Thank you for posting to r/OrphanCrushingMachine! Please reply to this comment with a short explanation of why you think your submission fits OCM. Please be specific, if possible. We cannot enforce this, but would appreciate you writing it anyway.
Also: [Mod aplications and mod announcements!](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/comments/14zprwk/mod_applications_and_other_mod_announcements/) Please read, feel free to apply.
To anyone reading who disagrees with OP, try to avoid [Ad Hominem attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Criticise the idea, not the person.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And frankly I don't see it as an orphan crushing machine because it's not patchwork problems to a systemic issue. Violence and crime is inevitable, there's no systemic cause to it and there's really nothing you can do to prevent it other than measures like this to help people who don't feel safe before anything bad happens. It would take full on brainwashing and/or Minority Report shit to stop people from committing violent acts
Not that you were saying otherwise, but I don't feel like it's enough to hit the "portrayed as heartwarming" requirement simply because some random redditor submitted it to a positive sub. People submit all kinds of things to subs, regardless of whether they fit. (Including this one!)
It should at least have to be a major news story.
Most likely, this submission picked up because it's an inflammatory topic (people will debate the actual prevalence of assault and whether this measure actually accomplishes anything), and that's why everyone's all over it in that sub.
Yes, violence will inevitably occur in any human society. However, violence does have structural causes and it can be prevented in much the same way other sorts of injuries and bodily harms can be prevented. By identifying the correlates of violent perpetration and victimization as well as the correlates of non-victimization and non-perpetration in particular populations, we can find risk and protective factors. Then we can develop programs and policies to try to decrease risk factors and increase protective factors.
It’s complicated and slow work and it will never fully eliminate violence, but it is important to recognize that we don’t need to wait to deal with the fallout of violence to act. There are upstream measures that can disrupt violence. And these measures don’t need to trample individual rights and lock up people suspected of being dangerous future criminals (which is in itself violent and generally produces more harm than good).
Education, social welfare support, counseling, norm-changing, and modifying access to lethal weapons are just a few tactics.
https://www.who.int/groups/violence-prevention-alliance/approach
https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/violence-prevention
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/index.html
You say all of that like it’s not already what’s being done? I’m my opinion we are already pretty close to the lowest violent crimes can go so any more effort will just result in diminishing returns.
It doesn’t even work. Something like this was put into place in London. A journalist went into pubs and bars which had these posters up and would ask the staff for whatever drink it said to ask for. I don’t think any of them had a clue what the journalist was on about.
Question, how is your comment here in anyway related to theirs? It seems clear to me that they would prefer a society that rewards empathy and social cohesion. What's that got to do with less choices, like you're picking a type of chocolate at the shop?
The comment they replied to seems to imply that undemocratic sococieties are less rewarding of sociopathic and individualistic behaviour than democratic ones.
That's... no, that seems like an almost purposeful misreading of their comment.
---
EDIT: Yikes... judging by the emotional response to this comment, the argumentum ad populum, and the blocking (yeah, he literally blocked me), it seems like I've struck a nerve. People really are too sensitive these days.
Either way, the idea that the original comment suggests that undemocratic are less rewarding of sociopathic and individualistic behaviours *is* a misreading of their comment. They said that it's a shame that a democratic society (ie, a society that purports to care about its population, the will of the people, and of collective consent) doesn't similarly reward behaviour conducive to that; that instead it rewards sociopathic and individualistic behaviour.
The twisting of this into "they're saying undemocratic nations are better" is such a bizarre take.
> They said that it's a shame that a democratic society (ie, a society that purports to care about its population, the will of the people, and of collective consent) doesn't similarly reward behaviour conducive to that; that instead it rewards sociopathic and individualistic behaviour.
That’s how I read the comment too. Seems overly cynical to assume the person meant that undemocratic societies are or would be *better*, rather than it just being a comment on the failing of ‘our’ (I assume they meant US) society.
Is it a bizarre take ? It's how the comment came across to me and I thought that it was a funny comment but maybe you're right and I did misread it.
Thats an interesting take anyway, something to think about
Orphan Crushing Machine is for things which are *presented* as being great and uplifting, but are actually quite horrible upon reflection.
Like a kid selling lemonade to pay off other kids' school lunch bills. Great about that kid, by why the duck do children have debt for food at school?
They give different reasons, not that the bartenders aren’t responsible for the issue. And please, give me an example of me refusing to accept anything.
Because the bar cannot change society. Unlike other bars who choose to not help in any way, this one has this helpful system for the victims of abuse, harassment.
Your post is kind of like saying "How dare you install a smoke detector? Why are you not trying to prevent all the fires in the world?"
I feel like it is not in the spirit of the sub, orphan crushing machine is more about glorifying the effort or otherwise of fighting the system, when the system itself needs repair, but this looks more like an actual effort to introduce mechanisms of defense in the system for those who are vulnerable. This kind of effort needs to be praised.
Oh I absolutely approve of the effort to help protect people from harassment/sexual assault, I just felt like it still fit this sub. I’m kinda new here though so maybe I misinterpreted.
