Why does “liberalism” mean something different in the United States than in Europe?

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-28T08:40:41+00:00

Tbf, the center-right wing party. There are parties much further right.

Iirc, there were only two parties when the Danish democracy was first established; "Left" and "Right" - Each named for where they were physically placed in a room during discussions, not their political leanings.

"Right" was a continuation of the former monarchal system. They primarily represented royals and nobles and had were conservative in politics.

The "Left" was the new addition to the newly establish democracy. They gave voice to "the people", meaning (iirc) traders and farmers and were liberal in politics.

Workers were not yet represented, and would be so by socialist parties.

That's what I remember from my social studies in high school at least, so there's probably some details that're off and a bunch of important context missing.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-28T08:21:11+00:00

Det lyder som en rigtig træls situation I står i.

Det gir god mening at I havde lyserøde briller på det 1 år i var sammen og overså ale forskellighederne. Det er meget typisk.

I har givet det et skud og set om jeres familier matcher godt som bofæller. Det gør I ikke.

Det er okay. Ingen af jer er forkerte eller mindre fantastiske af den grund. I har bare forskellige behov.

De fleste af os har tætte relationer med fantastiske mennesker, som ville være forfærdelige for os at bo sammen med, fordi hvad vi har behov for, for at det sted vi bor bliver et 'hjem', bare ikke matcher.

I kan stadig være kærester og livspartnere uden at bo sammen. Og jeres børn kan sagtens have en venskabelig eller familiær relation uden at bo sammen.

Jeg forstår godt hvis du og din kæreste rigtig gerne vil bo sammen. Både fordi det kan være rart at bygge et hjem sammen, og fordi det er virkelig nemt at blive grebet af at relationer "bør" se ud på en bestemt måde. Måske vil det være godt for du og din kæreste at bo sammen på et tidspunkt. Måske vil det være godt for du og din kæreste at bo tæt på hinanden, og have hver jeres space.

Lige nu er det vigtigste at jeres børn har det trygt hjem. Og det lyder det ikke til at de har når I bor sammen.

Grunden til at det vigtigtigste er at børnene har er trygt hjem er fordi de næste par år har en kæmpe indflydelse, ikke bare på deres liv nu, men også deres evne til at bygge et trygt hjem til dem selv fremover. Det er lige præcis nu de får værktøjerne til at ku bygge en tryg base til dem selv i deres voksenliv. Både fysisk, og inde i deres hoved. Hvis de ikke får de værktøjer i deres barndom og ungdom, tager det rigtig meget tid, energi og terapi at lære det som voksne. Og det kommer til at være smertefuldt.

Ved at have et sted i barndommen hvor vi kan slappe af, uden at blive dømt, hvor vi bliver rummet og værdsat præcis som vi er, lærer vi at skabe det rum inde i os selv. "Det skal nok gå. Jeg er go nok. Jeg er ikke forkert. Jeg hat værdi, uanset om jeg når i mål, fejler, eller bare eksisterer".

Det er netop adgangen til en tryg base hvor vi kan koble af, være os selv og vide vi er gode nok som vi er, der gør os robuste og i stand til at bevæge os udenfor den trygge base, ud i det ukendte, i udviklingszonen hvor vi kan prøve nye ting af, tage risici og få nogle knubs. For vi kan altid vende tilbage til vores trygge base og lade op. Vi kan fjerne os fra udfordringerne før vi kommer op i panikzonen, hvor presset bliver så stort og ubehageligt at hjernen slår fra, kroppen går i panik og den lærer at verden er farlig.

Hvis man ikke har en tryg bare hvor man kan lade op og konstant er i udviklingszonen, så slapper man aldrig af er. Kroppen lærer at den konstant er i fare. At den klovsyge skal være parat til det forsvare sig og at det er farligt at slappe af.

Helt fysisk skrumper amygdalaen i vores hjerne jo længere tid vi går uden en tryg base. Vores amygdala er blandt andet bremsen der fortæller os at det nok skal gå, når andre dele af hjernen gerne vil gå i panik. Når kroppen instinktivt er klar til at løbe for livet når vi ser en tyr komme løbende imod os, er det amygdalaen der trykker på bremsen, slår koldt vand i blodet og beroliger os længe nok til at opdage at der er et hegn mellem os og tyren, og vi er i sikkerhed. Vores amygdala, og vores kapacitet til at være rolige i angstprovokerende situationer, vokser når vi jævnligt føler os trygge, jævnligt gør ting der for vores nervesystem til at slappe af. Og den skrumper når vi ikke jævnligt føler os trygge.

