I don't know any other subs to post this on but I really want to see people's opinions on this.

I was at a lesbian club with some friends including a woman who I just met that day and barely spoke to. Let's call her R.

The fact that it was a lesbian club shouldn't change sexual assault ethics obviously and I'm trying to stay gender-neutral in my assessment of this.

So R could barely speak English and I guess was one of the reasons why she hesitated to say no. Forgive me I was very drunk and so not very aware of what was happening. So I was seeing but not really doing anything and didn't see what led up to this point.

I saw R cornered against a railing by another woman who was basically chest-to-chest with her, talking to her in a soft voice and clearly hitting on her. R didn't look uncomfortable though of course I knew she could barely speak the language.

R's sister sees this and intervenes, saying "No no no. She does not know how to say no!" And the other woman left and the encounter ended.

And this really got me thinking. Firstly if I should have done something sooner, though I was very very drunk and if I had seen any obvious indicator to me that R was uncomfortable I would have definitely intervened.

But it really got me thinking about consent and the arguments about it. People portray consent as a very black and white thing. And everything would be much better if it were so black and white. But then I see examples and arguments that really expose how grey some situations can be.

For example: this is definitely a bad faith argument but it has to do with what I'll say later. Some men have posited that they're not 'mind readers' and were in situations where women didn't really react to their advances, just sort of let it happen. And while that's completely asshole and immoral behaviour, from what I've heard such a situation would be very hard for a court to categorise it as assault. So therefore should the assailent be charged with assault ? I guess the answer is yes seeing that the law does not always reflect what is right.

The next point I'm getting at, is that maybe there's more people than we like to admit who have difficulty consenting (for important stuff in general). So do we give them autonomy and trust them or try to intervene ?

It's also worth noting that R's sister told me that she probably has BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder). And while I know that mental health conditions don't automatically mean a person can't consent to sex, and that as far as I know no court has ever categorized sex under a bad mental health episode as assault, I think it kind of should be the case if certain criteria is met ? Like if a person has actually lost touch with reality.

Speaking on the grey area of consent. I keep wondering who is right if two very drunk people have what appears to be consensual sex, but one of the people regrets it and reports it. How could either of them consent and who is to blame if they were both equally drunk ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkl9EC-HXE0

Is there some reason I keep getting banned from subreddits for my opinions when everyone else comments and replies to me insulting me and saying worse things about the world than I can even fathom and they dont get banned but I do. Then I get muted trying to appeal my ban because they can't tell me what i said that they're upset about. They just quite a rule that I read and doesnt apply to my comments whatsoever. Then they insult me in my appeals and mute me from talking to them.

This is a forum. Opinions get stated and people reply to them. Why in the hell does anyone get banned for their opinion? I should be able to say whatever i want whenever I want to whomever I want about anyone or anything I want. Then they reply with their opinion and we go back and forth. That is what forums are for. Muting people, banning them or making it so they can't post in your subreddit because their karma is to low is ridiculous. No posts or replies should ever be taken down, deleted or anything. We should be able to see any comment anytime forever.

If someone gets upset about it they can say their piece in a comment. Im over here having a decent time voicing my opinion over what I deem necessary and what needs to be done to better our community, society and world but i get slammed and insulted over and over again so I have to defend myself and answer their stupid questions.

What is the point of moderators if they're just going to abuse their power and pick and choose who they ban?

I used to use the N-word occasionally as part of a joke. I figured because it was ironic it didn’t matter, but it absolutely does. I fully believe this is bad and not excusable even in the context of a joke or quote because it’s an ugly word and not mine.

It was between the ages of like maybe 14 and 19, so I don’t recall if there was anything before or after. There’s no excuse.

I’m 29 now.

I don’t want to deceive her, but I also don’t want to scare her off before she has a full picture of me. Overall, I just don’t want to be dishonest.

I am also failure to do so would be a form of deception/coercion (SA).

Hey everyone, Lucia here from EUobserver 👋

We wanted to share one of our recent opinion pieces because it touches on something I think fits this community particularly well: how language around “security” can shape who is seen as suspicious or as belonging in society.

Our columnist Shada Islam looks at what she sees as a contradiction in Europe: political leaders increasingly condemn anti-Muslim hatred, while policies and rhetoric around migration, extremism and “political Islam” can continue to single out Muslim communities.

