Where exactly does any of the sourced material show that the opinion "Republicans are too obsessed with trans people" is being held at all, much less among what proportion? How is "too obsessed" even defined?
That headline is infested with weasels.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 423
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 423
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
The media can't legally say "murder" unless/until there's a conviction. So it's either "alleged murderer" or "shooter", and they definitely chose of the two, the one that 'safely' implies more guilt.
One can't really reasonably fault them for that choice, if one believes in his guilt, which you obviously do.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The scientific community was basically backed into a corner: either create a new category for Pluto and similar bodies, or we go from 9 planets to over 3,000 (iirc), lol.
The only sensible choice was made, imo.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic.
Well, no. Taking "rotten apples" literally doesn't mean apples are inherently rotten, it's just a descriptor.
What I have more of a problem with is that the exact same thing exists within stereotypes of femininity, but "toxic femininity" never gained any steam as a concept/term at all. That does more to imply 'it's all the males' fault', I think.
I'm reminded of someone once mocking the notion of a fanny pack being marketed to men with a camo pattern, calling it an example of "fragile masculinity" that was inherently misogynistic. I asked them if a tool set with pink handles being marketed to women was an example of "fragile femininity", and response I got was no, that that was also misogynistic, somehow.
Also, "manspreading" is supposedly a misogynistic, aggressive act by men denying women space in public settings, and yet, (primarily) women taking up entire extra seats by putting their purses/bags on them never 'went viral' in the same way, again no colloquialism for it, despite being an act that's significantly more common, and deprives others of more space than a guy whose knees are spread out.
Ideologues won't see the obvious flaws in their logic no matter how blatant you make them.
I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen even if the Democrats do win, lol
Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better
Better, but still not optimal, since the whole thing is about police brutality, and that slogan says nothing about that. Even with the "also", in general it comes off as an accusation of racism toward whoever you say it to (especially since it was said mostly to other 'random' citizens, not cops).
If I walked up to a random person and said "hey, women's lives matter", I should expect to get one or more of these responses:
- Uh, duh? Who said otherwise?
- Why are you saying that to me? Do you think I don't think they do?
Because those are the implications that kind of phrase carries.
When BLM was a brand-new thing, it was a normal, and very understandable, reaction, for someone who's hearing it for the first time to say/think something along the lines of:
- Who said they don't matter? I know I didn't, why are you saying "black lives matter" to me, as if you're implying that I don't believe they do?
- Why specify "black", aren't you implying others don't, then?
It was also badly-named for another reason: the whole foundation of it was in response to police unlawfully killing black citizens. "Black Lives Matter" in no way speaks to anything involving police action. The phrase naturally comes off as an aggressive accusation of deep racism (to the point of believing a certain person's life is literally worthless, which is a step beyond the inferiority actual racists usually ascribe to their 'target') when said to someone.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
"Overexplaining" already has an established unrelated definition, though. I've 'coined' "splaining" as slang for the behavior, which is not only perpetrated by both sexes, but is also perpetrated for reasons other than sex. It's kind of a subcategory of condescension, I'd say.
When someone assumes another is ignorant on a subject, because of any characteristic that does not actually have a relationship with knowledge of that subject, and as a result, condescendingly explains something to them, that's 'splaining'. Also of note is that EVEN IF the 'receipient' actually happens to be ignorant of that subject, and of the information being given to them, it's STILL 'splaining'. What defines it is the combination of the unfair assumption, and the action taken based on said assumption. Assuming you know more about X than someone because they're younger than you, is a non-sex example of the exact same behavior.
Things are still very bad for women and that is not even getting into partner abuse
Did you know that in nonreciprocally violent heterosexual relationships (i.e. only one of the two partners is violent), women are the perpetrators over 70% of the time? Yet, domestic violence is most often treated like a thing with only male perpetrators and female victims.
or topics like rape.
The narrative is such that the public consciousness is so skewed that you're not aware that women rape men as much as men rape women, are you? Successful feminist lobbying (primarily attributed to Mary Koss) to call the rape of a man by a woman something other than "rape" so that female rapists can 'fly under the radar' on "rape statistics" is the primary reason this is so uncommonly known.
If you think underreporting and a lack of justice is bad for female victims of male rapists, your head will explode if you objectively look at the respective rates for male victims of female rapists.
It's bad for both sexes, but it is literally objectively worse for males. Your ignorance of this subject just proves how wide the empathy gap really is.
The Innocence Project is all about getting wrongfully convicted people out of prison. Check out the linked list, filter it for "sex crimes" if you like, look at the years and decades of wrongfully-served prison time, then see if you can find any women.