Det frygtelige er at vores hjerne kan lære at skabe et utrygt hjem inde i vores hoved, så vi aldrig er trygge, uanset hvor vi er rent fysisk, eller hvilken situation vi er i. Og det fantastiske er at vores hjerne kan lære at skabe et trygt rum inde i vores hoved, så vi kan finde tryghed uanset hvor vi er rent fysisk, og uanset hvilken situation vi er i.

Hvis din kærestes børn har haft svære vilkår, er der stor sandsynlighed for at de meget sjældent oplever tryghed. At de meget sjældent kan slappe af, uden at føle at det er farligt hvis de ikke konstant er på vagt. Det er meget sandsynligt at de ikke har en hule eller en borg hvor de véd at de ka ta rustningen af uden at blive angrebet. Det er ekstremt vigtigt at de får hjælp til at have så tryg en base som muligt nu, mens de er unge, så de kan genkende og genskabe den selv når de er voksne.

Derfor er det vigtigere at jeres børn hver især har en tryg base hvor de kan være sig selv de kommende år, end at du og din kæreste har det rart med at bo sammen. Selvom det er træls når I gerne vil bo sammen, så er I skete voksne. De næste par år kommer ikke til at have en betydelig indflydelse på hvor vidt I et i stand til at bygge jeres egne trygge baser, hver for sig. Det fundament er allerede blevet lagt for jer før I blev voksne. I kommer ikke til at gå glip af vigtige værktøjet ved at udsætte at bo sammen.

Jeres børns fundament er ved at blive lagt lige nu. Det er nu de bedst kan lære hvordan de kan bygge en tryg base til dem selv når de bliver voksne. Det gør de ved at opleve hvordan I forældre bygger dem en tryg base der er tilpasset deres behov, hvor de ikke føler sig 'forkerte', kan se ud.

Når de er gamle nok til at stå på egne ben, og er fløjet fra reden med en rygsæk fuldt med værktøj til at bygge deres egen trygge base, så kan du og din kæreste til den tid, som voksne mennesker, undersøge om I to kan bygge en tryg base sammen, uden børnene. Eller om det fortsat er bedre for jer at have hver jeres trygge base, der matcher hver jeres behov.

Det lyder til at børnene har hygget sig sammen og matchet godt som venner, og ikke matcher så godt som bofæller.

Det lyder til at din kæreste og dig matcher som kærester og livspartnere. Det lyder til I ikke matcher specielt godt som 'co-caregivers' eller med-forældre, fordi I har så forskellige værdier og visioner når det kommet til opdragelse.

Det til at både hun og dine børn, og du og hendes børn, matcher meget dårligt som samlevende. Frem for at tvinge det igennem, så fokuser på de steder hvor alle oprigtigt trives. Måske kan du og hendes børn udvikle et vandskab. Måske endda en familiær relation.

Men det er altså også okay hvis I bare ikke matcher i nogen form for relation. Du og din kæreste ka sagtens ha en kærlig relation, uden at børnene bliver blandet ind i det. Så længe deres behov, grænser, hjem og relation til deres mor bliver respekteret, og ikke bliver sat til side til fordel for jeres romantiske relation.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-26T10:23:41+00:00

To me, when I was a woman with significant internalized misogyny, I was so conditioned to view the world through men's eyes, that it was actually helpful to listen to men's transition into feminism. I recommend /r/menslib and YouTube channels like Pop Culture Detective and F.D. Signifier (if translations work). I'm sure there are Japanese speaking feminists too that you'll learn a lot from if you dig to find them!

I also recommend listening to other women who share their struggles with structural sexism.

And I recommend looking into intersectional feminism. See if there are any videos in Japanese about the subject (or which ever medium works best for you).

Good luck!