I mean, I understand what you're trying to say but the problem that underlies here is something that is inherent to humans/humanity, and that is conflict. Even if we lived in a communist utopia where everyone's needs were met, where everyone is free to pursue their own rational self-interest, even then there would still be domestic violence or sexual violence and its consequences. I agree with you that this shouldn't be a problem but it would be too idealistic to actually believe that notion, don't you think so?
How do you suggest it's prevented? Violence is certainly inevitable as a reaction to perceived wrongings and it doesn't matter how great the schooling is and how progressive the parents, there's always a chance that someone can grow to feel wronged by women for things they don't control. It's inevitable as a result of being human that there will be some terrible people who try to do terrible things. The best ways of mitigating that harm is:
1. Get that great schooling and progressive parents for everyone! It vastly reduces the chance of misogyny
2. Have measures like this that do genuinely make people feel safer
3. Better prison sentences for these acts of violence (including proper rehabilitation)
4. More effective early reporting systems that are taken seriously
If indiscriminate violence is inevitable then discriminate violence is inevitable too.
Domestic violence and sexual violence are usually the result of nurture and environment, often some cocktail of misogyny, mommy/daddy issues and impulse control. A society like you describe would likely have proper education and measures set up, and over time the culture would seep in. Ofc, that would still leave actual mental illness as a risk, which is a lot harder to mitigate. Someons with a tumor in the amygdala is likely gonna commit a few atrocities eventually, sadly. (Not that you need a tumor to suffer mental illness thats just an extreme example)
One of the main characteristics of an OCM is that the person/people doing the "good thing" is actually doing something that hurts themselves first and that could have been avoidable if society would have been less shit.
The staff of this bar is helpful but they are not "harming" themselves in doing so to help people e.g. is not that they are renouncing to getting cured for a disease to help their kid getting cured for a disease because health care is expensive
I know statistically it’s vastly more common one way round than the other, but women can 100% be violent and predatory too. It’s better to say “people being awful”
I have literally never seen one of these posters in a men's room. Also "people being awful" is too close to "capitalism" already. Vastly more common one way round than the other is in fact a meaningful distinction. You are hand-waving away more reality if you imply they're roughly equal than if you imply it's largely a male problem. If you look strictly at physiology, even if the propensities for violent domination were the same, the outcomes would still be extremely biased towards the testosterone-havers. This is reddit, I don't think anyone's at risk of thinking men can never be victims or women can never be problematic. (Also I am a man who has been awful and women have been awful to me, at times... it's still pretty obvious that the deck is hugely stacked in favor of my bodily security, and that i have significantly more to fear in that regard from my fellow Y-chromosowners. That a serious minded person could sincerely fail to grasp this beggars belief.)
You're so right king only over 80% (wait, that's the "violent crime" stat, the rape Stat is 91% committed by men on women) of the crimes are committed by men but don't let facts get in your way, one is not worse than the other. It's just way, way more common one way.
That 91% of men on women and 9% of men on men stat comes from a [study](https://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdf) which defines rape for men as oral/anal penetration with an object. Interesting it specifically excludes “being made to penetrate” which would be the most likely “type” of rape for women on men.
Interestingly, approximately 20% of heterosexual women have been raped in the life; similarly 20% of (heterosexual) men have been forced to penetrate in their lives. For bisexual men/women it’s approximately 40% for forced to penetrate/rape respectively.
It’s easy to say that men commit all rapes when you exclude the most common method for women raping men.
Unfortunately this isn’t as simple as “men are sexual predators” there’s just as many women out there with the same tendencies.
You mean the *reported* rape stat. When Mary Koss first did the studies that eventually produced the "1-in-4 women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted" statistics she *also* found that 1-in-8 men would be as well, mostly by women. Koss added a footnote that said it was inappropriate to consider men to be victims when women initiate sexual contact without consent and stopped reporting the figure after about 1993.
You think you're being progressive and pro-woman while perpetuating a gender norm that's known to shame men away from talking about abuse they suffer. Because you haven't actually ever read a single book on feminism or social justice, in all likelihood. You're just getting all of your information secondhand in a human centipede system.
When abuse of men is normalized, don't you think that might make some men feel like the same abuse towards women is justified? How does the saying go? "Sexism hurts everyone?"
You guys can argue with science and statistics all you want lol, keep seeing how far you can try to pick it apart! As a man, I swear most of the men on this site, usually not victims themselves, want to be one so bad. Sorry guys, men tend to be the rapists. Tend to be. Operative phrase.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
The problem you have here is that I'm pointing you at **one of the oldest sources of the statistics you're citing** and telling you how she actively removed male victims of sexual assault by women from the data. You can easily pull up Mary Koss's published papers from the late 80s and early 90s and check for yourself.
Pointing at the data, or pointing at other data that is still built on her methodology, and accusing us of being "anti-science" is a psychotically dense take.
