Lemmy is a worse platform for women than Reddit was EDIT this link is an OLD POST that contains my thesis on the state of lemmy and is not the context of the much more recent comment in the screenshot. sorry for any confusion caused by this juxtaposition, my main goal with having this linked is to expose how nothing has improved
There are plenty of comments in that thread that express the same sentiment and have plenty of upvotes. The problem was that commenter came hot out the gate aggressive and putting words in people’s mouths.
I didn’t see anyone in that thread claiming that women were obligated to have sex with anyone, just a couple people saying they thought it was a tactical mistake for women to withhold sex from people they want to have sex with.
The commenter this was in reply to was definitely more wrong than right, but other comments explained why way better and were up upvoted for it.
you are not wrong but you being right sadly does absolutely nothing to fix the utter tragedy that is Lemmy’s ongoing legacy of being a fucking toxic waste dump if you happen to be a woman
I just feel like it’s always better to use real examples than manufactured ones, and holding up troll comments like this can do more harm than good for the cause.
you should go make your own post :)
it’s a tongue in cheek response against a wildly inappropriate comment blaming women for their victimhood. certain people hate to be called out for their violence-enabling rhetoric and that’s precisely what’s happening here.
And yet, based on context clues (upvotes on other replies), we can guess that the downvotes on that comment are based on its tone and not based on its message, which other comments delivered quite successfully. This is the exact definition of cherrypicking.
“oh noooo the comment defending women for being inexcusably insulted for wanting to preserve a modicum of dignity used sarcasm?”
tone policing behavior like yours makes this site miserable
You seem really invested in this being an example of sexism, regardless of what any evidence suggests. It seems incredibly disingenuous to take the most downvoted response and hold it up as emblematic. I’m sure that you can find plenty of real evidence of sexism on the platform and you don’t need to resort to cherrypicking.
Also, on tone policing, I was just telling you what it looks like other people decided to do based on context clues.
“Woman is not made for having sex. Woman is person.”
You’re doing a jig around this statement to refute the idea people weren’t hostile to the person who said this :)
Hostility to a person is not hostility to a message. There were other people saying the same thing and getting upvoted for it :)
No no but that comment boiled it down to a few clear cut words, no bullshit. And that’s the controversial part; the truth of the statement. ‘No cunt indefinitely’ is three words so personally I like it better.
Nobody in that thread wants to listen to a woman actually speak when they can talk over her and feel good about themselves. When she put it plainly they downvoted her. Pretty obvious.
There are too many people on the Internet (and likely also generally the world) who don’t know how successful sex strikes have historically been, and it shows.
An interesting variation on this I’ve heard that I think illustrates why it’s so inflammatory (and thus my issue with it even if I agree fully with what it’s saying) is changing it to whether you’d feel more comfortable with a Christian or Muslim at night in the woods.
Like I used to be racist against Russians because I’m Russian originally and I’ve tons of lived experience around Russians and I would sooner pick just about any other nationality before Russians to be around, I’m justified in this just as I’m justified in feeling that way about men, but at the same time, it’s no less inflammatory to say.
It’s all just ragebait. That’s why unlike many nuanced feminist arguments or discussions about male violence you’ve actually heard of it and see it on the internet, it generates engagement.
It just works very well, because everyone has to deal with men, but almost nobody knows that getting EATEN ALIVE is an option.
At least that’s what triggers me; Uninformed confidence.
Be it “Men can do worse”, “Inflation is high, because look at the prices (currently)”, or “Marshmallows on hot chocolate are great”.
“Not all men, but definitely this fucking guy,” moment
It looks like some person is stealing your icon! RUN!
In keeping with the theme of OP - a few weeks ago, on a post about that horrific case in France where the man got dozens of strangers to rape his wife, a good 70% of replies were some variation on “not all men”, and I posted this meme in reply to one of them, and my reply got removed for breaking the rules (not being civil!), but not a single one of theirs was. This was on one of the main news communities on this site. I blocked it after that, and all the other communities the mods mod. Fuck that noise.
