Without men who will protect you from men?
Checkmate feminists.
According to Americans: Armed Bears
🧍♂️🔫🐻
I thought they protect the cans of frozen peaches.
Obviously the bears have a right to bear arms but it also protects their right to their own bare bear arms, which are plenty unless the man has a rifle.
In which case yes, that’s why the good bears need AR-15s.
That’s crazy! Their thumbless paws would never be able to aim, rack a charging handle, etc!
Maybe they can reach the trigger with the claws though if they have a winter trigger guard.
I thought that’s what the bears were for.
i think bears got other shit goin on
This is why I don’t prevent forest fires, Smokey is just trying to get the home field advantage on me…
I also can’t draw noses.
They’re just all related to Beedle.
I get this reference.
WOW!
Better off just drawing the nose holes IMO. Maybe a little line. Also : why the pig pink in the nose but not on the face??
But then again, those kind of things are usually so that you recognise the comics.
I recently got a tip from a friend, that drawing just the shadow a nose creates (so kinda a skewed pear-like shape) looks much better than the sharp lines people usually use for noses.
This is good advice, from the front there is no outline for the nose (except the nostrils), so if you only do outlines you have to be creative.
Usually the light hits from one side too (if you think about lighting), so you’d draw only “half the pear”. Looks better IMO but both goes very well.
just make a upside down 7
We call that an L
o O L ---no see an upside down 7 has a bend in it a L straight lines
o O ㄥ ---Needs a sharper “angle”.
o O ∠ ---
The thing that NOBODY seems to understand, or maybe not willing to admit is, you CANNOT group people together.
It’s the whole reason racism logically makes no sense. At all.
“Oh, all those dirty (insert race here) are good for nothin! They’re all assholes!”
And sure, regardless of what race you inserted there, there’s going to be some assholes. There’s also going to be some amazing people that you’re unfairly judging.
And it’s not just races. It’s anything. Races, genders, religions, countries, social groups, book clubs, whatever.
If you think all people of one group think the same on everything, you’re just factually wrong. And if you use that incorrect fact to judge that group, now you’re just an asshole.
I’ve found that people th]?6ink judging people is bad, and wrong. I don’t think so. I think some people are just terrible at judging people, and miss the point of judging people. You’re supposed to judge them as an individual. Not as (insert group here).
How did 28 ppl downvote this? lmao
If you downvoted that comment, you’ve gone to the dark side
There’s a difference between judging people on a category they don’t choose vs. a set of beliefs they choose to follow.
If I tried to claim all brown-eyed people are evil, I’d be bigoted because eye color does not determine who you are as a person. But if I claimed that all members of the Puppy Kickers Club are evil because they literally believe in kicking puppies and require doing so frequently as a requirement for membership, then my claim is valid.
Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? If it’s acceptable to judge people based on group membership because it aligns with behavior, people will ascribe abhorrent behavior to group membership. “Oh, you’re a (insert religious group here)? Those people literally rape children!”
Are you a member of a religious group where raping children is a core belief? Yeah, you’re a bigot if you’re making false claims about religion, but what about true claims?
Yes, we should hold people accountable for their religion if their religion is based around doing shitty things. If someone is literally a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, they are literally supporting a hate group by virtue of being a member. Regardless of whether they are literally holding a “God hates fags” sign in that moment, they’ve given time, money, and support to those who do and are directly culpable for that behavior as long as they remain a member.
Again, if your religion revolves around kicking puppies, then you are to blame for kicking puppies. If you don’t want to be associated with puppy kicking, don’t literally make it your religion.
I think we can safely shit on Nazis as a whole, though.
My critic to what the other guy said, is that you can judge a group of that group is specific enough to judge them on these characteristics.
Are all christians bad? Hell no. Active adult members of the Westboro Baptist Church? Hell yes. They are bad because their website is literally godhatesfags.com.
Now Nazis are fucking Nazis. 11 millions murders should be enough to judge them as a group and those who liked it.
Yup. What are they actually advocating for? What are their true core beliefs?
It should also be noted that there are groups you can control your membership of (political parties, religions) and groups you are forced into (ethnicity, sexuality). The group you choose to join speaks far more about how terrible or good you are. The worst groups and people are those that attack people based on groups they are forced into, bigots and fascists.
Well, i don’t think you can judge a group based on their characteristics, if the group is an ethnicity. What are characteristics that e.g. all white people share, which you can judge them for? Obviously none. Just like any and all “forced into” groups.
It’s wild how some people think you can’t be racist against white people.
It depends on a lot of things.
Mainly what does one mean with racism? If they mean exclusively systematical racism, then it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to be the victim of racism in e.g. the US as a “white” person. Like apparently 75% of the population in the US is “white”, how and why would 75% of the system, so effectively a controlling majority, turn the system against them? It seems at least unlikely.
