The WaPo today released an article stating that women should no longer be jailed under any circumstances. It may become law:
But what about at the gym? Why should women be forced to work out in the private, women only areas? Why shouldn't men simply get out of the way when a woman wants to work out in a certain space? What's wrong, can guys not handle women being assertive?
So much for equal rights.
That is legitimately infuriating.
I'm much farther left than most of you faggots but social justice pisses me right off. I want to throttle that pathetic excuse for a journalist.
Also very poorly made bait, op. Apply yourself.
First of all, this has absolutely fucking nothing whatsoever to do with fitness. Mods please remove this trash /pol/-/r9k/ tier thread.
Second of all, I want everyone to read the article, then OP's comments on the article, then the article again, then OP's comments again. Notice the absurd amounts of dissonance? This is the kind of idiocy that defines modern political echo chambers.
The article states that an alternative system to prisons should be put in place for NON-VIOLENT women offenders, because it would cost less and be a far more efficient method overall for society. But of course, Veeky Forums is not actually about fitness. No, it's about DYELs freaking out over mundane, paranoid bullshit like this as a way to cover for the crippling insecurity they feel because they can't be damned to just eat right and exercise a bit.
Get the fuck off my board you insufferable faggot.
>I want everyone to read the article, then OP's comments on the article, then the article again, then OP's comments again. Notice the absurd amounts of dissonance?
The title of the article is literally. Literally, "We should stop putting women in jail. For anything."
Also the post is clearly about fitness and you're just a butthurt queer. Fuck off.
Bait?
Yes women should not be put in jail, but executed on the spot.
Same with minorities
t. pol
...
I think the author of the article is stupid but fuck off, this is not Veeky Forums related at all. It is a very shoddily made piece of /pol9k/ bait that he shoehorned the word "gym" into. If you replace "gym" with "library" or "record store" the same bullshit could be posted to Veeky Forums or /mu/.
Easily triggered faggots like you are the reason /pol/ has tainted every corner of this site. You are EXACTLY THE SAME as fat tumblrinas that spend all day bitching about muh misogyny and muh privilege, but you replace it with cucks and non-whites.
Grills can be assertive.
Most are bitchy
How can you call me easily triggered when you typed out a full paragraph, twice, in response to a pol boogeyman you concocted just from reading an opinion that you don't like?
I am angry about the boards I have frequented for years being watered down with obnoxious off-topic politics and frogposting.
Op is angry because he browses blogs full of retards that he knows will piss him off, then shits up this board with whatever makes him the angriest.
I am saying you are "easily triggered" not because of how angry anyone is, but because you lacked the critical thinking skills to realize op only made this thread to stir up people about shit that has nothing to do with fitness.
>ThinIy veiIed \poI\ thread
>Non fitness thread
Saged, repoted :)
/pol/, go fuckyourself sideways with a rusty, Zika-and-AIDS infested chainsaw, and NEVER leave your containment board again.
>/pol/ boogeyman you concocted
Lmao, nobody on Veeky Forums unironically believes the shit op is spewing
Hes trying to start shit and if you think otherwise youre too retarded even for Veeky Forums
>Lmao, nobody on Veeky Forums unironically believes the shit op is spewing
the article or the idea of women taking mens place at the gym?
>I reacted emotionally and irrationally to the title, therefore I don't need to read the actual article because the click air title tells me all I need to know
Jesus christ, this is actually how people interact with the world around them. In the information era of man, no one actually wants to look at any information.
What part of the article contradicts the extremely clear headline?
Also I'll point out that every single comment on the WaPo website mocked the author and the concept, so it's not like this is /pol/ against the world when not even the readers of the WaPo agree with the premise.
*clickbait title
>women make up just 7 percent of the prison population.
>This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.
I... what? But they make up 50% of the general population.
This is like saying prisons are racist and disproportionately effect whites, since obviously it's a system for blacks.
>The article states that an alternative system to prisons should be put in place for NON-VIOLENT women offenders, because it would cost less and be a far more efficient method overall for society.
Why just women?
How bout the part where the article repeatedly clarifies that it refers specifically and only to NON-VIOLENT offenders, and explains over and over what the title actually means. The article is in no way, shape, or form saying women shouldn't be charged with crimes or be subject to a system of justice should they be found guilty of those crimes.
And lmao, are you seriously saying "all the comments are saying it too, therefore it must be true!" That's some incredible selection bias you've got going there. Every comment section on every part of the internet is useless cancer that contributes nothing to the discussion. They're full of a bunch of idiots like you who jump to a conclusion based on the title and then read through the whole article misreading each point so that it confirms your dumbass conclusion.
>Why shouldn't men simply get out of the way when a woman wants to work out in a certain space?
Tell them to wait till you're done or work in with them only if they agree to put your weights back on for you. Don't treat women like a little kids
It'd probably only be women for now, because the female prison population is far smaller, so it'd be easier to implement for them right now. The article also seems to say that a larger percentage of the female prison population is in for non-violent stuff compared to the male prison population, which would be another reason to focus on just the female population initially. Then there's also the point that more of the women have kids that are dependant on them compared to the men.
quote me something from the article that says this
do mods even exist for Veeky Forums?
i like this board, but it's been getting worse for a while now
next time janitor applications come around i think i'll apply so i can smite this garbage. kill yourself, op, for the sake of the board.
>How bout the part where the article repeatedly clarifies that it refers specifically and only to NON-VIOLENT offenders, and explains over and over what the title actually means. The article is in no way, shape, or form saying women shouldn't be charged with crimes or be subject to a system of justice should they be found guilty of those crimes.
You're making shit up
>Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. It is the case against the prison industrial complex and for community-based treatment where it works better than incarceration. But there is evidence that prison harms women more than men, so why not start there?
What is the "this" that you want me to quote? That the article is specifically referring to non-violent offenders? Literally go to the article, control+f, "non-violent".
Are you actually retarded? You claim I'm making shit up, then you go and pull a quote from the article that directly backs up exactly what I said.
The quote states it is a good idea to close women's prisons, period. I'd love to see where you're coming up with the rest of your garbage. Instead of acting so incredulous, how about you actually look at the article you claim to have read.
But just start with the quote I pulled out.
:)
>Why shouldn't men simply get out of the way when a woman wants to work out in a certain space?
Because I'm not lifting in the kitchen.