It’s fucking awful. I feel guilty for not pushing back harder when the “not all men” crowd shows up, especially in the community I mod. I’ve been giving them too much benefit of the doubt in an attempt to not ruin the vibes. I won’t make that mistake again.
Realistically there’s only so much you can do, and sometimes it seems like for every one you push back against 3 more turn up. And the worst part is that we do our best to avoid them and their spaces, and stay in our own, but they come looking and just, can’t fucking not. And they come from all walks of life and political leanings. (sure, some more than others, but still all). It feels like a losing battle most of the time.
At this point I usually just block and move on, I can’t imagine having to moderate this mess.
i could tell you were describing [email protected] before i checked your modlog. i am so sorry you had almost identical experiences to me with that mod team which is utterly ill equipped to do their job. :(
Wait, I have a modlog? 😂
But yeah, I’ve seen that team do this same kind of shit quite a few times, where they’ll delete the comment calling out bigotry/trolling for not being “civil” but leave the bigotry/trolling itself. It’s classic tone policing which actively enables that shit, it’s gross. And yet, they’ve managed to monopolise large parts of lemmy, which is a great shame because it’s where most people congregate, but then that’s the beauty of the fediverse, there are plenty of alternative communities, that might not be as active or populated, but all things considered, that’s really not a bad thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ye lemmy has public modlogs, pretty slay https://lemmy.cafe/modlog?userId=6053228 :)
Oh hi, it’s the total stranger you accused of being a rapist in that dumpster fire of a thread. This is not an accurate retelling of what happened. The key difference is that while most other commenters were critical of the messaging in the post’s headline image (“Rapists are always a man”), you responded to them with personal attacks and bigotry.
Ironically, some of the only examples of sexism in the entire thread were from you, including:
decent men are aware that they are complicit by their very existence as men under the patriarchy, and invest their energy in being better and calling out their fellow men to try and improve your collective reputation
fellas is it sexism to echo sentiments long spoken by recognized feminists including bell hooks and Judith Butler?
this site is so silly on occasion.
It’s weird to think that’s something is not sexism just because it’s said by someone who’s a recognised ‘authority’ figure.
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex is not something you should eagerly hand wave just because it’s not your ‘side’.
If you think that quote is an example of sexism, you might be one of the reasons women would choose the bear.
If you believe in original sin and collective guilt for an immutable characteristic, then you are too far gone
Don’t worry, Men no is person.
So are bears back on the menu?
They never went away according to my Grindr feed.
the sick part is there isn’t even profit to be had here on lemmy :( so it’s all for nothing and i guess since fedi is modeled after for-profit platforms the same patterns play out
I think we can improve. We just need to do it for its own sake rather than to make it a friendly platform for advertisers.
Oh, and since the exact people your post is about simply can’t help themselves and are already pouring in to mansplain and make excuses for themselves, the obligatory:
I post some feminist shit, or at least critiques of men, and the comments are as expected.
I criticise men and am shocked they want to say anything in response.
Can’t you just be an ally?
To sexism? No, no one should be.
No, an ally to women generally, as everybody should be.
Every.
Fucking.
Time.
And if I know the post you mean, it reminds me a lot of that gillette ad from a couple of years back, basically telling men they can do better, for each other if nothing else, and they came out in droves to shout that actually, they really fucking can’t.
Patriarchy and the privilege it grants are one hell of a drug…
My objective? Destroy the Patriarchy, or do what I can to minimize it.
This is the way.
hell yeah brother!
I cannot imagine being so insecure with your manness that you feel the need to protest a razor commercial asking you to be a better dude.
I’ve been afflicted with Manhood my whole life. And razor ads asking me to be better doesn’t threaten me. In fact, they’re right, I can be a better man. I should go do the dishes; just after I feel better. This debilitating minor cold is getting me real down.
I remember that commercial.
and they came out in droves to shout that actually, they really fucking can’t.