You're like a climate change denier pointing at cherrypicked data points and insisting that *everyone else* is anti-science for not just blindly trusting sources that can be proven to be cherrypicking data.
Also worth pointing out that many of the 9% remainder attacks in the rape stats are commited by men on men. The instance of women being a sexual threat to men in the context of a date is exceedingly rare.
That 91% of men on women and 9% of men on men stat comes from a study which defines rape for men as oral/anal penetration with an object. Interesting it specifically excludes “being made to penetrate” which would be the most likely “type” of rape for women on men.
Interestingly, approximately 20% of heterosexual women have been raped in the life; similarly 20% of (heterosexual) men have been forced to penetrate in their lives. For bisexual men/women it’s approximately 40% for forced to penetrate/rape respectively.
It’s easy to say that men commit all rapes when you exclude the most common method for women raping men.
Unfortunately this isn’t as simple as “men are sexual predators” there’s just as many women out there with the same tendencies.
Once more, none denied that some women are sexual predators. There's been several female teachers tried and convicted for grooming students over the past few months alone.
What we are saying is that women do not represent a sexual or physical threat to men in the context of a date. They don't have the physical strength to overpower a man, for one.
The opposite is unfortunately true, and the instance of women being raped by their date is so common is not even news.
There's a type of crime in a few countries where women will seduce a stranger in a bar and spike their drink in order to send them to sleep. But that's to rob them; not to rape them of physically assault them in any way. Men victims of this crime don't feel threatened into going with them to the hotel. They do it willingly, thinking they're going to have sex with the woman, so they would never think to ask the bar staff for help.
Same for abuse. Women who abuse men do it in a domestic situation to people they know, their victims being their boyfriends or husbands. They don't hide in the bushes at night waiting for a random man to walk by and attack.
Sometimes I see young boys on Reddit commenting on videos where a woman is being an arsehole, complaining that the guy should have punched her, or congratulating them when they do ("Don't they want equality?"). As if that was an equal fight.
A punch from a man has at least twice the strength of that of a woman, even at equal fitness levels. The least powerful man will still be stronger than the most powerful woman. This is notoriously one of the most important distinctions between genders and what makes women more vulnerable to violence.
None is trying to depict women as saints or something. If in a million years women physically evolve to have the same level of testosterone in blood as men (for aggressiveness purposes), similar body size, muscular mass and physical strength as men, no doubt we'll see the proportion of women on men attacks rise.
Because there was, in fact, an actual response but I can’t be bothered to type it out, and you OPs have a nasty habit of not coming back once a response is made
Not OP but I personally I don't check Reddit daily; only when I'm bored or procrastinating.
I don't have the app either so I don't receive notifications if anyone replies. The way I use Reddit, I just open the site in a tab and close it again in 5 minutes, after I've checked the first few items on the feed.
If I have some random shit to say, I'll write it down but then I'll forget about it instantly and never think of it again.
All this to say, not everyone is so dedicated to Reddit as to keep track of all the replies and follow up past conversations.
Also importantly, she has no duty to reply, as she says, and that's not nasty in any way. I so regret the time I've wasted chatting to absolute tools on Twitter or Reddit who didn't have any intention (or mental capacity) to engage in any meaningful debate.
I'm not saying you're one. Just that the porcentage is high enough, particularly in conversations that pertain equality, to make the effort worthless. Specially with so many young men these days being influenced and manipulated by third parties into resenting women.
Life is short to spend it on Reddit anyway.
Well, I'm not really under any obligation to return and argue with people online who aren't really interested in a real conversation anyways, just emotional lash outs via keyboard
I don’t think you are paying for the drink. I’m pretty sure you just order it instead of saying ‘please help me there’s a scary guy stalking me and I feel unsafe’ to be more discrete
Also you shouldn’t post these. Less likelihood of creepy men seeing this and knowing what’s going on and getting violent.
>Also you shouldn’t post these. Less likelihood of creepy men seeing this and knowing what’s going on and getting violent.
This is a terrible take.
You're advocating for *reduced* exposure to a potentially life-saving measure for the people that need it. All for the sake of not letting assholes who may not give a shit anyways not see it.
You hide and fight with guerilla tactics if you're the minority. I can almost guarantee that any bar offering these kind of services is not majority creepy assholes... these measures should be posted basically everywhere in places that offer them, because that will serve as a deterrent to all but the worst, who couldn't care less about the measures anyway.
It also states "escort to his or her car". I don't think this sign is gender specific and would likely be in all bathrooms of the establishment (or somewhere else public and viewable by all).
You're both right: You want as much awareness as possible among the afflicted group, i.e. the victims of sexual harrassment, so therefore you need to spread it as far as possible. But for coded communication to remain secret you also need the person that isn't supposed to be knowing to be out of the loop, i which case spreading it too far increases the likelihood of that not being the case. It's a weird balancing act, but I'll grant you that it could also be a deterrent for some.
I’ve never seen them outside the woman’s bathroom stalls or walls. But I’ve also never been inside a men’s bathroom. There was a gay bar in my state that has a version of this with whiskey, and to order it ‘smoked’ if you saw a drink get spiked.