But as always, us defaultism or western defaultism in the English speaking world runs strong, and it gets completely ignored that there are probably some “white” people born and living in e.g. Japan. I am “white” and I lived in other parts of the world and met my (hopefully) future-wife there. There is systematical racism against “white” people out there.
Now if you mean racism as discrimination by race, obviously it exists and I have experienced it. By a scream, I was angrily called a slur for standing in a park, about to sit down on a bench, by a person outside of the park on the walkway running past the park. I know they meant me as the slur means only that one thing, and there was literally no other “white” person there. Local friends confirmed that I heard it correctly and that there was no one else around. “White” people are so rare there that I would be stared at anywhere I would go, causing me to seek out private spots. Tbh i believe that place has systematical racism against a bunch of ethnicities, including “white” people. But I still think that moment is a good example for unprompted unmistakable racism.
They are bad because their website is literally godhatesfags.com.
Always found it weird that there are people who believe that the immortal and all powerful creator of the universe is for some reason deeply, deeply concerned with what ~10% of a particular branch of weird hairless apes decides to do with their genitals enough to do things like call down plagues and natural disasters over it. Like that’s just…such an extreme level of being a gooner that it’s even more absurd than the whole monotheistic God of everything idea to begin with.
Clearly the universe was created by committee - that’s how you end up with things like the platypus when the bird team and the mammal team are forced to compromise on a design to get the product shipped on time.
Modern nazis? Yes. They can all go fuck themselves.
Historical nazis? Like the ones from the 1920s-1945? Maybe. I’m unclear how many of them knew what being nazis actually meant. Like, the average nazi soldier in some 1942 battle. Does he know about jews dying? Does he know the things the nazis stand for? I’m not saying yes or no, because I legit don’t know. I find it hard to believe that millions of soldiers all knew, and still went along with it.
Now the SS? Oh, those assholes KNEW! They were far enough up the ladder that they knew exactly what was going on. They were the ones enforcing it.
Same as the nazis who ran the camps.
I read about this one guy who was basically the warden of one of those camps. Directly responsible for literally millions of dead jews in 4 years. They put him on trial at the Nuremburg trials, and he says he did nothing wrong. So they asked him if they threw him in that same oven, would that be wrong? He said no. Sooooo…that’s what they did. One of the last things he said was that it was ironic that the one who was to throw the switch on his death was Jewish.
That’s not irony. That’s payback.
Bro, if a person can’t step back and objectively determine for themselves that what the nazis were doing was wrong, then they’re not innocent. They’re stupid, but they’re also not innocent.
Evil prevails when good ppl fail to act
What I’m saying is, if you study history, in the 1920s Germany was one of the most progressive, left leaning, all inclusive cultures. To go from that to…nazi Germany in about 10 years should tell you that the general public didn’t know at all what they were doing with the jews.
In the early days, before the war, they were just deporting them. Well what they kept finding happening was, they’d deport the jews. Then they’d take over new land. On that new land they’d find not only jews, but they were figuring out these were the SAME jews they just deported a year earlier from their land. So they’d deport them from this NEW land. Only to later take over more new land, and the cycle repeats.
So for people living in Germany before the nazis, they probably knew and liked their jewish neighbors. Everybody knows the story of Anne Frank, but think of what that entails. It means the homeowner saw the jews being deported, and allowed this entire family to live in the attic. Which shows that people were living in nazi germany, but not in favor of it. And that’s one story that became famous because of a diary, but it was happening all over Germany.
So to think about how many young kids were in the bulk of the soldiers, mandatory drafted, I cannot believe that they all supported something that was intentionally kept a secret from the general public…and these soldiers would have been the general public before being enlisted.
I believe the people who believed in the nazi idiology were definately in the top 5 most evil “governments” we’ve ever seen. Arguably the most evil.
I just don’t believe you can assume a group of 19 year olds are in the know about a government conspiracy to construct a series of death camps with the intention of killing all jews.
Just the same I don’t believe all USA soldiers who fought in Vietnam knew about Agent Orange being sprayed and causing health issues.
Even right now, in russia, you have an entire country that thinks they were invaded by Ukraine. That’s not what happened, but thats what they think.
Government propaganda is real, and it is powerful. So yeah, I absolutely think there were tons of young German soldiers that only found out the truth after the war was over. And if you look at German citizen reaction, it’s pretty clear they didn’t know. They did an abrupt 180, and instantly had empathy for what they had done. If they knew and supported it, they would have kept doing it after Hitler died.
Historical nazis? Like the ones from the 1920s-1945? Maybe. I’m unclear how many of them knew what being nazis actually meant. Like, the average nazi soldier in some 1942 battle. Does he know about jews dying? Does he know the things the nazis stand for? I’m not saying yes or no, because I legit don’t know. I find it hard to believe that millions of soldiers all knew, and still went along with it.