Lmao. Gotta keep that bar low so people don’t expect anything from us. It’s surprisingly easy being a shitbag of a human; all you need is a lack of conscience
It’s surprisingly easy being a shitbag of a human; all you need is a lack of conscience
And it’s surprisingly easy not to be, too - learn that sometimes it’s ok, if not preferable, to shut the fuck up and listen to people taking bout their experience, without making it about you (generic you, obviously not you, Shovel). But when the world and society generally cater to you, and you’ve been socialised with those levels of entitlement, that thought never even crosses their minds…
IMO the context does absolutely make up for it. It’s a reply to:
Wait so the idea is do not sleep with any men? Even men who support your views and rights? This just seems like it would radicalize more incels or generate more sexism. Like the average person who did everything they could is going to go on a date and be told “I’m not have sex until the government is fixed” which would make me say “ok, well, hit me up in 4 years.”
The reply got downvoted because it virtually doesn’t address the argument. I read the parent comment as “this course will only inflame society’s opinions on women”. I agree that this doesn’t mean SA would be warranted.
Yikes. The context does not help.
isn’t it funny? “stop radicalizing me! stop radicalizing me!!!”
I’m so tired.
fair but have you considered the optics of saying you are tired :/ you seem to be implying that it’s all men making you tired (i didn’t see a “not all but some” disclaimer 😬) and i must say you saying such things on a platform with 99% men is more likely to harm than further the movment …
(deep sarcasm)
but what if this comment radicalizes men!?! I think you probably should add at least 10x more “not all men” disclaimers than actual text just to make sure not to push them into advocating against basic human rights /s
I’m kinda tired of arguments that expect the minoritized group to not “radicalize” the majority group. Why is it on the people who are being oppressed to not offend people aren’t even necessarily oppressors? Honestly, this comment is tone deaf as fuck.
I actually think the movement is a bad idea, but for another reason. I just think it’s unreasonable to ask people to avoid relationships. The male dating pool is totally fucked for girls, but if you have desires, they shouldn’t be denied. Even as a bi gal who generally prefers girls and isn’t looking to date guys, I won’t rule out men. The vast majority are undatable, but that’s because so many of them aren’t raised right. They aren’t taught proper empathy and respect for others, never having a chance at being good partners. It’s a systemic problem, only further reinforced by the internet and toxic male culture.
They aren’t taught the need to constantly earn women’s trust and love. They are taught that kindness AND strength are what women generally look for. Be a fucking hero who fights for his loved ones. Make her feel safe, not in danger if she doesn’t “pay up.” Be ambitious AND kind.
I’m kinda tired of arguments that expect the minoritized group to not “radicalize” the majority group. Why is it on the people who are being oppressed to not offend people aren’t even necessarily oppressors? Honestly, this comment is tone deaf as fuck.
It’s respectability politics. The same as when people complain about climate protestors blocking roads etc. There’s a huge segment of society that cares more about avoiding any sort of conflict than achieving just outcomes.
There’s a difference here. The roaders can individually decide to bike, but the potential BFs can’t take any individual action. If we want collective action, we need feedback for individual action.
No, I think the reply is appropriate enough. The comment you quoted is an extremely mysogynist take, falling right into the incel perspective of “if women refuse to have sex with men, they are inconsiderate.”
The value of women is not just for men to have sex with them—they have the agency to decide for themselves what they want to do with their own bodies. This is basically what the downvoted post is saying. Women choosing not to put out doesn’t “radicalize” incels any more than women showing a bit of skin creates rapists.
If there are men who can’t get over the fact that some women might choose not to have sex with them for political reasons, they can read Lysistrata or something.
I would link to Darorad’s reply if it weren’t moderated, so here’s the next best thing: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/11518563
That doesn’t seem to apply to what you quoted, however. The section you quoted framed sex as a transactional obligation on the part of women, asserting that if women refuse to sleep with men who support their views and rights, they’ll become radicalized and turn into incels.