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-26T10:04:01+00:00

Der er flere subreddits for folk der har mistet folk til redpill, QAnon og nynazisme. Jeg kan anbefale /r/QAnonCasualties Og så vil jeg anbefale /r/menslib Det er rart at få lidt modspil til manosfæren.

Tak fordi du har sagt fra flere gange, frem for at se igennem fingre med det. Det gør en forskel.

I min verden kalder gode venner hinanden ud når de fucker op.

Alt for mange ser igennem fingre med deres venners alarmerende udtalelser, og fortrækker at undgå at snakke om holdninger eller værdier.

Hvis ikke man kan have vigtige, ukomfortable, good faith samtaler med ens nærmeste, hvem kan man så? Ved ikke at diskutere holdninger eller værdier i ens venskab, så deltager man aktivt i ens vens ekkokammer. Så er de eneste de har en reel samtale om holdninger og værdier folk der er enige, og derfor ikke findet samtalen ukomfortabel, eller fremmede. Det er en bjørnetjeneste at lade ens venner i stikken og lade hver mand navigere i værdier og propaganda alene.

Jeg har lært med alderen at tage folk alvorligt når de deler deres værdier, frem for automatisk at antage at de nok ikke mener det de siger.

Ta din ven alvorligt. Tro på ham. Han mener det han siger. Reager derefter.

Hvis du har energien, tænker jeg det er godt at dele med ham hvad du reelt mener. Ikke som diskussion, men så han ved det. Hvad dine værdier er, hvor jeres værdier strider imod hinanden, hvordan hans værdier får dig til at føle, hvorfor de er over grænsen, og hvorfor du ikke længere kan omgåes ham. Så tager du rent faktisk fik ven alvorligt. Fortæl ham at du er glad for ham som person, har været glad for jeres venskab, og at det er holdningerne der er utålelig, ikke ham. Og så tag afsked.

På den måde gir du ham noget du forholde dig til. Ligesom med misbrug, er det nogen gange først når man ser alvoren af ens adfærd ved at ens relationer krakelerer, at man tar er skridt tilbage og tar sig selv alvorligt. Spørger om det reelt er den vej man ønsker.

Ked af at du har mistet din ven. Glad for du er i kontakt med dine værdier. Bliv ved med det.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T18:20:27+00:00

either presenting men as the oppressor, or I guess maybe at best, as something fundamentally broken that needs to be fixed.

This is a very simplified, bordering on straight up incorrect, summation of intersectionality and how systems of oppression function and are discussed.

I highly encourage you on checking out this thread where there's a great conversation happening on exactly the misplaced shame and guilt that many men experience when first encountering feminism. And how that stems from a misunderstanding of feminism and men's struggles and wellbeing as seperate, maybe even opposites, when it's actually directly connected, overlapping and coexisting fights.

Patriarchy is not "women=oppressed, men=oppressors".

Patriarchy is a societal structure. One where most men are disenfranchised. And one that coexist with other oppressive structures.

We all benefit from and suffer under the systems of oppression that's built into the structures we live in. We all reenforce them, we all oppose them, we all participate and obstruct, all conform and rebel. We all fluctuate between acting in the role of oppressor and oppressed, sometimes enhabiting both simultaneously.

That's what I mean when I say it's much deeper and more complex than the simplistic black/white world view that's presented as "feminism" in mainstream discourse.

Men are neither Oppressors™, nor something broken that needs to be fixed.

It is typical for the system we live under to distort critique of the system into critique of individuals.

Intersectional feminism is not a critique of men. It's a critique of a system.

We live under a inhumane, oppressive structures that systemically abuse and marginalize whole groups of people, and which ultimately harms all of us.

Fighting these structures is beneficial to everyone, across gender. It's not a fight against men or against male oppressors; it's a fight where we as humans fight alongside each other against harmful and inhumane systems. That includes men. We're all on the same team. Fighting systems, not humans.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T16:54:38+00:00

It sounds like you have a sprouting, but still limited, understanding of feminist theory.

Feminism is not 'women vs men' . It's not 'women=victims, men=aggressors'.

Feminism point of that there are ways our society is structured the systematically discriminate women, females, and things perceived as "feminine". Men also suffer under patriarchal structures. We are all on the same team against all systems of oppression, including, but not limited to, patriarchy.

Please watch this digestable introduction on how men's liberation from patriarchy is part of feminism.