There are no cases of a man molesting a girl and then successfully gaining both legal custody of the child, and legally-awarded child support - from the child he molested. But reverse the genders, and precisely that has happened.
This constant trivialization/erasure of male suffering just makes it clear how little people like you actually care about equality. Anyone truly seeking equality would be equally outraged about injustices suffered by both sexes.
I'm reminded of how outraged feminists were about the inequality when men possessed a significant majority of college degrees[^1], but in the present day, after the myriad of programs/grants/scholarships exclusive to women got it to the point where women are now significantly more than half of college graduates, and men are in the minority, suddenly feminists aren't concerned with that inequality anymore.
One of the many reasons the claims that feminism was for everyone and that there was no need for male-focused advocacy (and that, in fact, such advocacy was inherently misogynistic) because feminists 'had it covered', always rang hollow.
One more quick example, an anecdote from my own personal life: a feminist friend was complaining about required reading materials for high school classes not being 50/50 re the sex of the author, but being majority male authors, which was disadvantaging the girls. When I pointed out that girls already are objectively significantly 'ahead' of boys in those subjects, so why was she pushing for the gap to grow even wider, her only response was to get angry.
[^1]: And this difference only became significant when the GI Bill became a thing, allowing men in the military to get a college education for free, which imo is the least the government could do for men after conscripting them, something women never had to deal with. In 1940, the difference in the college graduation rate between men and women was negligible, a measly 1.7% (5.5% male and 3.8% female).
An actual egalitarian would care about a significant imbalance in either direction that's caused by bigotry/prejudice, regardless of who's got the short end of the stick.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
Yes, this is actual egalitarian thinking. Special interests who don't care about inequalities that benefit 'their group', or stop caring when an inequality that affected 'their group' now favors 'their group', are not forces for equality/fairness.
For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while.
Huh? A squatter is most commonly simply a former renter who stops paying without moving out. The property is not vacant at any point.
They're each trying to put their own spin on it, there is no actual distinction in the words, just in the subtext/implication.
The former implies it's a lacking of a necessary thing, the latter implies it's the avoidance of an unnecessary burden. It's completely subjective whether a child is one or the other to someone.
It's a broadcast of one's own biases to consider either of these terms more 'valid' than the other.
- JumpRemoved
the cold war
For some reason my eyes jumped from
What a B. Well
straight to
Well we will cause we’ll
and I thought I was losing it for a moment, lol
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
👆 Found the gooner.
I don't know if "give" is a fair word to use there, lol
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I think that you ignore an important part of the picture when you ignore perceptions of you as part of your identity.
But I'd argue that allowing those perceptions to shape your identity, to any extent, is equivalent to forfeiting part of who you are to them, and allowing others to define you. That seems really unhealthy to me.
Have you seen the Clayton Biggsby sketch on the Chappelle show with the blind black white supremacist? He had no knowledge of being black, but I think most people would still argue that it formed a major part of his identity regardless of his own concept of himself.
I have, and yeah, I guess I just don't see it that way. His identity ironically clashed with his biology, but it doesn't make sense to me that an aspect of yourself you have literally no knowledge of can be considering part of your "identity".
Maybe I just see the concept of "identity" as borne of, and residing fully in, one's own consciousness.
The thing is, I don’t blame women for valid self protective instincts.
I don't think labeling men hypocrites counts as a "self protective" act.
I feel like you and many others feel like my issue is simply that panel 3 is there at all, and that I'm indignant about the notion of men reacting poorly to rejection. But that's not my issue at all. I explain below.
Ghosting is antisocial bullshit, but it’s the easiest solution available to a potential for real, serious harm, especially when you are only one of some dozen guys one woman might be dealing with on the subject.
You're misinterpreting the core of my distaste with the comic.
All the comic had to do to not be shitty in the way I'm criticizing it for, is have the men in panels 1 and 3 not be the same person. That's all. Then I could at least understand a message like what you describe: 'this is a shitty thing to do in a vacuum, but I feel like I have to do it, to not risk an unpleasant reaction'. But by nonsensically making it the same guy, when it's basically never the same guy doing both things (do you really think men who have those kinds of outbursts when they're rejected, are the ones wishing women would reject them overtly? Think about it), the author is shitting on decent guys who have a reasonable desire to not be ghosted, which is not mutually exclusive with understanding why women do it.
Does that make sense?
This is
"I like waffles.""Are you saying you hate pancakes?"
-tier discourse.
There is a wide spectrum between being obsessed with X and ignoring X.