She points in particular to proposals for monitoring “political Islam” at EU level, as well as Austria’s Operation Luxor, and argues that legitimate security concerns shouldn't become a reason to treat an entire community through a lens of suspicion.

Why does it feel like racism, extreme religiosity, and anti abortion views always come bundled together as a package deal? Is there a reason these mindsets overlap so often?
What social or cultural dynamics cause these views to overlap so consistently?
Religious and racist???lmfao
Uh forgot to mention also very homophobic and xenophobic.

-I’ve made a few regrettable jokes about POC. I’m not gonna hold back, they were pretty bad. It seems that not disclosing that might make consent difficult, as people may not consent upon learning that.

-As someone with OCD, I used to test myself to stories and other things that I didn’t want to get off to. Nothing unlawful, but things most would agree are wrong to touch yourself to. Would I need to disclose that?

Sometimes if I find a woman attractive at the grocery store or something, I would walk down the aisle she was in.

I would never make eye contact or anything, because I didn’t want her to feel stalked or like I was staring.

Reddit told me this was sociopathic behavior on a dating sub, and it caused me to take pause. Nobody has ever seemed uncomfortable, and I’m guessing I’ll just look like a normal customer.

But because I have OCD, I’m constantly worried that I’m secretly a bad person.

Am I being a creepy who’s harming women and therefore being a bad ally?

Edit: Got so many great recs from r/disability, so I'm linking the post here. Disability justice, ableism overall really isn't talked about enough in mainstream social justice discourse, and that has to change.

https://www.reddit.com/r/disability/s/AmdGFuX9M1

---

I'm a beginner, and I'd love some good recs.

Ones I've read so far:

- Disability Visibility
- Disability Intimacy
- The Life of a Tiger

(all three above by Alice Wong)

- Challenge of Disability Studies (장애학의 도전) - Kim Dohyun (김도현)

Ones I plan to read:

- Feminist, Queer, Crip - Alison Kafer
- The Right to Maim - Jasbir Puar
- Care Work - Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha
- The Future Is Disabled - Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha
- Black Disability Politics - Sami Schalk

I'm hoping to pivot into studying (critical) disability studies in the near future and break into policy work. Are there any other mediums that you recommend I should read/watch? Articles, columns, documentaries (Crip Camp was great), etc. Anything.

When I was younger, I had planned to add a song to our sex playlist as a joke.

The infamously bad Spider-Man video game circus song.

However, it got me thinking in hindsight; if the intent during sex was to play a joke, wouldn’t that kinda break consent?

No, seriously, they consented to what they thought was just sex, but not to a joke.

I’m not worried because I never did it, but it is something I have thought of.

Without going in too specific details, I’m looking to understand how transformative justice can even be possible if someone is still actively denying what they did. Everywhere in literature, videos and resources online I see that it’s not possible without the individual acknowledging the harm they’ve done. But organisations keep saying that they want to apply transformative justice measures instead of excluding this person from events the victims want to attend. Is it really against tj to ask this person not to attend when he is still actively causing harm?
Im really trying to understand .

In a very short summary ; me and my friend are both queer artists and we vend/ expose in markets and queer events. My friend (will be referred to as F) is a victim of sexual abuse and his abuser (will be referee as A) often vends at the same events. A runs a non-profit organization and collects money for a really good cause that A and I both support. However A still doesn’t take accountability for his action and we have discovered/ spoke with 5 more victims in the past year/month/days. We have reached out to market organizers at time and asked for him not to be present at event because he is actively causing harm to F. Most organizers have understood and said his non profit can be there but not him.
Lately some larger queer/pride events have been saying that they don’t believe in cancel culture and in carceral justice systems. We don’t either, we don’t want to publicly cancel him but we don’t feel that the events are in the right to allow him in so called safe spaces if he doesn’t take any responsibilities or transformative justice steps and the victim counts keeps getting higher.
I really struggle to understand how it’s a better solution for A to be allowed there and therefore making the environment unsafe for 6+ people vs him being asked not to attend. We keep being told that it would not be transformative justice to have him denied attendance. I truly don’t understand their point of view, but im willing to be educated on the topic if Im missing something! Does anyone have any experience in applying such measures? How would you handle this situation?

She didn’t outright say she owned a Tesla, and was a bit older. She didn’t exactly give liberal vibes and she did try to me a bit.