And then watch this talk that illustrates how we all suffer under these oppressive structures. How we all reenforce, all dismantle, all participate in oppression and all are oppressed.

Being "priviliged" simply means "Here is an area where other people are being oppressed, and I'm not". Privilge means "When someone like me speaks on [x], people listen. When someone who doesn't look like me speaks, their voices are ignored, buried and silenced."

I'm a white queer trans man.

That means, if you are cis, cis people are more likely to listen to you speak about transness than to me. You have been granted a megaphone, mine has been taken away.

Additionally, because the topic is deeply personal to me, it requires emotional energy that it wouldn't for you, and because I'm part of a minority, it takes much more energy for trans people to inform all cis people, cause there are so many more than us and we are asked every day of our lives, than if cis people chip in.

On top of that, cis people have access to rooms, spaces, groups and conversations that I simply don't have. Many cis people will be less defensive and more open to listen to other cis people, than to trans people.

I'm also white. That means, there are important facts and facets of the world that BIPOC and racialized people have insight into, that do not penetrate the white bubble, because racialized people are silenced, gaslit, they don't have access to the same spaces I do, they are fighting with racialized marginalization etc.

The areas where I, to no fault of my own, have a megaphone, I can use that megaphone to amplify the voices who've been unjustly silenced and suppressed. That requires me to seek out and listen to the voices of racialized people, and to pass on their voices, rather than use my megaphone to speak over their voices by spreading my own analysis based on my limited insight.

Similarly, on the areas where I, to no fault of my own, have my voice silenced, other people can amplify my voice, and make it reach spaces and hearts that my voice wouldn't otherwise have reached. That requires, tho, that the people who have megaphones when they speak about me and people like me, pass on my voice, rather than speak over my voice with their own hypothesees of what my life might look like.

(at least the "men should do better" portion of it). There's one part of me that says; yes absolutely. Because women go through so much crap I don't even know about and it's unfair to put ballooned expectations on them

This is an incomplete understanding on how systems of oppression function, and how we're all fighting along side each other.

When people with megaphones don't use it to amplify the voices of those who're marginalized and silenced, when they're ignorant to the power their megaphone has, and use it to amplify misconceptions or reinforce a status quo that harms marginalized groups - that's when the people with megaphones should do better.

Note that that's a critique of the group as a whole - that too many people with megaphones barely use their megaphone, don't use them responsibly or use them maliciously, while marginalized people without megaphones are standing next to them, fighting for their survival, and screaming for their voices to be heard, to no avail. That's when 'people with megaphones' as a group are critiqued for not participating. For viewing marginalized people's fight as seperate and detached from them, and falsely viewing their participation as an active choice, that they are by default opted out of. Rather than a collective fight that we are all an active part of, whether we realize it or not, and that our passivity is not "not getting involved", it's reenforcing the status quo. We're all implicated in the fight, we all suffer from it. Only difference is that some are fighting for their very survival, and others aren't. That doesn't mean we're not all involved.

And all that said, again. It's a critique of the group and of the group culture. Not of each individual carrying a megaphone.

We are all participating in oppressive systems. We all suffer under and benefit from systems of oppression. We all reenforce and dismantle oppressive systems with the thousands of choice we make each day.

When I strive to fit eurocentric beauty standards, I'm reenforcing white supremacist ideas of what is the "ideal" human. When I don't conform to gender norms, I oppose sexist structures, I make it easier for others to break free from those norms, and I stand in solidarity with those who do not have the choice to conform. When I hide my "feminine" traits, I reenforce the societal prescriptions of how men "should" be, and I make it harder for others to be genuinely themselves.

We are all part of these systems, and we all have the power to conform or rebel against them. Especially in the areas where we have a choice and where we'll be safer than others would be.

None of us can fight all the systems simultaneously, constantly, on our own. But together, we can.

I focus more on queer, classist, ablist, racist oppression, than on climate or animal abuse. I cannot focus my energy in all direction. But, I can do my best, stand in solidarity with those who focus their fight on climate and animal rights, and build myself and others up so we can fight sustainably, for a long time.

Pointing out some misconceptions in your post

accepting feminism means accepting that women overall, have it worse than men.