Fuck off with that nazi apologist bullshit. The whole nazi party ideology was based on hating minorities and blaming them for Germany’s economic and social ills. Who fucking cares about the details, the whole party was hate filled rage bait just like modern Republicans.
I don’t want to say ‘Itodaso’ but the guy went from “Not all men” to Nazi apologist in ONE post. These guys are all over Lemmy and it’s super depressing.
I am not OP, but I might have been subconsciously being an apologist somewhere. How can I improve myself in this regard?
If you say something you think is normal, but get downvoted to hell with a bunch of angry replies, then seriously consider their perspective instead of arguing with each one.
Seek out places where you think they’ve been making good points.
If you want to educate the person above, don’t start with “fuck off”. Just explain to them why they are wrong and corroborate with historical bits as you please. The fuck off is completely unnecessary and counter-productive
If you want to educate the person above, don’t start with “fuck off”. Just explain to them why they are wrong and corroborate with historical bits as you please.
No. Fuck Nazi apologists.
Removed by mod
Bro this is just ignorance.
Like the ‘innocent German farmer soldiers’ who had no idea what was happening? This is how that starts, dude, seriously, this isn’t even a clever attempt at a wedge issue. It’s as in-your-face as it could be.
Does it feel good getting off to demonizing people who don’t know better while accomplishing absolutely nothing of value?
Does it feel good getting off to demonizing people who don’t know better
What is he, a goddamn four year old? Who the fuck doesn’t know Nazi’s are bad are you fucking kidding me here? Nobody is ‘getting off’ on anything, this person called out a Nazi apologist. There’s no clean wehrmacht, it was a Nazi lie by higher ups to save their own fucking skin.
From 16 Days in Berlin: (I can’t be assed to find the original attribution, go do it yourself if you care to.)
“We have to win this war… if the others win the war, and they do to us only a fraction of what we have done in the occupied territories, there won’t be a single German left in a few weeks.”
Here’s a list of the companies that used slave labour from concentration camps.
There now I’ve done the thing where the lefty finds the answers for you.
Fuck fascism, fuck Nazi’s, fight them everywhere you see them, give them no ground, no quarter. Defend each other because even the centrists will side with them, just like last time.
Posters have limited energy for polite niceties to people they disagree with. Not one joule of that energy goes to kindness towards Nazi apologists.
Fuck off
Fuck off
Fuck off
Fuck off
Fuck off.
And fuck the mod or automod who is crying about me being a big ol meanie to Nazi apologists.
😂 one more time for the people in the back ?
Fuck off
Stop being an apologist for nazi apologists.
I told them why they are wrong and if anger keeps them from learning then they weren’t going to learn anyway.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Let me tell you that it has been socially unacceptable to make apologies for anyone who flew the Nazi flag ever since 1945.
Yes, I understand you’re trying to take a nuanced approach to the Nazis who had been drafted since being kids, etc, but just don’t.
History already happened, and the last of the original Nazis are slowly dieing out (youngest Nazis tended to be 16 years old, so 1945-16 = born in 1929, so they’d be about 96 years old). They don’t need a random stranger to try to defend them.
Nazism is a failed ideology that abused large parts of the world. It doesn’t need defending.
The citizens in nazi Germany was very much aware of the anti-semitism and the violent nature of the nazi party.
If you want to claim that they didn’t know of the systemical murder of e.g. Jewish. Based on my understanding, you are wrong. But even if you want to ignore that, they knew of the violence against Jewish and enabled it.
Kristall Nacht (btw)This shit was public
Jews were citizens of Nazi Germany.
Now, you might be able to make the case that early Nazi party members, before the rise of power, weren’t 100% antisemitic, they absolutely knew they were getting into bed with antisemites.
After the rise in power started, Jewish sympathisers were purged from the party. Anyone in or supporting Nazis (which was a large portion of the population) knew what they were supporting.
I’d just caution painting too broadly. That wasn’t all German citizens that supported the Nazi movement. It was also a brutal regime that stomped out detractors. German media of the era was highly controlled. It’d paint a false picture of the amount of support. True dissent was a dangerous position to publicly take.
I am sorry but it seems you misunderstood my take.
If the German public knew, Nazis knew.
You can choose what you want to call a Nazi. Idc for the sake of my argument. But you can’t claim that you can’t judge Nazis for their support for Nazi shit because they didn’t know. They knew.
I don’t want to bother if you are the person I previously responded to. If you aren’t, then I am not saying, you claimed anything. If you are, read above.
I’m a different person. It appeared to me that you were lumping in all German citizens with Nazis which is why I made the post.
I’m not defending Nazi supporters, even in the earliest stages. They j knowingly joined with the antisemites to try and push their own agendas. History tells us how that worked out.