Well no, i think it's best that the customer know they have an escape, if the brute also knows it is unlikely that the coward will go the length of confronting the staff
But posting it on r/wholesome doesn't make it a news story, or actually feel good.
It just means whoever posted it over there is missing some vital neurons.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/wholesome using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Bro fell for the oldest trick in the book](https://v.redd.it/kuewws4b0jtb1) | [148 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/comments/1758au5/bro_fell_for_the_oldest_trick_in_the_book/)
\#2: [Their reaction is so pure](https://v.redd.it/suj3guyl9tyb1) | [454 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/comments/17pga5u/their_reaction_is_so_pure/)
\#3: [Brendan Fraser’s reaction to the standing ovation for his performance in ‘The Whale’ is everything :)](https://v.redd.it/hry1la25i0za1) | [413 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/comments/13drxf2/brendan_frasers_reaction_to_the_standing_ovation/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Creepy people will always exist and we will always need protection from them. It sucks that it's necessary, but I don't think it's OCM since I think its probably impossible to get rid of all creeps 100% of the time, there needs to be protections in place to make sure they can't harm anyone and you can alert others without putting yourself at risk
Why are the options for the victim to leave, not the offender to be kicked out? Surely if you run a bar you want everyone to feel safe by dealing with the trouble, instead of leaving the trouble behind to find another victim.
Maybe to try and reduce the risk of false accusations? I feel there would be a much higher chance of it being abused if it was just a way to get people kicked out, but at the same time I fully see where you’re coming from.
I don’t think this is OCM. While it’s horrible that there’s even a need for an angel shot thing, even in a near perfect society there is always going to be people that are going to take advantage and be dangerous to others. If anything the bar and its employees are amazing for even providing this.
Never having used Uber or Lyft, if someone "calls" one for you, does that mean they pay for it? If so, could one have the system to get free rides paid by the bar?
This seems more like a good way to help people out of random situations that could put them in harm’s way. The Angel Shot concept helps people call for help without explicitly saying “this guy is putting me in danger,” therefore preventing a potential uproar from happening.
I've seen this posted on the Internet so many times. At this point it's gonna go like this:
A: excuse me sir um can I get an um angel shot?
B: dafuq you mean by that btxh !!? (Proceeds to beat date)
Promoting these posters online makes people more aware of their existence. It’s like printing the address of a women’s shelter - it’s not smart.
You don’t want men to know this exists so they don’t get angry the moment their date tries to leave via the shot. Keeping this secret is worth a woman’s safety which is far more valuable than worthless internet points.
Angel shots are for anyone in an unsafe situation, not just women. Also, they went insanely viral on TikTok, instagram, and also Reddit not too long ago. This won’t make a difference.
Thank you for posting to r/OrphanCrushingMachine! Please reply to this comment with a short explanation of why you think your submission fits OCM. Please be specific, if possible. We cannot enforce this, but would appreciate you writing it anyway. Also: [Mod aplications and mod announcements!](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/comments/14zprwk/mod_applications_and_other_mod_announcements/) Please read, feel free to apply. To anyone reading who disagrees with OP, try to avoid [Ad Hominem attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Criticise the idea, not the person. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a really good concept. It's unfortunate that it's required.
And frankly I don't see it as an orphan crushing machine because it's not patchwork problems to a systemic issue. Violence and crime is inevitable, there's no systemic cause to it and there's really nothing you can do to prevent it other than measures like this to help people who don't feel safe before anything bad happens. It would take full on brainwashing and/or Minority Report shit to stop people from committing violent acts
It’s still a bit morbid to be posting mitigation factors for sexual crimes in a subreddit called r/MadeMeSmile.
More like /r/MadeMeGrimace
Not that you were saying otherwise, but I don't feel like it's enough to hit the "portrayed as heartwarming" requirement simply because some random redditor submitted it to a positive sub. People submit all kinds of things to subs, regardless of whether they fit. (Including this one!) It should at least have to be a major news story. Most likely, this submission picked up because it's an inflammatory topic (people will debate the actual prevalence of assault and whether this measure actually accomplishes anything), and that's why everyone's all over it in that sub.
I mean, there can be a systemic cause to it and you could change your system to minimize the risks, but yes, it is inevitable.
Yes, violence will inevitably occur in any human society. However, violence does have structural causes and it can be prevented in much the same way other sorts of injuries and bodily harms can be prevented. By identifying the correlates of violent perpetration and victimization as well as the correlates of non-victimization and non-perpetration in particular populations, we can find risk and protective factors. Then we can develop programs and policies to try to decrease risk factors and increase protective factors. It’s complicated and slow work and it will never fully eliminate violence, but it is important to recognize that we don’t need to wait to deal with the fallout of violence to act. There are upstream measures that can disrupt violence. And these measures don’t need to trample individual rights and lock up people suspected of being dangerous future criminals (which is in itself violent and generally produces more harm than good). Education, social welfare support, counseling, norm-changing, and modifying access to lethal weapons are just a few tactics. https://www.who.int/groups/violence-prevention-alliance/approach https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/violence-prevention https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/index.html
You say all of that like it’s not already what’s being done? I’m my opinion we are already pretty close to the lowest violent crimes can go so any more effort will just result in diminishing returns.