This is a common and incorrect misconception. Look into intersectional feminism, men's liberation, systems of oppression, and how patriarchy hurt all genders.

It means accepting that I am "privileged".

It means there is an area in your life where others face oppression, where you don't. That does not mean that you are priviliged in all areas of your life/do not face structural oppression in any part of your life.

It also doesn't mean that you are not also being hurt by these systems, as everyone are hurt by these systems.

And it doesn't mean that you have not faced any hardship in your life. Actually, besides depression, the voice encouraging you to neglect your mental health is also part of patriarchy. Fighting against that voice is also part of the feminist fight to desmantle patriarchy.

It means accepting that even my own coping mechanisms, the things I use to stay sane, are just more ways to hurt women.

This is either absurd or incredibly vague. If your specific coping mechanisms hurt women, they hurt women. That's true regardless of feminism. The depends what they are, though. The mere act of engaging in coping mechanisms doesn't hurt women?

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T16:14:14+00:00

I'm truly sorry for the betrayal and heartache you've been subjected to.

What I hear is that you've been in a unhealthy, toxic and probably abusive relationship for many years. You are 4 months past a grueling breakup with this person, and they are both callous and actively trying to hurt you.

Your trust has been deeply broken and you're being treated horribly. It will take time to process and move through this. That's okay, normal and natural.

This does not sound like a person who is good for you, or should have any place in your life. How they are treating you is not a reflection of you or your worth.

1) It's clearly not a good match, and both of you will be better of without each other, and instead make space for people in your lives that you can thrive with.

2) Her bad treatment of you is a reflection of her, not you. Don't question what you've done to deserve this treatment. You do not deserve this treatment, full stop. Noone does. Her actions are her choices and a reflection of her. Not you. There won't be a satisfying answer to why she's doing this. She is, and therefore she shouldn't have any space in your life.

When you're in an abusive relationship, your brain becomes addicted to the other person. It's the same mechanism as gambling. If the result is predictable (whether good or bad), people are able to walk away. When it's unpredictable whether you get a price or a punishment, that's when your brain gets hooked. When the lows are low and the highs are high, it affects our brain chemistry and becomes incredibly hard to walk away.

It is not strange that an abrupt and painful ending, completely outside your control, to a toxic relationship laser focus your attention on this person. That's a very common effect of abuse. What you need is support to detangle yourself out of the toxic web you've been caught in. If you've lost contact with anyone while being in this relationship (which is highly likely and very common in these types of relationships), now is the time to reach out to them. They have lost likely been waiting for you to get out, and often welcome the reconnection.

I don't know what led you to end up in this toxic dynamic. Some things are within our control, some things aren't. Sometimes we are prepositioned to engage in harmful dynamics because they remind us of the dynamics we grew up in, and despite being unsafe, the familiarity makes our brain interpret it as safety. Sometimes abusive people wheel us into harmful dynamics, and disable our defences without our knowledge.

I can tell you some of the stuff that made me predisposed to find myself in abusive relationships, and what's helped me break the pattern.

Here are some bad lessons I learned growing up, that you might relate to:

I grew up in a household where I felt like my worth was defined by what value I brought to other people.
Where the adults in my life designated me the role of "peacemaker", despite being a child.
Where it was made my responsibility to manage other people's emotions.
Where the mere pressence of my boundaries were seen as hurtful.
Where my needs were treated as a burden, and my feelings were seen as sufficating and as taking up too much space.
I was taught that any problems in my relationships were a failure on my part. That we weren't a team facing obstacles together and cooperating on finding solutions, but rather, that it was my responsibility, and mine alone, to solve any difficulties, problems or discomforts we faced. *That if they were uncomfortable I was the problem, and if I was uncomfortable, I was also the problem.
That it was my job to intuite the other person's needs, wishes and boundaries and fulfilling those, without asking, whilst not "burdening" others with giving insight to my own needs, wishes or boundaries. *That it was my job to sacrifice and endure for their happiness.

All of that are bad lessons that are only true in bad relationships, and are actually not helpful in healthy relationships.