So it’s a-ok as long as you (pretend that you) don’t know what you are fighting for? So it’s better to be a murderous yes-man than to question or face that you (directly or indirectly), through killing/enslaving/torturing innocent people, are a piece of shit with no spine or balls? That’s… better? That’s okay? That’s, uh, let’s say an interesting take. An awful, braindead take… But it sure is interesting, I suppose. If I were to start killing people that you are close to, would that be fine if I was like ‘oops my bad lmao I didn’t know what I was doing’?
Signed,
- a gay guy who would have been experimented on and murdered
So just to make it clear everything you said in your first paragraph is completely false. It’s something known as the clean Wehrmacht myth.
The Wehrmacht was not “clean”, certainly.
But that article doesn’t seem to claim that individual soldiers have the same guaranteed culpability.
That’s not to say that even low grade nazis were ever innocent and pure, but I think there’s a little grey.
If we’re trying to find a single good nazi in all of history, then I think technically Schindler counts.
But that article doesn’t seem to claim that individual soldiers have the same guaranteed culpability.
I mean they must have that culpability since they were cooperating with Nazi genocidal policy by, among other things, invading countries to where the Holocaust would be exported in the first place. I mean it was by definition individual soldiers enforcing the state of affairs where Jews and other targets of Nazi ire were getting exterminated. It was those individual soldiers suppressing resistance, taking POWs to be executed, etc. I mean you’re pretty guilty the moment you’re fighting a war of extermination on the side of extermination.
If we’re trying to find a single good nazi in all of history, then I think technically Schindler counts.
That’s fair, but I think most modern people wouldn’t consider him a Nazi. He was registered as a Nazi by necessity, but ideologically I don’t think he believed in the extermination of Jews while bribing Nazi officials to keep his workers out of death camps. If you do consider him a Nazi then yeah there was dissent within the Nazi party; I don’t think that’s much of a surprise.
Agreed, he was only technically a nazi.
Yeah, nope. Get out of here with Nazi whitewashing. Germans knew what Nazis stood for. Nazis didn’t even try to hide what they wanted to do.
Oh yes, they knew, all of them. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
John Rabe’s journal is a wild ride.
He was a Semiens branch manager in China in Nanking during the Rape of Nanking.
It’s full of him doing everything he can to minimize the casualties and harm and then he’ll be like “China is great because there aren’t any Jews here, I know Herr Hitler wouldn’t accept such wanton murder and rape from his allies if he knew about it. He’s a good socialist and a friend of the workers, after all!”
And then Rabe, the “Good Nazi,” fresh from saving countless lives from the IJA, returns to Germany and says he approves of the Party 100% in 1938, and to anyone’s knowledge never breathed a word of criticism about the Holocaust.
I’d like to quote my awsome history teacher here: “People went to the camp on a sunday stroll, looking at the victims as if it were a zoo”
Another great example: A Wehrmacht troop is tasked with pillaging a village. The officers clearly state that this will include killing women and children. They explain that every soldier has the right to refuse to take part in this and will not face any consequences. Out of a hundred less then ten men refuse.
Also, the people from concentration camps were used as forced laborours. They were led through towns like callte in the morning when their shift started, and led back the same route after their shift ended.
People knew what the regime was doing. To varying degrees, surely, but with all the xenophobic propaganda, the burning of books, “entartete Kunst”, the deportation of millions of people I find it hard to believe that people were that clueless. Because after all, the NSDAP didn’t try to hide it. They wrote it on their banners all proud.
Removed by mod
No, all Nazis are horrible. Full stop, no addendums, no caveats.
To be a Nazi is to have an ideology that is abhorrent and to be shunned. It is a choice, unlike all the other examples in you initial comment.
Nazi=bad.
what the fuck?
Bro… Not historical Nazis? You mean the ones that committed the most despicable evils in all of humanity’s written history?
No. All Nazis can be grouped together and judged the same, not as individuals. They lost that right as soon as they started being intolerant.
Bro… Not historical Nazis? You mean the ones that committed the most despicable evils in all of humanity’s written history?
Just reading that a few times and I think, how exactly do you determine that? The number of deaths? Because the genocide of indigenous people in the “Americas” exceeds it several times over. You think about the “Congo Free State”, it had deaths on the same order of magnitude and a system of total enslavement and mass mutilations/executions based on failing to meet work quotas. Not to trivialize one, but to make sure others aren’t ignored. When it comes to the genocide conversation, it seems like European imperialism in Africa just gets completely left out.
https://utopiaordystopia.com/2015/12/31/was-nazi-evil-unique/
While it seems like the common stance in American culture (to which I belong) is that the Nazi Evil and the Holocaust positively were uniquely evil and should be distinguished against other crimes against humanity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_uniqueness_debate
However, I am willing to take the position that this might be American propaganda that focuses the American populace on the Nazis, blinding them to the other atrocities that have occurred in the modern age. Some of this might be because many US History classes end their curriculums at the end of WWII, and so modern history after that isn’t really taught. That lasting impression could explain cultural permanence.