The logic in that statement is that men who care about women are entitled to a bit of quid pro quo, “I support your rights as a person and you have sex with me” even though that is entirely antithetical to the point.
If men care about women’s issues, then they are inherently fine with women making a conscious decision to not have sex. Otherwise, it means they don’t really care about women’s issues, and likely never did.
No one is shaming women for choosing to have sex with people they want to have sex with, just that the decision of those women who wish to stop having sex be respected.
IMO the context does absolutely make up for it
It really doesn’t, since the comment you quoted is basically saying that women making decisions over their own bodies is the cause of misogyny, which is the most generic MRA victim blaming bullshit which doesn’t deserve to be legitimised by being seriously addressed, nor defended by people pretending to have good faith.
Do everyone a favor and consider your position more carefully. Particularly, consider the difference between an individual woman deciding what to do with her body and an entire movement asking for a large number of women to do (or not do) something with their body.
The posted comment doesn’t argue against that though, it’s a random correct statement that isn’t relevant to what they were talking about.
Say someone in the 2008 dem primary was arguing for Clinton saying america was too racist to elect a black man. Responding by arguing that race has nothing to do with how good a job someone can do as president is a bad response because
-
it doesn’t address the argument that person was making
-
it doesn’t address the racism in denying someone an attempt because of how you think others will respond to their race.
What’s the purpose of a sex strike? To push people to accept different politics.
The comment it’s in reply to is making an argument that it’s a bad strategy, but at no point indicates they don’t think women shouldn’t be free to make the decision. They’re arguing about efficacy.
Replying to that with a completely different argument does mean people downvoting it for relevance would be justified. There’s a deeper conversation about the type of harmful ideas that argument promotes, but this is a surface level response that doesn’t do that.
But hey, this is great, keep telling on yourselves, it makes you easier to block and avoid.
very discussion, much wow
Here’s the most crucial part of the moderated comment by Darorad:
Say someone in the 2008 dem primary was arguing for Clinton saying america was too racist to elect a black man. Responding by arguing that race has nothing to do with how good a job someone can do as president is a bad response because 1) it doesn’t address the argument that person was making 2) it doesn’t address the racism in denying someone an attempt because of how you think others will respond to their race.
-
The bullshit at the top of this thread inspired me:
Ratio again
the comment isn’t saying women can’t make their own decisions… the comment is saying that the guy wants to have sex, and if he can’t then they’re incompatible partners right now… women are allowed to make choices about their bodies, and men are allowed to make choices about activities they’d like to have in their lives
the reply comment implies that he only thinks about using a woman for sex, which is not what he’s saying at all
another example would be if 1 person wanted to live in the city and the other wanted to live in a farm: likely a deal-breaker, just like not having sex
another example would be if 1 person wanted to live in the city and the other wanted to live in a farm: likely a deal-breaker, just like not having sex
Only if living in the city is the same as bodily autonomy, and living on a farm is rape.
But hey, this is great, keep telling on yourselves, it makes you easier to block and avoid.
No, it isn’t.
That analogy would only work if the person who wanted to live on the farm just made the other person come with them. Breaking up and going their own separate ways is not at all analagous to rape.
this is a horrible read. it’s about how men not getting incentive to do the right thing would result in e.g. lawmakers being pressured to repress women. it’s fine if they only 4b those who don’t respect them or abortion
My issue with 4b is we know it doesn’t work.
What’s the one thing that we know helps people stop being bigoted? Exposure to the people they’re bigoted against. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2705986/
The 4b movement is like saying “the solution to racism is segregation”
On an interpersonal level, women absolutely should be wary of every man they come across, but that doesn’t mean a more extreme version of that works as a cultural movement.
believe what you want, but as a gay man (i say this so you’re aware that there’s no misogyny involved), i’d never date someone where sex was off the table… i wouldn’t force it on anyone of course, but we fuck or we break up - sex is too important for my mental health to deny myself
Lmao at the idea a gay man can’t be misogynist.
that’s not at all the intention of the comment - simply that when i make a comment directly related to my personal sex life, you’re aware that there are no women involved, thus the comment eliminates misogyny from the equation in that specific case. i’m sorry for not being clearer on that. i’ve added an edit to my comment so that it’s more apparent
OOP was downvoted for a non-sequitur on top of a strawman.