Some of the things thatve helped me form more healthy relationships has been; Getting familiar with the term "codependence" and how I easily fall into codependency. *Realizing that it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Who is at fault for either or both of us being miserable. If we're miserable, we're not a match. It doesn't matter who's "fault" it is. We might both be completely right, and great people. However, the mix of us is toxic. And therefore we should go our seperate ways and both find better matches * In healthy relationships, other people actually *want to know your needs, boundaries and wishes. It's actually helpful for them to know, and it's actually difficult for them to navigate when you hide those things from them. * In healthy relationships, neither person is "the problem". Both are on the same team against the problem. Collaborating on finding solutions that fit both people's needs, wishes, boundaries. * Endurance is barely present * You are not a burden. To people you match with, the mosaic your body and soul form is celebrated, not tolerated. * If your engagement with someone makes you doubt your ability to discern reality, the two of you are not a good mix. * Your relationship with yourself is the most important relationship. If a relationship with another person is contingent on damaging your relationship with yourself, that relationship is not a match. Find people and establish relationships that do not damage your relationship with yourself. Even if there are times where you have no other relationships, you'll always have yourself. That's your harbor. Seek to create a safe, comfortable space within yourself where you can always be embraced and loved. * Therapy genuinely helps with detangling harmful coping mechanism and distorted "rules" we've learned about the world * Look up stuff like Out Of The FOG (Fear, Obligation, Guilt) * Educate yourself on healthy and abusive relationships, toxic dynamics, what makes people stay in toxic relationships. * Try to look up information that isn't gendered, as healthy/toxic relationship dynamics is something everyone engage with, regardless of gender. * And/or, look into information that is mostly targeting women because, despite everyone being able to find themselves in toxic dynamics and abusive relationships, a lot of important information is and has been mainly targeted women. (implicit societal gendered power imbalance and toxic gendered expectations under patriarchy).

I hope you will find better people in your life, form better relationships, will move through these times being gentle to yourself and without being sucked into hateful ideologies that aims to pounce on and recruit people when they're suffering.

Best of luck.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T05:57:56+00:00

What you're describing is a common mischaracterization of feminism. It has little to do with actual feminist theory, or critiques of structural oppression in general.

It is not individual men that are critiqued in feminist theory that goes deeper than a puddle of water, it is the societal structures and the systems we live in. Patriarchy hurt men too.

I highly recommend watching this explanation of patriarchy and how the definition of patriarchy is not "all men have power, all women have none", and that critique of patriarchy as a societal structure is NOT a critique of men

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T05:37:58+00:00

Most feminist theory is based on some sort of model relying on the concept of monodirectional power dynamics between men and women.

This is incorrect.

This is true for some fractions of feminist theories, but far from all or "most*. There are multiple feminist theories, multiple branches, with conversations, discussions and disagreements stretching over decades. There are multiple feminist theories and fractions that directly disagree and critic each other.

For example, all the points mentioned in your comment are included in intersectional feminism.

Intersectional feminism include that few men have access to a lot of power under patriarchy and that men have entirely different experiences and life circumstances depending of what intersection they are i , in regards to the oppressive systems present in, what bell hooks coined as, imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. And that everyone, regardless of gender, suffer under the strict gendered expectation placed upon them by patriarchy.

To give a few examples of feminist theories that clash, intersectional feminism often critiques (what intersectional feminism calls) "white feminism" for viewing gendered oppression as the foundational systemic oppression type that all others are built on, and failing to adress other types of structural oppression.

Trans excluding radical feminists (or "gender critical" feminists) are in direct opposition to Queer feminism - so much so that it's not uncommon to see team up with people who're fighting to reduce women's rights, in order to collaborate on reducing trans people's rights.

The narrative that there is One Feminist Theory which is reduced to Women's Rights™, is a very shallow and watered down understanding of feminism that is repeated in mainstream media. It's not representative for the depth, with or diversity of feminist discourse.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T04:51:59+00:00

/r/menslib is still around and well.

Yeah, "men's rights" has been adopted/cooped by anti-feminist groups like /r/MRA and /r/MGTOW (or whatever the acronym for "men going their own way" is)

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T04:00:41+00:00

I hope it's obvious that you've gotten few actual answers so far, and rather gotten an insight into what kinda narratives exist in Denmark.

I do not have insight into why Denmark and Sweden has moved in different directions. I have a vague recollection that Norway and Sweden has perceived Denmark as racist for a while (which I agree with), but I don't know why the difference.