I do tend to agree with you though. I think the Nazis were evil and did evil shit, but after reflecting on it, it is possible to think of today’s Zionists and “modern Nazis”, as one might towards other authoritarian, totalitarian regimes.
So yeah. You’re right
If you look at the entire span of all cultures and all history, I think there’s tons of random examples of essentially one form or another of religious or ideological thinking that caused massive atrocities. Genghis Khan comes to mind as someone responsible for millions of deaths through, as the author of your first link puts it, a kind of “mouth with a bottomless pit” mentality of devouring everything. Hitler is distinguished in part by the mechanization of his efforts, but that is true of every imperialist genocide of the 20th and 21st centuries. The people he killed in open genocide don’t even scratch a tenth of the total killed by both sides in that same war - which really begs the question, what is the distinction between war and genocide? Combatants vs. non-combatants? If someone is talked into fighting, does their life suddenly stop having any value? Is it less a crime in ethical terms, not legal terms, to kill an average soldier? It gets justified by saying the other side of a conflict had some devastatingly evil ideology, but is killing someone actually the best way to deal with them having evil ideas? I’m more inclined to take the stance uh, I think Steinbeck said, “All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.” The deepest evil is the people leading us to slaughter each other, not the people we’re slaughtering.
deleted by creator
The thing that NOBODY seems to understand [is] you cannot group people together.
🤦🏻♂️
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
I know a person who genuinely thinks men shouldn’t have any rights because they’re so bad. She’s like “women are superior, they develop emotional maturity earlier” or “all men are assholes”. I think she’s a lost hope.
Don’t talk to them anymore. Antisocial people should be isolated.
Does she think trans men deserve rights?
Every answer to this question is that she’s a TERF
At some point I told her about how Meta removed tampons from men’s bathrooms and she was like “hell yeah men would just ruin everything, take all the tampons for no reason”… seemingly forgetting trans men exist?? Then I said “what about trans men?” and the answer was “oh”.
As a trans woman I don’t think I feel safe around her.
You have to look at it from the opposite to understand why social psychology and sociology works: people inherently group people together and that very grouping creates power imbalances and forces shared perspectives. Social constructs are constructs, yes, but they also have very tangible effects.
The root problem with society is people.
We live in a society.
I think the reason is our futile yearning for safety.
People look for patterns so they can fool themselves into thinking they are prepared. They know this group so they know what to expect.
Bullshit, of course.
People are complex, life is dangerous, face your anger and see it is just fear.
I really disagree here. Religion and book clubs are essentially special interest groups that involve choice to join or continue participating in.
Religion is for weak minded people.
Edit: I knew I should have trusted my gut when I got weird vibes from your post. Then I saw your Nazi apologia below.
What do you mean? They were used as examples of random groups of people. They’re good examples of that, right? Just like postmen, cyclists, gingers, diabetics… They’re groups of people that have one thing in common and can be completely different in many other aspects.
Being part of a group of your choosing is very different from being part of a group you are born into.
You’re right, in many ways it isn’t, but I don’t think it’s relevant in this context. We’re talking generalization when it comes to random groups. When you’re a cyclist, it’s reasonable to think you like cycling. It’s not reasonable to judge your morality, taste or family status. It works for all kinds of groups. We’re talking about the fact that groups of any kind are not homogeneous.
Some groups are very much homogeneous by design. Religious dimwits and police come to mind. I judge the morality of those groups all the time and I sleep fine. Meanwhile I feel kinda bad for swiping whichever way is ‘reject’ on dating apps. I’ll agree that is not right for most groups. But groups founded on hatred (police and rekigion) or for the purpose of being obnoxious/attention seeking (ABATE motorcycle chapters) can absolutely be generalized.
Now keep in mind we’re discussing in a thread where the top level comment was from an admitted Nazi sympathizer.
In some respects, yes. In the respect they are talking about in this comment, not so much.
The point of their comment is that even if you’re born with something in common with another person, say both of you are born left handed, what else can we infer about both of those left handers? Nothing, nothing at all. Sure they may have other things in common, they may both like the same music, but that isn’t due to their left handedness.
In some ways you can infer a few things about a group, for the book club example, you know they like books and that’s it, if it’s a science fiction book club then you can also infer they like science fiction, but can you tell me the race, age, sexuality, gender, food preferences, music preferences, TV preferences, medical history, yadda yadda, anything else about all the members of that book club? No, you can’t. Because (and this was the point of their comment) book clubs and those in them (and all other groups that aren’t used for examples here too) are not a monolith incapable of individual thought.
Thank you, yes, exactly.
What’s your problem with Buddhism?