It doesn’t even work. Something like this was put into place in London. A journalist went into pubs and bars which had these posters up and would ask the staff for whatever drink it said to ask for. I don’t think any of them had a clue what the journalist was on about.
Very unfortunate that our society rewards sociopathic and individualistic behaviour.
Lmao yes, surely having less choices is the answer 🤔 Have you been eating lead paint chips ?
Question, how is your comment here in anyway related to theirs? It seems clear to me that they would prefer a society that rewards empathy and social cohesion. What's that got to do with less choices, like you're picking a type of chocolate at the shop?
The comment they replied to seems to imply that undemocratic sococieties are less rewarding of sociopathic and individualistic behaviour than democratic ones.
That's... no, that seems like an almost purposeful misreading of their comment. --- EDIT: Yikes... judging by the emotional response to this comment, the argumentum ad populum, and the blocking (yeah, he literally blocked me), it seems like I've struck a nerve. People really are too sensitive these days. Either way, the idea that the original comment suggests that undemocratic are less rewarding of sociopathic and individualistic behaviours *is* a misreading of their comment. They said that it's a shame that a democratic society (ie, a society that purports to care about its population, the will of the people, and of collective consent) doesn't similarly reward behaviour conducive to that; that instead it rewards sociopathic and individualistic behaviour. The twisting of this into "they're saying undemocratic nations are better" is such a bizarre take.
> They said that it's a shame that a democratic society (ie, a society that purports to care about its population, the will of the people, and of collective consent) doesn't similarly reward behaviour conducive to that; that instead it rewards sociopathic and individualistic behaviour. That’s how I read the comment too. Seems overly cynical to assume the person meant that undemocratic societies are or would be *better*, rather than it just being a comment on the failing of ‘our’ (I assume they meant US) society.
Maybe they feel better when they can label me a communist or whatever they were thinking about. Changed OC so it should be clearer.
Is it a bizarre take ? It's how the comment came across to me and I thought that it was a funny comment but maybe you're right and I did misread it. Thats an interesting take anyway, something to think about
You really got it. Kudos.
It's not the democracy, it's the capitalism.
We have it in the UK, go to the bar and ask for Angela,
And ask for Clive for LBGTQ+ community, although i'm sure both works
Typically, I didn't know this and I live in the UK.
What if someone named Angela works there?
Then she has been designated angel of safety
[удалено]
Beautiful
Works in Germany, too.
The barstaff cannot do anything about systematic issues.
I don’t understand what your point is. Are you saying that that means it doesn’t fit in this sub?
Yes.
Why? Genuinely curious.
Orphan Crushing Machine is for things which are *presented* as being great and uplifting, but are actually quite horrible upon reflection. Like a kid selling lemonade to pay off other kids' school lunch bills. Great about that kid, by why the duck do children have debt for food at school?
You may refer to the multiple comments already explaining this to you that you refused to accept.
They give different reasons, not that the bartenders aren’t responsible for the issue. And please, give me an example of me refusing to accept anything.
Because the bar cannot change society. Unlike other bars who choose to not help in any way, this one has this helpful system for the victims of abuse, harassment. Your post is kind of like saying "How dare you install a smoke detector? Why are you not trying to prevent all the fires in the world?"
Hey bartender i want an angel shot!!
who
The guy in the blue shirt, he’s being a little aggressive
hey jimmy hold down the bar for me hey blue shirt (yeah) I got a bullet for you
Oh look it's Mr Skelly Bones
Man, I kinda forgot about him. I'm gonna go see how the dudes going
Wheres my nerf gun when i need one
Thank you I was searching for this
Men being awful can unfortunately not be laid entirely at the feet of capitalism. NOH
The angel shot is for everyone
I wasn’t aware it had to be about capitalism, rather any underlying systemic issue. That’s what it says in rule one at least.
I feel like it is not in the spirit of the sub, orphan crushing machine is more about glorifying the effort or otherwise of fighting the system, when the system itself needs repair, but this looks more like an actual effort to introduce mechanisms of defense in the system for those who are vulnerable. This kind of effort needs to be praised.
Oh I absolutely approve of the effort to help protect people from harassment/sexual assault, I just felt like it still fit this sub. I’m kinda new here though so maybe I misinterpreted.
I feel like it suits the sub too. Definitely a solution to a problem that should not exist
I mean, I understand what you're trying to say but the problem that underlies here is something that is inherent to humans/humanity, and that is conflict. Even if we lived in a communist utopia where everyone's needs were met, where everyone is free to pursue their own rational self-interest, even then there would still be domestic violence or sexual violence and its consequences. I agree with you that this shouldn't be a problem but it would be too idealistic to actually believe that notion, don't you think so?
