affront to you because it doesn’t frame things in a way you would prefer

this is, respectfully, the goofiest objection i’ve ever seen. stop being so fragile over a headline

unfortunately i do not

this does not strike me as an article worth keeping up between its dubious quality and the (generously) cringeworthy opinions of its writer

Lesson 1: Nobody cares.

Initially, I was terrified of judgment. What would my friends think if I didn’t drink? What about a potential partner? Will they think I’m a loser? Wait. Stop. Nobody cares.

This is such a freeing reminder that whether or not you choose to drink, it literally does not matter. Sure, you might encounter 20 seconds of awkward dialogue with a new friend, a coworker, a potential partner, but ultimately, that’s it. Most well-meaning people stop caring very quickly. Which reminds me of one of my favorite facts: nobody is thinking about us as much as we think about ourselves. That’s a good thing.

Lesson 2: If it does matter, that’s not your problem. If someone makes a fuss about your lack of alcohol consumption, that actually has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with them. I know that sounds like a boring modern platitude — “that’s a them problem” — but it’s true. That’s a them problem. I’ve had a date or two who’ve been offended, “slightly confused” as they said, that I agreed to go out on a drinks date when I don’t drink. But just because I don’t drink doesn’t mean I’m not entitled to my fair share of swanky hotel lobbies and fancy glassware! This leads me to my next lesson…

the only reason this is being kept up and locked and not deleted is to make it clear where Beehaw stands on Richard Stallman, which is: stop defending him, he is an awful person and he completely deserves to be put over the fire for his words and actions.

Aside for all his pedophile view points, he is correct about infantilizing 12-17 year olds.

…you’re just repeating my point back to me, and why Stallman is the worst mouthpiece for this position.

It kind of reminds me of ASD symptoms, not reading social cues properly, etc.

i know you mean well but, respectfully: having autism or another disorder (if Stallman even does) is probably not the reason why Richard Stallman has historically defended what amounts to pedophilia; why he continues to defend bestiality and necrophilia; and why he has extremely malformed opinions on what constitutes sexual harassment and sexual assault. and even if it is, that’s an explanation and nothing more. it does not excuse or make acceptable his behavior or the consistency with which it has skeeved other people out. he deserves to be strongly rebuked, as anyone else would, for his refusal to take accountability in this situation.

i mean, whom among us has not said such things, without retraction, as:

Cody Wilson [who at the time of his charging was 30] has been charged with “sexual assault” on a “child” after a session with a sex worker of age 16. […] The article refers to the sex worker as a “child”, but that is not so. Elsewhere it has been published that she is 16 years old. That is late adolescence, not childhood. Calling teenagers “children” encourages treating teenagers as children, a harmful practice which retards their development into capable adults.

Mere possession of child pornography should not be a crime at all. To prosecute people for possessing something published, no matter what it may be, is a big threat to human rights.

A national campaign seeks to make all US states prohibit sex between humans and nonhuman animals. This campaign seems to be sheer bull-headed prudery, using the perverse assumption that sex between a human and an animal hurts the animal. That’s true for some ways of having sex, and false for others. For instance, I’ve heard that some women get dogs to lick them off. That doesn’t hurt the dog at all. Why should it be prohibited?

and whom among us has not had to retract such positions as:

There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

these are obviously positions that everyone would take the fall for if they had a blog.

Not defending pedophiles, but

you are about to defend pedophilia. rethink this and stop talking.

there was a time when 13 was considered adult.

and? Stallman is not talking about a previous time at any point here. also: that previous time was bad anyways. why would we want to–especially with respect to age of consent–go back to considering 13-year olds and younger to be adults? they cannot meaningfully consent to sexual relations with adults; it’s just child abuse. all of this is why Stallman’s words are abhorrent.

It’s still legal for teenagers to marry in most countries.

Stallman is not talking about teenagers. he explicitly distinguishes children (again, people <13 for him) from teenagers (people 13-17).

An anonymous hit job

it’s literally his own words all the way down here. if it’s a “hit job” it’s entirely Stallman’s own fault for being a freak with morally abhorrent takes. one of the first things mentioned here is that he had to retract the position that “voluntarily pedophilia” doesn’t harm children (a category of person he defines as anyone under about 13)! any reasonable person would find this abhorrent and Stallman a horrible person for ever having defended said position in the first place, because it is genuinely abhorrent to defend something like that. that’s just child abuse.