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
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.
he was a competitive ballroom dancer
That’s a new one.
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
What a gross comment
And headlights that blind everyone around you
I think it’s part of the way we are socialized into a society based on economic competition. So it seems normal to us, but it’s just another way of saying “it’s not perfect, but it’s the best/only system we have!” as conservatives are so fond of saying. I don’t think it’s hardwired at all, but we’re intentionally taught that it is.
I took an anthropology class once and learned that there’s archeological evidence of early tribes taking care of disabled elderly (for the time) people. It would have taken a lot more energy to take care of a disabled person in a hunter gatherer society than it would now. I feel like a capitalist would have just left them to die in a cave because that’s what Ayn Rand would have done.
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.
this seems the completed detached thought of someone who never faced material difficulties.
Yes, all of your comments do.
?