I wish we could purge this idiotic nonsense.
The media reporting on the awful outrageous things didn’t elect Trump. The voters who voted for Trump elected Trump.
It’s news when Trump says awful outrageous things and they should be covered more, not less.
Otherwise you end up ‘obeying in advance.’
Fucking shithead morons still blaming the media instead of Trump and Trump’s voters. Stop it.
unironically, he ought to be next, and he better know it, and he better go quietly
I don’t think the fascism would exist if it wasn’t profitable to give it a platform.
That’s stupid!
I am shocked to see this pseudofascist apologia so highly upvoted.
It’s not the media’s coverage of the fascism that’s the problem.
You would rather deflect blame to the media than point the finger at the fascism. Shame on you.
this means that if Unity sends you a bill, you don’t have to pay it, and if they take you to court, you prove that you’re acting within the terms of the license you agreed to, which keeps your lawyer fees to a manageable level because you already have all the documents you need: the contract and your source code.
I mean right? IANAL.
is very fascist in of itself.
No. It’s not fascist to have a firm and authoritative opinion. It is, perhaps, violent and authoritarian in outlook, but conservatives have just tolerated if not endorsed an insurrection under false pretenses and those conservatives have yet to kill the traitor responsible for it, so contemplation of violence is justified because this ‘cold civil war’ as Vivek called it is not going to end with that boomer criminal in power ever again.
you tell yourself a pretty story to make you feel better
I don’t think I shall commit to the insane proposition that humans use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors when climate change is currently killing the planet’s ecosystems off. To some extent I think you’ve got a high bar to clear for that proposition to be accepted!
Jokes or half-jokes aside, it’s not a new observation that people rationalize their politics after having decided what it is they feel. I’ve seen too much consensus reality with completely reasonable paragraph after paragraph to take reason all that seriously.
But I do believe that people are ‘reasonable’ in the way that you say: we don’t go around doing things just because (and to the extent that we do, it’s a good thing!). It’s when a group of people gather around a list of reasons that become an ideology that I start to get twitchy.
Feminism is a great movement but men who apply it as an ideology have missed something fundamental about the basis for reason in the expression of emotion.
I have explicitly told you I don’t care if I come off as unreasonable, so what’s your problem?
And what I do is speak with anti-women men online without trying to convert them to an ideology which is based around helping women.
Don’t gatekeep assistance by setting an arbitrary bar. It’s unhelpful.
fuck off? like do you understand how incoherent you are here? no, how could you, your entire ideology is based on the incoherent contradiction of feminism-for-women and feminism-for-everyone.
This is weak.
Then read it again. And don’t police tone.
We’re men helping men over here.
No, you’re posting online.
Do you personally volunteer at a battered women’s shelter? Then you’re a male ally.
Do you personally volunteer at a suicide hotline? Then you’re a man helping other men (when those men call in).
Otherwise I suspect, admitting that I don’t know you, that you think that you’re on a team that’s the good guys, and that you’re the only game in town, and you’re threatened that I don’t expect feminism to be something that it can’t and shouldn’t be, no matter how much ideological gymnastics are performed to try and convince men that feminism is on their side.
If you (or your ideology) profess a belief that you’re capable of being on everyone’s side you are grandiose and delusional. Help the people you can help, especially offline, but don’t be an ideological evangelist online because that isn’t meaningful participation in our society.
Yes we should try and make a society by everyone, for everyone. Intersectional feminism teaches us that the way to do this is to listen to the people with the experience, not the ideology which you, @surewhynotlem, are centering.
I am taking some rhetorical leeway towards a more radical presentation of the perspective, for clarity.
Solidarity can only be achieved once people can recognize one another as equals, and “women tell men how men should advocate for themselves” is not equal recognition. Of course women don’t think they’re womansplaining the oppression men experience.
I don’t believe in reason-based argumentation. Reason is how consent is manufactured. I trust reason only within the confines of the emotional message a so-called rational actor is emitting within the performance of the ritual of discourse. Too many women have been told to shut up for being ‘unreasonable’ for me to take reasonability all that seriously.
Certainly mothers should perform their motherhood within this lens. Their motherhood is centered, not the primacy of their opinion. The mistake the essentialization&monopolization type feminists make is centering feminism, when an ideology is not a cure for anything except the nagging sensation that if we come up with and communicate the right ideas the problems will go away.
I understood this perspective already. You’d rather process suicide into a pipeline in which “reasonable” suicide is more common than deal with the factors driving people to suicide.
Your need to control the “problem” is part of the overbearing control driving people to suicide. It’s my opinion that you’d be better off accepting the choice and not trying to second-guess men who shoot themselves, even if they’re drunk, impulsive, or any manner of “irrational” about it. (Rationality is a myth designed to sell more socially approved behaviors.)
In my left leaning circles it’s pretty well understood that feminism is about helping women. And that’s a good thing. Trying to make feminism an ideology which serves all genders is problematic because it implies an omniscient perspective counter to proper intersectionality. Men experience oppression but only men can represent their oppression in discourse.
Women can’t and shouldn’t feel like they can have an opinion on men’s issues. “Stay in your lane” comes to mind.
deleted by creator
Expecting women to help men is like expecting men to give women the right to vote suddenly on their own initiative.
If you’re essentializing the left you’re stuck in meaningless ideology. “Kill All Men” is a good T-shirt and let’s not pretend women shouldn’t look out for women. Intersectional Feminism might have good ad copy but expecting an ideology to cure all problems is a broken (and male-oriented) way of viewing the world.
“If we just get the ideology right the hard work will disappear!” No, men are still going to have to help other men and “Intersectional Feminism” is still going to be either 1) a way to a more nuanced feminism (a good thing for those feminists to develop, don’t get me wrong), or 2) an Extremely Online project of no real consequence.
I know you mean well but you’re like the person who makes suicidal tendencies more powerful because you want to shut all the windows in a burning building because you personally find falling bodies less aesthetically pleasing than burning ones.
I agree with that but that’s not generally the criticism leveled at the media for their coverage of Trump’s awful and outrageous statements.
Basically you’re saying the media should cover Trump more and more critically. OP’s comic is suggesting that the media is blame for giving Trump coverage, for reacting to Trump.