What makes Buddhism a religion and not just a philosophy?
One could say the same thing about Christianity. Jesus basically ripped his notes from the Stoics.
But the answer is that in both cases there’s a lot of supernatural stuff in the texts. When you look at the totality of the scriptures and appended lore Buddha isn’t just some wise man who had and epiphany, while early scriptures were closer to that interpretation a lot of the later scriptures that describe enlightenment and elaborate on it… it’s basically more describing that people who reach enlightenment get superpowers, mostly omniscience but also like a bunch of other stuff. There’s also a lot of writings and different sects that elaborate on the afterlife and how one earns their place there. Like there is legitimately a Buddhist version of hell and it looks fairly familiar to the Christian one because both got cross contaminated with Hinduism’s Naraka and depictions of the Greek afterlife just like Christianity did.
A philosophy I think is a discussion about observations of life and how it is lived and particularly opinions on how it is lived well. When you start appending supernatural rewards and punishments to that discussion you get a religion or a cult.
I mean you can and you can’t. All X people are Y will never be true while some X people are Y will almost always be true. Stereotypes come from most X people are Y and is often true. There is a reason it got started although in some cases it is just straight up propoganda or differences in definition. Like lazy. lazy about what? I straight up rather do any physical activity than dealing with bills, budgeting, and taxes. My ancestry is known for drinkin. I rarely drink. Being able to count in a year the times on one hand and zero not being uncommon. If you were at a family wedding though you would not notice me not drinking especially given all the male family members who get closer to your face when talking to you the more they drank. So it does not hold for me but it does for like 90%+ of my extended family and from my other experiences with my folks who are not family and share my ancestry it is a typical thing.
This is part of thing with anything. Whos definition of feminism whos definition of communism. Jane Adams feminism. Hell yeah. But then some celebrity in the 80’s was arguing against physical fitness tests for firefighters saying well they could use like power axes or something (which you know. did not exist). Which is sorta funny to me because its sorta dissing on womens ability to pass the tests. Its like there are women who can pass the tests. Its not beyond them. Felt antifeminist to me.
EDITED - I think it was Gloria Steinem
Protip: when arguing online, a very good strategy for wasting other peoples’ time and generally being an insufferable prick is to always pick a slightly unconventional definition of the topic that you’re arguing about. It works even better if you shift your definition subtly throughout the course of the argument. That way, each individual statement you make is technically not false, while your overall “argument” is an inconsistent ill-defined undisprovable mess that’s impossible to argue against.
The tankie handbook.
Are the tankies in the room with use right now?
Yeah you can recognize them by intense bouts of denial with phrases like “Are the tankies in the room with use right now?”
But then some celebrity in the 80’s was arguing against physical fitness tests for firefighters saying well they could use like power axes or something (which you know. did not exist).
Who? I feel like a huge issue here is saying anyone who is a woman and says a thing = feminism. I know dozens of firefighters who are women, they pass the tests all the time. (My brother is a volunteer firefighter in BC, Canada.)
They are probably referring to Brenda Berkman who successfully sued the NY dept because they could not prove that the requirements of the test matched the actual conditions firefighters face: that as soon as women started applying they added a new condition that they had to meet speed requirements of carrying an unresponsive body up a burning building: something that you simply wouldn’t do.
The moment they reverted the test to what men had previously had to accomplish, 41 women passed with flying colors.
Been trying to figure it out and I think it was Gloria Steinem
sorry. she was actually a big feminist at the time and she mentioned as part of a feminist talk interview but for the life of me her name escapes me. Honestly any use of the term patriarchy pretty much makes me tune out given the system has plenty of women enabling it. When it comes down to it things are more rich/poor to me than anything else.
EDITED - I think it was Gloria Steinem
It’s why I don’t like applying labels to myself. Just seems like a reason for people to try to start shit or discount your opinions as soon as they can find a reason to “other” you. There are shitty people claiming allegiance to all factions.
Can’t tell his expression at the end. Is he mad or is he ashamed or does he kinda like her?
Basically this.
I like to imagine he took a minute to glue on eyebrows for the last frame.
The superior template.
Now it all makes sense!
My guess is that he’s farting
well, I’m pretty sure he’s an alcoholic (red nose. red cheeks.) and I’m pretty sure the shadow across the face means he’s mad.
She has the same red nose and cheeks. I think that’s just the author’s style.
She’s an alcoholic too
The artist’s atyle is poorly drawn muppets like flehy versions of Grover.
To each their own. I like the style. I think the characters are cute, with very expressive looks!
Yes, everything else about the art style is excellent. The noses stand out like sore thumbs, because they look like sore thumbs.
Hey, what’s wrong with fleshy versions of Grover!
Why
That is how I picture they would look in a live action adaptation. It is hard to look at them.
