You have the love the male commenters going “nuh-uh, that’s not what women experience!1” as they get offended and make it all about them and “not all men.” And then can’t figure out why this entire thread just lends this comment credibility. It was one of those every single thread things on reddit and it’s no different here. Except maybe worse.
Any policy that comes from this would also benefit men that have had to live with fake abusive images being generated of them. But some people would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. As long as women don’t get stuff, then it’s worth it for men have to suffer a little extra, amirite? /s
fuck straight white men.
But of course, this is what it always comes back to for men who try to make some transparent argument against protecting women from fake nude photos, revenge porn, domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc. It’s never a real argument. It’s some insecure guy getting his feelings hurt by just the mention of equality. They don’t feel special anymore, so they inevitably claim that women being protected from abuse is somehow a privilege. It’s just tired and predictable.
People care about women, you goon. Realize that there are many more important issues affecting the global landscape, we shouldn’t care about some fake naked pictures of a popstar.
This is the dumbest paragraph.
“People do care about women! That’s why ‘we shouldn’t care’ about the slew of abusive fake nude photos of them all over the internet! Literally every other problem on earth is more important than protecting women. See? I totally care!”
Don’t be obtuse and pretend you think this is just about “a popstar.” This problem and any legislation affects countless women and girls.
One thing about Lemmy is that it’s so much more misogynistic than reddit ever was, which I would have never thought possible.
deleted by creator
Why is the assumption that it’s always and only homeless people. Every time there’s one of those viral videos of people stealing shit from stores it’s somehow never homeless people.
But I guess if you want people without homes to start committing property crimes, one way to do that is to “move” them - meaning having a bunch of cops come, forcing them into areas with no services that they’re unfamiliar with, and then having waste management steal literally all of their worldly possessions and throw them into a dumpster. Yes, that will keep them from stealing in order to survive /s.
It’s always the people who bitch about people without homes who have zero interest in learning what it would actually take to help the problem. If they actually cared, they would never advocate for just “moving” people, because if they used their brain for two seconds they would know how much worse it would make the problem. These are human beings. You can’t throw them away, sweep them under a rug, or make them disappear into thin air. They need resources to rebuild their lives. I wish it were requisite to be homeless for a week in high school or something, since no one seems to be able to imagine what exactly they would do if they woke up tomorrow with nothing. It would never be a problem again.
I’m formally homeless, and I enjoy knowing that people are making the effort to point out that the only difference between us and “them” or “those people” or “the homeless” is that they lack a roof. The word “homeless” has so many negative connotations that there are people trying to reframe it’s meaning to be more objective. Everything we say and do has meaning, so changing a narrative is extremely important.
But sure, fuck those people. /s
It’s fucked up that I read a comment the other day making the argument that this would not be painless if he were able to fight it. And that comment got downvoted to shit. And here we are.
This should be a motivational post to get people investing.
Totally, because people who are struggling just love to take risks with their money.
Some of us go to concerts alone. It’s not that crazy to leave a single seat open.
Not that that should ever be the consumer’s problem anyway.
When are we going to start banning flavored alcohol like White Claw and Mike’s while we’re at it
nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet
To your point, maybe if what we got in return were worth a shit, people would be more willing to pay. But it gets shittier and shittier, more and more inundated with ads, worse journalism with more clickbait and AI, all for prices that go up every year to multiple times per year.
It was more reasonable when you could go to the store and pay for one newspaper or one issue of a magazine. Then if you really liked it you could subscribe. Now there’s no other option but to subscribe. Not everyone wants to be paying a bunch of separate subscription fees per month just to get decent news, and not everyone wants one hundred percent of a news outlets content. But we’re charged for it regardless. Fuck no, no one wants to pay for that.
Maybe if it were one of the only things that required a subscription. Like it used to be. But now, almost every single thing we use comes with a subscription charge and there’s usually no other way to pay for it. It’s all or nothing. And it gets totally exhausting, aggravating, and ridiculously expensive, especially when they force you to pay for a bunch of shit you don’t need, or they charge you cancellation fees on top of an extra month, or raise the monthly price without telling you, or tack on extra charges for shit that should just come with it in the first place, etc etc.
My point is, no one should defend the subscription model. If an outlet does good journalism, they’ll have donors. PBS Newshour, NPR, Democracy Now, they’re some of the best souces and they’re all nonprofit. And, what do you know, none of them have actual ads.
And shoutout to local libraries to loaning current magazine issues online. I get a Libby notification every time the New Yorker comes out. And I’m sure they’re losing a ton of money because I don’t personally pay for a subscription /s
Wasn’t Israel literally demolishing the homes of innocent Palestinian families, causing small children to become homeless overnight? Terrorist groups usually form in response to something. Like, I don’t know, an apartheid state killing them if they don’t leave their homes
Ok, so we’ve just never followed where the first amendment says there will be no national religion
I am so sick and tired of having two people standing right behind me staring over my shoulder as I’m using self checkout at walmart. It makes me never want to go back there. I actually have never “forgotten” to scan anything, ever. Yet these mfs are breathing down my neck at every store, every time I go. Target is the opposite. I swear these LPs (the plain clothes people but with walkies, come on) and workers are next to me at all times when I’m shopping. But then they usually leave me be at self checkout. I guess by then their ridiculously invasive theft monitoring system has determined I’m not a threat or something.
Fuck both of these companies. And fuck them even more for running every smaller company out of business so we have nowhere else to shop when we’re sick of being treated like criminals and sick of being sold garbage at some insane markup.
What a gross comment
And headlights that blind everyone around you
Went through the same thing with Ross. Absolute shit show of a company and they treat their workers like trash. Of course we had to sit through a blatant anti union video the first day.
I read that Denmark releases a list every six months of the skills and degrees that are allowed to immigrate, or get priority or something like that. From looking at the last one I assume they value education, the liberal arts and humanities a lot more than the US.
It ends up being a catch 22. When you want to leave the US because of a lack of upward mobility, social services, jobs in your field, and you can’t save because of healthcare, rent, and debt, then how can you have enough money to move to another state, much less another country?
I am just saying that this burden shouldn’t fall on other people in material need.
Well, good thing it doesn’t in this case.
The whole point is that everything in this field is already, by default, directed at men. That’s what it’s like in the US. It’s the same with race. And saying we have have equality when we don’t is just ignoring the way these divisions affect historically oppressed groups. Acknowledging systemic hierarchy and division between races and genders in order to fix it doesn’t automatically mean you have to ignore class divisions. They’re far from mutually exclusive. Why would it be impossible to acknowledge both at the same time?
It’s to the point where no one else can have anything without men going “what about me and my problems?” “Well here’s what I think about all these social issues that have never and will never negatively affect me.” As usual, the “not all men” of every comment section of every article about a women-only-something-or-other are just making a great case for women-only-something-or-others.
?