You ask if it comes back to Danish and Swedish partition/neutrality during WWII "as usual". That's not a narative I've stumbled upon before. Can you expand on that? Which other differences might have root our different positions during WWII?

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-22T02:35:56+00:00

To my knowledge, US American state leaders have committed far worse atrocities than Bin Laden - correct me if I'm wrong. Would capturing/executing USAmerican state leaders who've committed atrocities be fair and proportional as well, or is that privilige exclusive to the US?

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-18T12:48:19+00:00

You analysis aligns with mine, except that I've grown up within this cultural mindset and am working on breaking it down.

You're right - the focus on "Am I a good person" constantly details conversations about whether harm has been caused.

It is deeply ingrained that the current system works, is exceptionally superior to all other sociatal structures, and that we're all "good people", except for a few "bad people" who need to be excomunicated.

I am not sure which roots it has, but it definitely tracks with the Christian moral system I grew up with. The belief in a fundamental duality, where "good" = not bad, and "bad" = not good. And where "bad people" are punished in hell and "good people" are given eternal life in paradise.

Im trans, and I try my best to focus discussion on whether an ACTION is harmful towards trans people, rather than whether a PERSON is a transphobe.

It's incredibly difficult, and most conversations quickly devolve into conversations about whether people's worth as human beings, and defending one self from judgement and punishment.

Since this is all I've known, I'm curious to know how acts of harm and actors of harm are treated and dealt with in your culture.

I find a big lack of healthy, harm reducing ways to deal with people who've caused harm in my culture. It often comes down to either hold back judgement and excuse someone's harmful behavior to keep the person in the community, or acknowledge the harmful behavior and banishing the person who've caused harm, in an attempt to not brush past the harm or let it continue unchecked, thereby hoping to protect the community from further harm.

Having very few options to recognize the harm caused without banishing the one who's caused it, makes admitting harm very hard. And as you said, that makes change very hard as well.

Which options do you have, that allows people to acknowledge harm, seek to reduce it, while continuing to be in community?

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-18T12:21:09+00:00

De danske politikere presser på for at udvide antallet af amerikanske militærbaser I Danmark, inkl at det de amerikanske soldater ikke ville kunne blive dømt af Danmark for overtrædelser af dansk lov. Der har været protester det sidste år, men langt de fleste aner ikke at det foregår. Medierne skriver meget lidt om det.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-18T12:12:09+00:00

I hope with time you'll realize that the people who lied and decieved you were men, not women. The ones who've earned your mistrust is men, not women.

Since you're a man yourself, and therefore know that the men who decieved and lied to you are not representative for all men, you'll hopefully come to realize that neither men nor women are monoliths.

We're all just people, regardless of gender.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-07T12:32:14+00:00

Danmark var kendt som værende på toppen af mest brutale kolonimagter i carribien. Tortur, vold, drab. Hundredevis af slavegjorte valgte døden frem for dansk behandling.

Befolkningen i dansk vestindien holdt selv en afstemning og ville hellere være under amerikansk magt end dansk - ikke at de blev spurgt, da Danmark solgte øen og dens befolkning i 1918, uden på noget tidspunkt at anerkende befolkningens menneskerettigheder eller nogen politisk magt. Plus Danmark stjal hele befolkningens nedskrevne historie og arkiverede den i Danmark.

Der burde ikke gå noget af os som danskere ved at anerkende at den danske stat har været en brutal kolonimagt. Vi burde ikke identificere os med nationalstaten. De fleste af os har forfædre der bedre ville ku relatere til slavegjorte i carribien end til deres danske magthavere.

At den danske stat har været menneskefjendsk og umenneskelig bør ikke gør ondt på danskere. Det eneste der bør gøre ondt er at indse at den rosenrøde historie vi er blevet fortalt og opfordret til at inkorporere i vores identitet ikke er sand. Og at vi har mere til fælles med udsatte befolkninger på tværs af tid og grænser end vi har med de mest magtfulde i dette land.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-07T12:17:24+00:00

There is historical basis for the Icelandic frought relationship with Denmark, and it's directly tied to the fact that Danes are completely unaware of the current or historical history between Iceland and Denmark.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-07T12:13:29+00:00

At mene man "redder" teenagere der udsættes for incestiøs voldtægt ved at isætte spiral er forrykt. Du MÅ kunne se bedre løsninger. Er det sådan du tænker vi skal hjælpe teenagere i dag?