Like if the noses were the same as the skin tones or slightly darker it would look great to me because they are so expressive, but the seemingly glued on noses is a dealbreaker.
The entire “bear” thing is the exact same situation from the other side. The reality is that there is always nuance, while it is more popular / more often that people see the extreme outliers and attribute that to the entire group.
The point of the bear question isn’t blaming men. It’s assessing risk, and the risk of random man in the wilderness is far greater than random bear. Yes. A bear can maul, kill, and eat you, but a bear will never assualt, torture, or throw you in a pit for years on end. The risk of sexual and psychological abuse is worse to women than the threat of being eaten by an animal. It’s not about blame at all.
Ugh, not this BS again
I love that they made my point for me.
deleted by creator
Which makes sense. You get only one shot at life. So being more sensitive to negative bias could be an advantage to the individual.
I’m genuinely torn, because I support the message, but the execution is… very unclear.
You support the message that attacking a group people are born into and a group people choose to identify with are equally bad?
Q: Are Not All Proud Boys Like That? Or does it only extend to groups you support?
The have the “unacceptable” face, so maybe he’s the kind of people that he think feminist talk trash about? Idk 😂
Are people still saying that?
Not adults. People see posts from 14 year olds and take it as gospel for an entire demographic.
Reddit in a nutshell
I actually agree with this comic, feminism has been hijacked by career sociopaths who treat misandry as a guiding principal, but it’s sexist to talk about that.
I’m not saying that equality between the sexes or women’s liberation is inherently bad, but we need to ask if we’re demonizing men and if men deserve it, and the answers are yes and no.
That’s not to say women are not in danger of sexual violence, we’re the primary targets of it, but surely we can’t just write off an entire group as being… characterized specifically by this behavior.
I actually agree with this comic, feminism has been hijacked by career sociopaths who treat misandry as a guiding principal, but it’s sexist to talk about that.
I’m sure that is not what the comic is trying to say. From what you’ve said, you actually disagree with the message of the comic.
If it’s wrong to categorize all feminists in a bubble, then it’s wrong to categorize all men in a bubble, and since criminalizing masculinity is a goal of feminism, this comic debunks the bigoted movement.
If you really care about equality between the sexes, call yourself an Egalitarian. I will not be aligned with bigotry. Only difference between an Incel and a Radical Feminist is the plumbing of the cult leader.
and since criminalizing masculinity is a goal of feminism
This is factually incorrect.
Feminism is about equality and freedom of choice for women. Feminists in the real world are everyone who supports this, whether they apply the label to themselves or not.
You vehemently perpetuating false information is part of why some people think feminism is bad. Stop.
and since criminalizing masculinity is a goal of feminism
lulwat?
When you say “feminism has been hijacked by career sociopaths” what are you specifically talking about?
my guess is they saw a tweet they didn’t like, which is a damning indictment of the past 180 years.
They are literally doing the exact same thing as the guy in the comic but have too much cognitive dissonance to realise it.
Before I came out as trans, I was blamed for every problem women faced simply for existing, afterwards, I continue to be blamed for every problem women face simply by existing… only now it’s not just by TERFs, it’s also by the actual people creating problems for women.
One unfortunate aspect is that the existence of TERFs allows people to larp as feminists to justify bigotry. There are many who aren’t radical feminists by any definition (I think even Dworkin would see transition as an attack on sex based oppression), but being a TERF lets you cosplay a leftist ideology while reposting stonetoss comics and Daily Mail articles.
“One unfortunate aspect of the alt-right movement is that it allows people to larp as libertarians to justify bigotry.”
If this statement doesn’t change how you see what you’re writing, I don’t know what will.
The “larping” is that there are some genuine radical feminist critiques that worry that people transition to align with gender roles. Rhetoric online, which is often shitposting by transgender people, creates ecosystems where only TERFs talk to other TERFs, seeing posts which do seem to boil down to “clothes = gender” and this leads to a false understanding that people transition because of gender roles.
It was a complicated discussion that was happening before 2010 - see arguments over MichFest. But, in the 2010s, trans people started becoming the target du jour, and a combination of weirdos from the sex negative wing of feminism that were delighted to have people start paying attention to them and 4chan /pol/ saboteurs/alt righters delighted that they could dig up feminist critiques (eg, primarily Daly(? too drunk to Google)‘s The Transexual Empire and lesbian feminist essays from the 70’s (lesbian feminism is not lesbian feminists - lesbian feminism understands sexuality as a choice/about male separatism and thus has never been popular with actual lesbians)) and get “SJWs” to team up with them against a minority group…
JK was a feminist once…
So that makes all feminists bad? I would argue that JK may have actually been a somewhat good person right up until she stopped being a feminist and started being transphobic.