When their original argument was refuted they posted what OP posted above as if it was a relevant comeback.
OP is a malignant poster leaving out context.
link, please?Edit: found it.
Seems like pretty typical self-centred reply-guy behaviour, then all the men downvoting got annoyed because the person fighting on behalf of women in this interaction refused to entertain the implication that men are owed sex by women
Nobody said women owed anything. They are saying that collectively punishing men for things they did not do is a fast track to creating more incels.
Hello, thanks for your reply, I appreciate that we can have a civil conversation about a topic that can be quite heated. I’m a man, so I definitely can’t speak for women, but I try my best to listen, and I can try to pass on what I’ve learned!
You’re totally right that nobody in the screenshot wrote the words “men are owed sex by women”, but if you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt, I think there’s something a little deeper at play here, and I think it really depends on your perspective.
Rather than explain it directly, it might be easier to use an example - let’s say that you have a friend who you don’t want to have sex with. If that friend is really nice to you, and you don’t have sex with them, are you punishing them?
If that friend said something like, “You know, if you don’t have sex with us, we might become more violent and dangerous…” how do you think that would make you feel?
Personally, I would feel a bit scared by that sort of statement - I feel that it’s coercive, and it has a kind of veiled threat of violence there that makes me uncomfortable.
I hope that helps explain why some people might read the message differently from how you read it.
But this is about instructing women to withhold sex from men as a means to achieve their societal goals.
This does not make sense because It is counterproductive to punish people who already agree with your point of view.
Why do you feel like a lack of sex is a punishment? Isn’t a lack of sex the baseline? If I don’t buy my friend a gift, that’s not a punishment, that is a neutral action. Unless the implied assumption was that I owe it to them to give them gifts.
Thanks again for the reply - I think I understand your point, which I think is genuinely interesting and worthy of discussion, but there is just something about the phrasing that feels off to me, and just to be clear, I’m sure it’s unintentional. I’m sure we can both agree that we would always want to make everyone feel safe, respected and valued, but sometimes we can accidentally say (or write) things in a way that come across in a way that we don’t intend.
In my opinion, talking about women ‘withholding’ sex as a ‘punishment’ implies a certain level of expectation or entitlement, like men are entitled to have sex with women and if they don’t have sex then they’re punishing men. This is something that I think a lot of us sort of struggle to recognise as harmful, because we all are human and we know that we all have a need for sex, both men and women - but historically, this kind of framing, that men are entitled to sex with women. has been used to excuse violent sexual crimes
There’s totally a valid conversation to be had about how effective this movement could be, but I think that it’s really important that men like myself need to start from a place of recognising that our behaviour can be really hurtful to women, even when we don’t intend it to be, and that we listen to them when they tell us that we can make really simple small changes to protect their humanity, make them feel safe and valued, and recognise the part that we all play - consciously and unconsciously - in the system that has mistreated women for longer than we can possibly fathom.
In my opinion, talking about women ‘withholding’ sex as a ‘punishment’ implies a certain level of expectation or entitlement, like men are entitled to have sex with women
No they are not entitled. But the poster specifically instructs people to withhold sex. Even if the woman wants to have sex. This could make sense if the woman was having sex with someone who opposes the ownership of their bodies. But if the man already holds their point of view, what is the point? For who are they not having sex? What is being achieved?
Again, I totally get your point, and I think it’s a worthwhile conversation to have, but that’s not really what I’m here to talk about - I’m just trying to explain what happened in the comment thread, why people got upset, and how we can avoid that so that we can have open and productive conversations about these really sensitive topics without upsetting people.
