Oh yeah, many times. I've had a guy run his hands through my hair and push a boner against me. I've had a teenage girl lick my bicep and giggle at me with her friends. I've had an older woman just grab my butt and pretend she didn't do it. There was another guy who was just petting my shoulders and leg, discreetly through the crowd.

It's just those things like what are you gonna do as a guy ? Report it ? Hey mr officer, a teenage girl licked my arm and then her friends giggled at me, if you run you can still arrest them ? I'd just be laughed at. No point reporting it i guess. It's just gross and annoying. I always chalked it up as problems of living in a big city.

I've never been at risk of being raped though. I am pretty muscular. I can see how it would be scary to be and much, much worse.

I honestly think it's ridiculous our public transportation is so unsafe to warrant this, but if it's necessary, then so be it. But if we're going to make women only carriages we should make an equal number of men only carriages, because not all women will use the women only carriages and i don't want my available commute space compromised because authorities can't keep public spaces safe for women.

I know it sounds a "but what about men" comment, but let me explain why. At my gymn, we used to have an open space for everyone. Then they decided to segregate about 1/3 of the space and make it ladies only while the remaining space was to be for everyone. The result is that, despite having machines available in the women's area, women want to be in the everyone's area all the time while the women's area is usually empty. The result is that there's no space for everyone to train in and men just have to queue to be able to train at peak times, usually in the late afternoon. We all pay the same, we all need our exercise, why are men having less ? Because we share the same gender with rapists ? How is that my fault ?

I can see the exact same thing happening with transportation. You limit men's available commute space on account of having an unsafe space for women, then the women's carriage goes empty while the everyone carriage forces everyone to be up against everyone. This is unacceptable. I have been sexually harassed as a man in public transportation too and while i recognize it's not as bad for me as it is for women, because it only happened a few times, it always happened by forcing me to be smushed against a ton of people.

I would prefer if everyone respected everyone and we could live like civilized people together in an equal and safe society, where nobody was threatened, harassed or raped, but if we're going to start sex segregation at least do it in such a manner so that everyone has equal amounts of space and opportunity to carry out their lives without being inconvenienced. If we segregate spaces, make x space for women, x space for men and x for everyone together. None of this special places just for women while everyone pays the same crap. That way if the common area is too full, i can just move to the men only area and that's it. If we can't be decent, at least let's try to be fair.

Who would've thought that an industry that disregarded and actively attacked and insulted their viewer/reader base, who gained a fame for 10/10ing all games under the sun and folding to the most miniscule of complaints from pressure groups would end up not having viewers/readers at all ? Not to mention hiring people who hate video games, can't play them and/or plagiarize footage from youtube to showcase the game as journalists.

Let me play the tiniest violin concerto for you guys. Now roll over and let youtubers take your industry.

This kind of behavior is harmful to the legitimacy of journalism itself and entirely self defeating at pushing an agenda.

When journalism is mistrusted, misinformation is boosted. When people find out information is misrepresented, they will seek out other sources and be less likely to believe information even when it is legitimate.

We all lost today and the significance of this loss has not dawned on the news agencies. I really hope they don't come crying again about how journalism is dying because people don't care for buying newspapers anymore.

I really hope at some point we go back to the apolitical, strict facts representation and unbiased coverage of events. That's what journalism is supposed to be. Not this tailored version of events reporting that we often get.

The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good. I'm not saying anarchism leads to the loss of values, I'm saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values. I understand that would not be the anarchy you would strive for, I'm saying that's what people would end up becoming, even though they'd have all the reasons not to.

Anyway thanks for presenting your arguments and showing me your view points. Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy, as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don't. I wish you and everyone in this community the best.

Edit: i just wanted to be clear that i didn't intend to spout hot takes to rile you guys up or disparage your beliefs. I understand the downvotes, I'm probably saying egregious things considering your community and obviously you disagree with it. I accept that. But please take none of what i say with disrespect, because none was intended. For me that's the most important take away. All i said were genuine discussion points and i want to make it clear that i admit i don't understand much about the modern ideals of anarchism. There are many differing takes on this subject online and they are not congruent. Whether or not i end up not agreeing with your beliefs does not mean i don't want to fully understand the message as it was meant to be understood.

Above all I'm a firm believer of political plurality. Diversity of opinions is what makes society richer.

Thank you for explaining it to me. I can understand someone saying such a thing in a non binary community, we're all ignorant about something.

Anyway, i would like to ask more questions and discuss what you said but apparently there's a new mod rule that says we need to understand anarchy to be here and people are not here to educate us. Since it's a rule i won't be able to participate further since i recognize i don't actually understand anarchy so i suppose it's time to leave the community.

I wish you all the best though.

I didn't mean to come off as dunking. Disagreement is part of discourse, I'm afraid and not necessarily dispargement of your beliefs. If you don't have the patience to discuss the fundamentals of your beliefs with your fellow man, then i suppose we've got nothing further to discuss about this matter. There is no need to act this defensive with everyone trying to engage with you on your political beliefs on this thread.

I'm sorry this discussion didn't turn out the way i intended and regret we couldn't learn from each other this day, but i wish you a better continuation of your day!

Hey i might not agree with anarchy, but it doesn't mean i don't like to hear about other people's political views and see what they think.

After all, how can one grow being only exposed to one's own political views ? I will disagree with you, sure, but i mean no disrespect for your opinions. I respect them as if they were my own and i think the world is richer with people who think outside the box and challenge the status quo. We should leave no page unturned.

We tried anarchy in Europe once, after the fall of the Roman empire.

It worked out so well, feudalism ended up being a better choice. Took us about 1000 years to see a predominance of republics again, although Italian city states got there first.

Turns out without organized states, letting a large number of people self organize ends up being a free for all for chieftains and warlords trying to sieze power for themselves. We ended up not writing history for hundreds of years, because everyone was focused on trying to find any sort of stability. We called it the dark ages. Feudalism was simply the strongest warlords managing to hold power for long enough so that people didn't see slaughter every year and could experience peace long enough to farm and craft. Even they had to come up with rules of casus belli (justification for wars), a claim system, heraldry and succession to prevent an all out slaughter like before.

This will never work in the EU. Our regulatory organs are apolitical. They don't depend on the ruling parliament. The parliament doesn't appoint the chairs of the organs, nor does the president. The courts also operate independently from the parliament, other than the laws they pass. There are no executive orders to give preferential treatment to some companies in Europe. There are no shady backroom deals because 28 countries must be kept on track at all times.

Empty threats do not concern us.