I’ve seen the acronym “FART” - “feminism appropriating regressive(?) transphobe”
What did JK do that was feminist? Nothing about the Harry Potter series is feminist by any means. Think about how Hermoine’s entirely justified activism is a joke. Think about how Hermoine is hastily paired off with a guy who treats her like shit throughout the series. (Cool, she becomes the Ministry of Magic as a consolation prize - that took as much thought and effort as making Dumbledore gay after the fact.)
JK even chose to go by her initials to falsely appear male (clearly aping JRR Tolkien) because she didn’t think a female author would sell. A teenage boy protagonist, who treats the female characters in his life as non-persons. (Why does he date Cho Chang?)
Compare to an actual feminist author like Ursula LeGuin, whose works think about gender and sex (both the verb and the noun) in interesting critical ways.
As far as activism - I think she fundraises for dv shelters. Good, but I think she also harassed a shelter in Scotland into shutting down for accepting trans women. I don’t consider that feminist.
You are really gonna blame Rowling for strategically marketing herself in a male dominated society? I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure she should entirely shoulder the blame for that. It’s extremely common for authors to use their initials and surname.
I agree with your assessment of the series’ content though.
By itself, it would mean nothing. But so much of the Rowling story is the kind of “having your cake and eating it too” - sorta how Harry gets to be a poor beleaguered orphan while simultaneously being ridiculously wealthy. Recognizing the way that female authors are often marginalized, strategically marketing oneself, and then doing nothing to really criticize or change the system once one gets on top.
And now you blame feminists? It’s kinda astounding that your life experiences haven’t taught you what nonsense stereotypes and generalisations are.
…I guess it is kinda in theme with the comic though. Assuming that all trans people would get that would be just as generalising, and very apparently wrong.
Friend I grew up watching various PSAs that showed boys as dumb and corrupt while talking all this “GIRL POWER! A WOMAN CAN DO ANYHTING A MAN CAN DO BECAUSE MEN ARE STUPID!” crap, how do you think that makes a boy feel? Especially when he doesn’t even want to be a boy to begin with!?!
Man, I’m sorry that you’re literally sharing a childhood traumatizing experience, and ppl can’t even empathize and are even attacking you. Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.
If it’s all about only the message approved, then they aren’t really what they claim to be.
Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.
Well, yeah? What’s the alternative? “If we like your background it doesn’t really matter what positions you hold - trans people should be allowed generalise a bit and trash feminism, as a treat”?!
I’m queer myself. I will hold you responsible for your words, no matter your background. Especially when it comes to feminism. And that obviously includes women of all backgrounds. If anything I expect more solidarity from them, not less.
The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.
And what does that have to do with feminism?
All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.
Feminism made the “Yes, All Men!” argument
All feminists?
Because if we had a mandatory global meeting I sure as hell missed my invitation.
Scientific evidence that g*mer brainrot transcends gender though.
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t say that misandrists qualify as “feminist”
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism:
feminism - noun - belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
But many of them claim they are feminists and are welcomed in because giving a test to prove it would be insensitive
Do you talk with many feminists? Because it sounds like you have confused reality with a conservative straw man of feminists.
Maybe you’re missing the whole point of the comics?
I mean I’m a single straight dude and I’m pretty much certain guys are trash.
So while not all feminists might think that, I could give them plenty of examples of all guys being trash
Edit: a bit too many of you took this way too seriously, it’s a fucking comic strip.
Yes not all guys are trash, but the number of times I have to call my friends out on something like “women expecting too much of us because they get paid less.” Like no, women expecting equality is not expecting too much.
I think you should change friends 😅
You’ll get it for real when you realize it’s not a “men bad” thing but more of a “people bad” kind of thing. Everyone has the capacity to do wrong, and a lot of people choose not to overcome that. Men are just typically in more of a position of power to be able to do larger acts of wrongdoing, and have historically either been punished lightly or not at all for many insidious crimes because of their predisposition to power.
This is exactly it. My wife had a father that was like my mother and I recognized the BS almost immediately. As bad as my mom was though she was more limited in bullying her kids being female and could only do it indirectly with my dad. Her dad though kept up being a significant negative influence for her well into adulthood. Her worst experience in life despite male power came from a female friend.
By that logic all women are trash too. I could give examples of just about every woman I know doing shitty things. Nobody’s perfect. People do shitty things. Sometimes it’s just here and there. Sometimes it’s a consistent pattern of behavior. All men and all women are not consistently bad, some are. If your friends are consistently like that you have bad friends. I have had to explain shit to my friends on occasion and I’ve had to have things explained to me. It happens but it’s far from a consistent thing and we’ve all gotten better as we’ve grown and broadened our perspective.
That’s just internalized misandry though
Pick me, pick me
Ok, what’s one example of all guys being trash then?
we don’t have a very good reputation.
Who’s “we” in this ?
cis men, from the looks of it
yes. cis straight men. well, mostly straight in my case, at least.
… said the incel