The reality is that women so often have to deal with men trying to control their sexuality, so when we’re talking about these topics in good faith, we really need to be extra cautious that we’re handling these topics delicately and respectfully.
Putting the Nazi in Grammar Nazi?
Ugh.
I just wish misogynistic comments/voice logs could be taped to abusers’ foreheads.
to be a woman online is to be perpetually unwelcome
Hello, I’m a teenager from a third world country. I surely don’t like the way women are treated, and how society gives natural advantage to men. I want to be different, do something different. Do you have any tips on how my dumb self can act better in this area?
totally! i always recommend bell hooks’ the will to change as beginning material :) it’s not too long, is written in a way that is embracing of men wanting to do good, and it’s available free at the internet archive: https://archive.org/download/the-will-to-change-men-masculinity-and-love-by-bell-hooks-z-lib.org.epub/The Will to Change Men%2C Masculinity%2C and Love by bell hooks (z-lib.org).epub.pdf
Thank you!
i straight up blocked lemmy.world after the “strange man or a bear” thing blew up, and i realized LITERALLY THE ONLY PEOPLE arguing in favor of the man were all coincidentally on that instance.
honestly very incel-y
I really suggest people don’t block it. Lemmy needs active users and communities engaging with each other and while it is going to have some crazies just from how many people are on it, it should also be the least vulnerable to group think. When I hear of another instance defederating I always suspect it of being a fringe echo chamber.
Honestly though I would defend the man too. Take from that what you will, but I’ll just say it’s usually good to be exposed to people who disagree with you.
i respect your perspective, i’m absolutely not unblocking it tho.
it’s not the fact that they defended the man, it’s the way they were doing it. my experience has been wholly more enjoyable post-block, and i’d recommend anyone else in my shoes do the same thing.
i saw too much bad faith engagement to validate staying around in spite of “a few bad apples”. for a hot minute if it was posted on .world then anyone arguing for the bear in the comments would get dogpiled and downvoted to shit, and to me that was indicative of a larger problem than just “being too popular”
Fair enough.
thank you for the discourse, i appreciate your candor ^^
i mean tbf, speaking as someone that was very active throughout that, the reason for this may be that .world was (maybe still is) drastically overpopulated and undermoderated. one off offenses got knocked down but without a concerted effort repeat offenders that flew under the radar just enough times got a freebee to complain about getting radicalized another day.
can’t believe i’m defending .world mods who banned me for asking them to deescalate rather than amplify tos violating content lmao. no defense for the incels tho 😤😤
e:spelling
That sucks, but good on you for looking out for others. What community was it? If you want to call out bad mods, you could make a post on yepowertrippinbastards or fediverselore. Besides letting others know about the injustice, hearing about the drama can be very entertaining.
it’s the [email protected] mod team that’s just really abrasive and destructive. i usually post failures of moderation to [email protected] because it’s the least front loaded with conceptions of self interest, but that still comes up almost every time with the accusations of butthurt. and overall still it’s almost impossible to call out stuff that is outside the scope of the interests of the english speaking, white, christian or atheist male.
it’s really just sad, cuz here you have a massive example of a leftist and progressive space but with no will to engage with the existing global community. it’s like, “women exist, muslim individuals exist, POC exist but actually no we prefer to talk about OUR experiences byeeeeee.”
Shit. What’s wrong with lemmy world? That’s the instance I’m on.
Im a queer woman so take what you will from that…
It is the largest instance, or so I’ve heard, and I take that to mean it is the most plucked from the attitudes of the general public. Certainly how it feels over there.
Wait, yall were fighting against the man or a bear question like it’s unfair to men? You realize people can say anything they want, and that in turn can become viral right?
nah b i was on the side of: if men are getting offended over people choosing the bear, then they should be looking inward rather than picking fights with the question
Seeing the state if discourse in the B4 movement threads makes it so obvious that the present community on lemmy is wildly sexist and misogynistic. Like how egotistical and selfish do you have to be to see a movement that is a rational response to women having their bodily autonomy taken away from them in real time, and interpret that situation in a way where you perceive it as a threat to your personal chances of getting laid?