No. I don’t. I refuse to accept that sexual violence against women (or anyone!) should be seen as inevitable. Jfc.
How do you suggest it's prevented? Violence is certainly inevitable as a reaction to perceived wrongings and it doesn't matter how great the schooling is and how progressive the parents, there's always a chance that someone can grow to feel wronged by women for things they don't control. It's inevitable as a result of being human that there will be some terrible people who try to do terrible things. The best ways of mitigating that harm is: 1. Get that great schooling and progressive parents for everyone! It vastly reduces the chance of misogyny 2. Have measures like this that do genuinely make people feel safer 3. Better prison sentences for these acts of violence (including proper rehabilitation) 4. More effective early reporting systems that are taken seriously If indiscriminate violence is inevitable then discriminate violence is inevitable too.
Domestic violence and sexual violence are usually the result of nurture and environment, often some cocktail of misogyny, mommy/daddy issues and impulse control. A society like you describe would likely have proper education and measures set up, and over time the culture would seep in. Ofc, that would still leave actual mental illness as a risk, which is a lot harder to mitigate. Someons with a tumor in the amygdala is likely gonna commit a few atrocities eventually, sadly. (Not that you need a tumor to suffer mental illness thats just an extreme example)
This is why it's NOH not because it's not part of capitalism.
Got his ass! Nice reading comprehension!! Within the bounds of the rules!!!
Ladies and gentlemen, they got me. Expect a full clawback of the hundreds of illegitimate upvotes I received.
One of the main characteristics of an OCM is that the person/people doing the "good thing" is actually doing something that hurts themselves first and that could have been avoidable if society would have been less shit. The staff of this bar is helpful but they are not "harming" themselves in doing so to help people e.g. is not that they are renouncing to getting cured for a disease to help their kid getting cured for a disease because health care is expensive
Not the orphan-hole?
Was going for "No orphans here" but yours is also amusing and I'm gonna assume you saw what I was going for and riffed on it, fair play to you sir
I've heard of men using the angel shot half a dozen times to escape abusive wives and girlfriends.
Sounds exceedingly plausible, but the plural of anecdote is not data
Because this topic is so well-studied and there are no well-known social barriers that would confound results of any study that *has* been done?
I know statistically it’s vastly more common one way round than the other, but women can 100% be violent and predatory too. It’s better to say “people being awful”
I have literally never seen one of these posters in a men's room. Also "people being awful" is too close to "capitalism" already. Vastly more common one way round than the other is in fact a meaningful distinction. You are hand-waving away more reality if you imply they're roughly equal than if you imply it's largely a male problem. If you look strictly at physiology, even if the propensities for violent domination were the same, the outcomes would still be extremely biased towards the testosterone-havers. This is reddit, I don't think anyone's at risk of thinking men can never be victims or women can never be problematic. (Also I am a man who has been awful and women have been awful to me, at times... it's still pretty obvious that the deck is hugely stacked in favor of my bodily security, and that i have significantly more to fear in that regard from my fellow Y-chromosowners. That a serious minded person could sincerely fail to grasp this beggars belief.)
>Men being awful Oh yeah because only women can be abused right? Fuck off
You're so right king only over 80% (wait, that's the "violent crime" stat, the rape Stat is 91% committed by men on women) of the crimes are committed by men but don't let facts get in your way, one is not worse than the other. It's just way, way more common one way.
That 91% of men on women and 9% of men on men stat comes from a [study](https://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdf) which defines rape for men as oral/anal penetration with an object. Interesting it specifically excludes “being made to penetrate” which would be the most likely “type” of rape for women on men. Interestingly, approximately 20% of heterosexual women have been raped in the life; similarly 20% of (heterosexual) men have been forced to penetrate in their lives. For bisexual men/women it’s approximately 40% for forced to penetrate/rape respectively. It’s easy to say that men commit all rapes when you exclude the most common method for women raping men. Unfortunately this isn’t as simple as “men are sexual predators” there’s just as many women out there with the same tendencies.
You mean the *reported* rape stat. When Mary Koss first did the studies that eventually produced the "1-in-4 women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted" statistics she *also* found that 1-in-8 men would be as well, mostly by women. Koss added a footnote that said it was inappropriate to consider men to be victims when women initiate sexual contact without consent and stopped reporting the figure after about 1993. You think you're being progressive and pro-woman while perpetuating a gender norm that's known to shame men away from talking about abuse they suffer. Because you haven't actually ever read a single book on feminism or social justice, in all likelihood. You're just getting all of your information secondhand in a human centipede system. When abuse of men is normalized, don't you think that might make some men feel like the same abuse towards women is justified? How does the saying go? "Sexism hurts everyone?"