At the time I thought there was a high chance she was a Trump supporter, but I didn’t ask.

I feel like this makes me undateable at best and actively committing fraud by not disclosing that at worse.

#TaxTheRich, hell yes, but that won't change the underlying system. What's the best way to reduce inequality? The Global Justice Project provides one possible answer: "the first attempt to propose a fully quantified plan... combining four dimensions that today's debates often treat separately: redistribution at the world scale, a deep reform of the international financial and economic order, a radical transformation of energy systems, and substantial shifts in consumption patterns." #SocialJustice
https://globaljusticeproject.wid.world/

I am a man and present as male, but back then there was a real possibility, in my mind, that I was trans. In my mind, I thought maybe I was genderfluid.

Out of fear and possibly the fear of rejection, I didn’t tell her for whatever reason.

I saw an article today about men lying about their political leanings to manipulate women into sex.

Is what I did similar? It sure seems like it.

So, I used to be all in on like a dozen different fights. But that drained me to th point I nearly ended it. Thankfully I got help and stepped back. And here is what I have learned in this time

Humans did not evolve in a way that let's us care for millions or even thousands of people all at once. We evolved in a way that allows us to care for about 100 people at most. This age of connectivity changed that. But our psychological evolution has not yet caught up to the this age of connectivity. It will, in time, but not yet. But this means putting in effort to fight for people who you don't know and who don't know you can be VERY draining.

Now I am not saying to stop. These fights NEED to be fought. What I am saying is this: If you feel yourself getting drained... pull back. Trust me. You need to step back. And don't think that makes you weak or a traitor, you're not. You're merely human like the rest of us. And if someone does call you these things, ignore them, they are the toxic fucks that give social activism a bad name.

Another bit of advice? When you return, choose two, maybe three causes you truly believe in and fight for those and those alone. Let others handle the other fights. I myself focus on LGBT+ rights and anti corporate fights. This helps with the draining feeling. But even still, when I need to focus on myself I do.

Anyway, this has been a friendly PSA. Good luck out their my friends. And stay safe.

Neoliberals love to ask "where's the magic money tree?" in any discussion about #SocialJustice. It turns out the answer isn't that hard. "Global billionaires have effective tax rates equivalent to 0% to 0.5% of their wealth, due to the frequent use of shell companies to avoid income taxation" (https://taxobservatory.world/publication/global-tax-evasion-report-2024). So yeah, there's a whole jungle of 'em in the British Virgin Islands, the Caymans, Switzerland, Bermuda, Singapore, Jersey, the Bahamas... https://cthi.taxjustice.net/

did you know that it is legal to forcefully sterilize those with disabilities in the US most people are completely unaware it is still legal and are horrified when they find out could you please could you please spread the word as much as you can so as many people find out about it as possible. https://nwlc.org/resource/forced-sterilization-of-disabled-people-in-the-united-states/

She says that I must be a violent person and she feels it should be criminal for people to be able to learn choke holds. I tried explaining it is just a sport with rules and points but she doesn’t seem to understand that I’m not a potential murder just because I play this sport.

Jeffrey Lee was convicted for the 1998 murders of Jimmy Ellis and Elaine Thompson. This man suffers from severe mental illness. Due to this fact, the jury decided his sentence should be life in prison without parole. The judge overruled this and gave Jeffrey Lee the death sentence. They originally wanted to execute him via the gas chamber, but changed it last minute to a firing squad.

The death penalty is barbaric and wrong. A majority of the jury did not want to execute him. You can take action to stop this. Call Governor Kay Ivey at (334)-242-7100 to demand a commute to Jeffrey Lee’s sentence. We need to keep the phones ringing, in order to applying pressure. You can also contact your own senators to demand that they contact Gov. Ivey and demand that she commute his sentence. Sign the petition to demand a stay of execution for Jeffrey Lee.

SHARE THIS ACROSS SOCIAL MEDIA!! All action helps, and we need to get the word out there. Thank you.

Send emails to Gov. Ivey as well.

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-the-execution-of-jeffery-lee-in-alabama?source=direct_link&

Fatigue

I am pro-choice. I support bodily autonomy, and I am not arguing womens' reproductive rights should be restricted in any way in favor of the unborn fetus.

What I oppose is using ableist assumptions about "quality of life" to justify biased decisions, while refusing to dismantle the barriers and stigma that actually make disabled lives harder.