You could be seeing this movement and choosing to recognize that it is coming from a place of justified fear, anger, and suffering of women all over the country, and decide, “This situation is wrong, we need to fight this.” It’s not hard. Just be an ally.
No, seriously, that “movement” is not justified at all. It’s full of transphobia, homophobia, and on top of all this racism expected from Korea of course. They harassed trans people going to women’s university, death threat included of course, and also harasses any trans individuals appearing on timeline via QRT/Reply/etc. If Blahaj stands by its value of safe space for trans people, that “movement” should be banned outright.
Some good reads (though on twitter sadly): https://x.com/codud066/status/1855670602985873464 https://x.com/muntamor/status/1855683991262908714
i totally hear your concerns, it’s sort of a weird situation because the name is being adopted from an entirely different cultural context by people who might have just heard about it this week
i will say that all the genuine circles i have seen expressing interest in 4b have done their research and are outspoken about rejecting transphobia and only retaining the good parts in their practice, so that’s heartening :)
That’s hopeful to hear. The concept of the movement itself is decent, so I hope those don’t go the way of TERF like here in Korea.
chad ✅: wow this is insane behavior to see as a man but i understand that women would not be doing this unless the situation was really dire. i am open to listening first and will keep my knee jerk judgements private at least at first.
virgin ❌: wow this is insane behavior to see as a man, and this kind of shit is literally why you women experience sexism in the first place. actions (self preservation and solidarity) have consequences (sexism and radicalization). don’t mind me as i fill this entire thread about women asking to be heard with my hot takes on the situation 🤓☝️
Replace ‘virgin’ with ‘potential rapist’ and you’ve got it.
given the sensitive nature of all this, let’s maybe not repeat that one
wtf
How is that getting downvoted? What community is that? Dumb as fuck.
the comment is responding to someone claiming that women choosing to employ their bodily autonomy to protect themselves would result in even more sexism. victim blaming.
the comment getting downvoted is a clever and pointed tongue-in-cheek response to such an insulting take, but some people clearly don’t like seeing their rhetoric called out.
I’m suspicious. I’d like to know other comments that person has made. They might be a troll and that comment has nothing to do with the topic it’s in.
Also, good work Google AI. /s
You should be ashamed of that infinite tabs bruh
Those are emotional support tabs, I need them. Don’t dare to touch them!
no u
What Android Version is that? I haven’t seen a notification look like that in forever.
Looks like 10. It’s a Kyocera DuraForce Pro 2.
Huh. Only ever used their printers and their ceramic knives.
Old Android is surprisingly … nostalgic.
There are few rugged phone options and I’m not fond of the environmental impact of electronics productions. I run my hardware into the ground and frequently buy used.
I mean, I get it. I built the lineage OS Updates for my last phone myself when community support ended, and only replaced it last week after the screen broke. If it hadn’t, I probably would have replaced the battery, has kinda gone a bit bad after five years.
Still ordered a cheap tft screen that fits it (original amoled is too expensive to make sense) to be able to use it as a backup.
I bought new this time, but mainly because I needed a new phone quick. Also wanted one of the new Pixels with 7 year software support to put Graphene on, so I found an 8a for like 400€.
So yeah, fuck the throw-away attitude towards perfectly serviceable electronics.
https://kbin.melroy.org/m/[email protected]/t/557849/epic-ratio-rule/comment/4844000#entry-comment-4844000
That whole chain is a dumpster fire.
lol yea. there’s a few reasons you didn’t find it:
- you used search engine instead of your instance’s search
- you transcribed the comment wrong
In my defense, I only shared that screenshot because of the blisteringly stupid AI summary. I fixed my transcribe when I got to a real computer, tried several search engines and the instance I was on and got nothing. I assumed at the time that the comment was from another instance and it was taking a bit for the search back end to update.
Your phone’s screen ratio makes me uncomfortable.
Buy me a new phone then.