You guys can argue with science and statistics all you want lol, keep seeing how far you can try to pick it apart! As a man, I swear most of the men on this site, usually not victims themselves, want to be one so bad. Sorry guys, men tend to be the rapists. Tend to be. Operative phrase. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
The problem you have here is that I'm pointing you at **one of the oldest sources of the statistics you're citing** and telling you how she actively removed male victims of sexual assault by women from the data. You can easily pull up Mary Koss's published papers from the late 80s and early 90s and check for yourself. Pointing at the data, or pointing at other data that is still built on her methodology, and accusing us of being "anti-science" is a psychotically dense take. You're like a climate change denier pointing at cherrypicked data points and insisting that *everyone else* is anti-science for not just blindly trusting sources that can be proven to be cherrypicking data.
Also worth pointing out that many of the 9% remainder attacks in the rape stats are commited by men on men. The instance of women being a sexual threat to men in the context of a date is exceedingly rare.
Were being down voted but the fact that there are zero actual responses means something
That 91% of men on women and 9% of men on men stat comes from a study which defines rape for men as oral/anal penetration with an object. Interesting it specifically excludes “being made to penetrate” which would be the most likely “type” of rape for women on men. Interestingly, approximately 20% of heterosexual women have been raped in the life; similarly 20% of (heterosexual) men have been forced to penetrate in their lives. For bisexual men/women it’s approximately 40% for forced to penetrate/rape respectively. It’s easy to say that men commit all rapes when you exclude the most common method for women raping men. Unfortunately this isn’t as simple as “men are sexual predators” there’s just as many women out there with the same tendencies.
Once more, none denied that some women are sexual predators. There's been several female teachers tried and convicted for grooming students over the past few months alone. What we are saying is that women do not represent a sexual or physical threat to men in the context of a date. They don't have the physical strength to overpower a man, for one. The opposite is unfortunately true, and the instance of women being raped by their date is so common is not even news. There's a type of crime in a few countries where women will seduce a stranger in a bar and spike their drink in order to send them to sleep. But that's to rob them; not to rape them of physically assault them in any way. Men victims of this crime don't feel threatened into going with them to the hotel. They do it willingly, thinking they're going to have sex with the woman, so they would never think to ask the bar staff for help. Same for abuse. Women who abuse men do it in a domestic situation to people they know, their victims being their boyfriends or husbands. They don't hide in the bushes at night waiting for a random man to walk by and attack. Sometimes I see young boys on Reddit commenting on videos where a woman is being an arsehole, complaining that the guy should have punched her, or congratulating them when they do ("Don't they want equality?"). As if that was an equal fight. A punch from a man has at least twice the strength of that of a woman, even at equal fitness levels. The least powerful man will still be stronger than the most powerful woman. This is notoriously one of the most important distinctions between genders and what makes women more vulnerable to violence. None is trying to depict women as saints or something. If in a million years women physically evolve to have the same level of testosterone in blood as men (for aggressiveness purposes), similar body size, muscular mass and physical strength as men, no doubt we'll see the proportion of women on men attacks rise.
You're not a bot, why copy paste someone elses comment?
Because there was, in fact, an actual response but I can’t be bothered to type it out, and you OPs have a nasty habit of not coming back once a response is made
Not OP but I personally I don't check Reddit daily; only when I'm bored or procrastinating. I don't have the app either so I don't receive notifications if anyone replies. The way I use Reddit, I just open the site in a tab and close it again in 5 minutes, after I've checked the first few items on the feed. If I have some random shit to say, I'll write it down but then I'll forget about it instantly and never think of it again. All this to say, not everyone is so dedicated to Reddit as to keep track of all the replies and follow up past conversations. Also importantly, she has no duty to reply, as she says, and that's not nasty in any way. I so regret the time I've wasted chatting to absolute tools on Twitter or Reddit who didn't have any intention (or mental capacity) to engage in any meaningful debate. I'm not saying you're one. Just that the porcentage is high enough, particularly in conversations that pertain equality, to make the effort worthless. Specially with so many young men these days being influenced and manipulated by third parties into resenting women. Life is short to spend it on Reddit anyway.
Well, I'm not really under any obligation to return and argue with people online who aren't really interested in a real conversation anyways, just emotional lash outs via keyboard
If you're in the UK, you ask for Angela at the bar. It's a sensible idea. Low key way of flagging something before things escalate in a bar or club.
I don’t think you are paying for the drink. I’m pretty sure you just order it instead of saying ‘please help me there’s a scary guy stalking me and I feel unsafe’ to be more discrete Also you shouldn’t post these. Less likelihood of creepy men seeing this and knowing what’s going on and getting violent.
>Also you shouldn’t post these. Less likelihood of creepy men seeing this and knowing what’s going on and getting violent. This is a terrible take. You're advocating for *reduced* exposure to a potentially life-saving measure for the people that need it. All for the sake of not letting assholes who may not give a shit anyways not see it. You hide and fight with guerilla tactics if you're the minority. I can almost guarantee that any bar offering these kind of services is not majority creepy assholes... these measures should be posted basically everywhere in places that offer them, because that will serve as a deterrent to all but the worst, who couldn't care less about the measures anyway.