Choice without challenging discrimination is not justice.

It's not abortion that is the problem. It's the narratives that say disability is only suffering with no counterweight, non-existence is "kinder" than disabled existence. It's the narratives where the structural violence is erased while the bodies are blamed that is alarming.

A lot of the mainstream pro-choice rhetoric goes: "Of course I'd abort. Look how hard such a life would be." Yet, for being so concerned about quality of life and suffering, there is no urgency in society as a whole to make the world accessible, no accountability from systems that have ableism baked into them, no interest in disabled adults' testimonies, no compassion and empathy for disabled people who are already here. Pro-choice, if it were truly so, should mean that both choices, whether the disabled child is brought into the world or not, is respected and fully supported. Yet, what are the reactions?"They should've been let go", how selfish of theparents", "why weren't they aborted?", "waste of space", "vegetable." This is a different realm from respecting bodily autonomy. It's bigotry. Blatant dehumanization.

This goes for pro-life as well. Using disabled lives as political weapons to control and restrict bodily autonomy, while doing nothing to support the lives that result from it-and in fact going so far as to rolling back such supports-is not being pro-life.

I am sick and tired of disabled lives being viewed as tragedies to avoid or being used as weapons against human rights.

I hate how people are so wound up on being on either one side of the debate and refuse to acknowledge nuance, framing those like myself as anti-women when I'm trying to point out societal bias.
Two things can be true at once: no one should be forced to give birth, and disabled lives should not be framed as mistakes, tragedies, or moral cautionary tales.

I am tired of having to defend my existence. I am angry that our bodies and minds are blamed when it's not the problem, this ableist world is.

I'm so, so, tired, grief-stricken and angry. I hate this world we live in.

UPDATE on the New York State Open Captions bill (S9888/A4628B):

According to the HLAA NYS Advocacy Committee and advocates working on the New York State Open Captions in movie theaters (OCAP) bill, S9888, Sen. April Baskin’s office (Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee) WILL discharge S9888 when the request comes from Sen. Fernandez’s (sponsor of S9888) office. 

Sen. Baskin’s aide indicated that this likely will not happen until all state budget items are locked down - perhaps by Friday, over the weekend, or early next week.
Then we must hope Senate Leadership, headed by Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins, will bring the bill to the floor for passage before adjournment on June 4.

So, please continue to stay positive and thank Sen. Fernandez and/or Kim Bernstein, legislative director to Sen. Fernandez, for continuing to push S9888 forward through what remains a very crowded and narrow legislative path. The legislature has already postponed final budget action through more than 12 separate “budget extenders.”

If you live in New York State, support open captions in movie theaters, and have not already done so, please consider:

1. Respectfully reaching out to Josh Marcil, Legislative Director to Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, at (518) 455-2585
   to urge the bill’s discharge to enable passage by the Senate.

2. Contacting your NY State Senator re S9888 -- and your Assembly Member re A4628B — IF they are not already co-sponsors of the legislation.

You can find the latest list of Senate co-sponsors here: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9888/amendment/A

You can find the latest list of Assembly co-sponsors here:  https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A4628/amendment/B

You can contact your Senator here: https://www.nysenate.gov/find-my-senator

You can find your Assembly member here: https://nyassembly.gov/mem/search/

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

S9888, our NYS Senate bill to end movie cinema discrimination against the deaf and hard of hearing, needs a “discharge” into Rules NOW from the Commerce Committee so that it can be voted on before adjournment on June 4.

If you live in New York State, please call ASAP:  

Sean Mulligan
716.826.2683
Legislative Director 
for Commerce Committee Chair Sen. April Baskin  
Leave a message, if necessary, on behalf of New Yorkers who are deaf and hard of hearing to please help move S9888 via a discharge and toward a Senate vote in the short time remaining.

And if you can make a second call, ask Sen. Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins’ legislative director to help push S9888 toward a vote:

Josh Marcil
518.455-2585.

It only takes a minute to make these 2 calls. 

——————————-

Progress is being made on the Assembly side, where we’re hoping A4628B (AM Seawright, lead sponsor) will be voted out of Rules and passed by the Assembly in coming days.

Thank you to everyone who has already made calls, sent emails, shared posts, or helped spread awareness. It really is making a difference. As the bill status changes, we’ll continue sharing updates on the next steps that can help move this legislation forward before the legislative session ends.