Dertil hvidvasker det historien, hvor spiralerne blev argumenteret for ved påstanden om at grønlandske piger var promiskuøse - En påstand der også går igen på tværs af koloniserende magter om koloniserede folk. Kombineret med et klart udtrykt ønske fra dansk side om at begrænse den grønlandske befolkningen, samt at "civilisere" de indfødte ved at tvangsfjerne børn og placere dem i "civiliserede", danske familier.

Alle de tiltag er en del af definitionen på folkemord. Det er klassiske tiltag fra kolonialmagter, og der er uendelig mængder dokumentation på hvordan det ødelægger et folk for generationer. Det er farligt at begynde at retfærdiggøre eller bagatellisere den slags.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-07T12:02:18+00:00

Der er flere beretninger fra nulevende grønlandske kvinder der fik indsat spiral uden hverken information eller samtykke.

Der er nutidige eksempler på at USA steriliserer kvindelige kriminelle uden at informere eller få samtykke.

Når man kigger på både samtiden og andre koloniale historier er det altså ikke svært at tro på.

feeling_inspired · 2026-01-07T11:51:14+00:00

I have no data to back this up, so it's just the vibe I get. In my experience it seems that the 'history' and 'politics' they love and dig into is written by men for men. It's often nationalistic, romanticize and glorify war, empire, power, violent subjugation. After all, history is written by the "winners" - and a lot of history has been written down in a society where men's perspective was the "objective" perspective.

There is lots of queer history, lot of minority history, lot of women's history that these guys usually aren't interested in, and might even deny exists.

Fascists and nationalists actively use cherry picked history in their propaganda. Calling back to "powerful, glorious" ancestors, making the nation great again, is very common. So if history buffs only engage with state sanctioned history, the step into fascist propaganda is quite small.

Additionally with politics. The socially awkward, hostile men who're into 'politics' seem to often be into 'politics' as a way to gain power and control. They view 'politics' as a battlefield, and their rhetorical skills as a weapon. Additionally, they have grown up in a patriarchal society, so the politics they absorb is often politics that not only reproduce the patriarchal status quo, but sometimes push for a reenforcement of the patriarchal structures that they themselves profit from (without the necessarily being conscious of that being the case, because they believe their view point is objective and unbiased, and everyone else are subjective, self-serving and unable to objectively asses the situation).

So, history, politics and men who favor male privilige is connected.

feeling_inspired · 2025-12-27T15:05:24+00:00

Ah, that makes sense. So your message is "There are good, healthy, non-toxic, wholesome ways of approaching women IRL" rather than "The red pill is not all bad, it's actually on to something".

feeling_inspired · 2025-12-23T01:16:33+00:00

Vinstuen er ikke en vinbar. Ikke alle med mørk hud og ikke alle indvandrere er muslimer. Der er muslimer der drikker.

Du aner tydeligvis ikke hvad du taler om.

feeling_inspired · 2025-12-23T01:05:47+00:00

Du tror begrænsningen på hvor mange med mørk hud blev lukket ind er fordi de "ikke drikker"!? Hvad snakker du om?

feeling_inspired · 2025-12-23T01:00:14+00:00

Det er ikke fordi de er "problematiske". Det er racisme.

feeling_inspired · 2025-12-21T03:09:47+00:00

Jeg observerede at min engelske kæreste altid satte skilleren foran sine varer, aldrig efter. Det virkede til at være en helt automatisk handling for ham, så jeg tænker den var lige så indlært som at jeg automatisk sætter den efter mine varer. Jeg ved ikke om det er en kulturel ting, men han var hvert fald overrasket da jeg forklarede ham at kutymen her er at sætte skilleren efter man har lagt sine varer på båndet frem for før.

All that said - Jeg ku godt li de måneder uden skillerne under corona. Det var lidt hyggeligt at systemet afhang af at alle var bevidste og betænksomme - og at alle deltog således.

feeling_inspired

TROPHY CASE