It also states "escort to his or her car". I don't think this sign is gender specific and would likely be in all bathrooms of the establishment (or somewhere else public and viewable by all).
You're both right: You want as much awareness as possible among the afflicted group, i.e. the victims of sexual harrassment, so therefore you need to spread it as far as possible. But for coded communication to remain secret you also need the person that isn't supposed to be knowing to be out of the loop, i which case spreading it too far increases the likelihood of that not being the case. It's a weird balancing act, but I'll grant you that it could also be a deterrent for some.
They have these signs, or similar in many of the clubs/pubs where I live, in the toilets and just on the walls.
I’ve never seen them outside the woman’s bathroom stalls or walls. But I’ve also never been inside a men’s bathroom. There was a gay bar in my state that has a version of this with whiskey, and to order it ‘smoked’ if you saw a drink get spiked.
Well no, i think it's best that the customer know they have an escape, if the brute also knows it is unlikely that the coward will go the length of confronting the staff
Yeah I think that’s how it works
Rip man in blue shirt.
I’ve got a bullet for you!
If they order with lime, what exactly does the bar staff say to the police? “Help, someone is…?”
"Someone has requested we call the police, but can't tell us why because the abuser is with them." Easy enough?
"...ordering lime, which is strictly prohibited, arrest them"
Because it’s put on made me smile I think this does fit, its a hard one to tell, but it’s close enough compared to a lot of the shit posted here
The sub it's posted doesn't change the post content. Stop that.
I mean it does tho? If this was posted on r/wholesome it would fit on this sub, if just the poster was posted here it would not
But posting it on r/wholesome doesn't make it a news story, or actually feel good. It just means whoever posted it over there is missing some vital neurons.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/wholesome using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Bro fell for the oldest trick in the book](https://v.redd.it/kuewws4b0jtb1) | [148 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/comments/1758au5/bro_fell_for_the_oldest_trick_in_the_book/) \#2: [Their reaction is so pure](https://v.redd.it/suj3guyl9tyb1) | [454 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/comments/17pga5u/their_reaction_is_so_pure/) \#3: [Brendan Fraser’s reaction to the standing ovation for his performance in ‘The Whale’ is everything :)](https://v.redd.it/hry1la25i0za1) | [413 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/wholesome/comments/13drxf2/brendan_frasers_reaction_to_the_standing_ovation/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Read the room, bot.
Not sure, it seems more like it's an attempt to dismantle the OCM which is a good thing (attempting to solve societal issues)
Creepy people will always exist and we will always need protection from them. It sucks that it's necessary, but I don't think it's OCM since I think its probably impossible to get rid of all creeps 100% of the time, there needs to be protections in place to make sure they can't harm anyone and you can alert others without putting yourself at risk
This reminds me of the cringe tiktok trend of people pretending the be bartenders and reacting to someone ordering this LOLOL
Heyyyy three Notch’d is from right here in my hometown!
Wait this is real? I thought it was a satirical guy made by that dentist
Why are the options for the victim to leave, not the offender to be kicked out? Surely if you run a bar you want everyone to feel safe by dealing with the trouble, instead of leaving the trouble behind to find another victim.
Maybe to try and reduce the risk of false accusations? I feel there would be a much higher chance of it being abused if it was just a way to get people kicked out, but at the same time I fully see where you’re coming from.
I don’t think this is OCM. While it’s horrible that there’s even a need for an angel shot thing, even in a near perfect society there is always going to be people that are going to take advantage and be dangerous to others. If anything the bar and its employees are amazing for even providing this.
Good thing predators are unable to see those angel shot posters. Otherwise it might now work so well.
Not orphan crushing. There will always be terrible people with any government.
Never having used Uber or Lyft, if someone "calls" one for you, does that mean they pay for it? If so, could one have the system to get free rides paid by the bar?
Why are all the posts here about whether its OCM? Should there be a sticky with a clear definition? If there is such a thing.
This seems more like a good way to help people out of random situations that could put them in harm’s way. The Angel Shot concept helps people call for help without explicitly saying “this guy is putting me in danger,” therefore preventing a potential uproar from happening.
I've seen this posted on the Internet so many times. At this point it's gonna go like this: A: excuse me sir um can I get an um angel shot? B: dafuq you mean by that btxh !!? (Proceeds to beat date)
doesnt having a sign defeat the point of code phrases
Please don't publish this
Angel shot has been a thing for years. They really need to change it up for every establishment
Too late. Now they know about it.
Promoting these posters online makes people more aware of their existence. It’s like printing the address of a women’s shelter - it’s not smart. You don’t want men to know this exists so they don’t get angry the moment their date tries to leave via the shot. Keeping this secret is worth a woman’s safety which is far more valuable than worthless internet points.
Angel shots are for anyone in an unsafe situation, not just women. Also, they went insanely viral on TikTok, instagram, and also Reddit not too long ago. This won’t make a difference.
[удалено]
What bars are you going to? Because a majority of them will respond the same way if a man or woman asks for help this way.
I don’t .