I mean, as a dude, I damn sure would feel safest around lesbians if I was worried about that.
Idk what like the girl animal “equivalent” of a bear would be, except one that I am not quite sure if it is offensive or not.
Fucking queer is super accepted now, but then I watch my daughter, who has dated women before, and is not shy or ashamed, and I do believe is still fine with doing so in the future, call her brother or someone on YouTube gay as an insult.
A tree isn’t going to use those emotions you shared when your were feeling down against you when she gets mad that you forgot to unload the dishwasher two months later 🤷🏻♂️
I’m bi and call stuff I don’t like ‘gay’ all the time. I also call stuff I like ‘gay’. I don’t think that the use of a term by those it applies to can really be negative as its more of an empowerment thing abt takibg the word back for the community. It’s like getting mad at people that call each other the n-word (especially if you aren’t black yourself).
That’s because it wasn’t meant to be a debate, it was meant to illustrate a point.
People who didn’t get it and people who did get it but didn’t like it (i.e. misogynists) turned it into a debate. The latter also proved that point with the large number of rape and death threats.
Yeah, god forbid people get angry when others make sexist remarks! They must be real misogynists for not liking sexism!
If you replaced the “man” with “black man” or “black person”, or if someone said this with immigrants, it wouldn’t need to be explained to you or anyone why this is a pretty fucked up thing to say, but for some reason when it’s just “man” it’s okay and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist, according to you. If I made a general frustrated remark about women, plenty of people would take issue with it, and I don’t think you’d would be saying “it wasn’t meant to be a debate, it was meant to illustrate a point”, would you?
How about just stop using sexist rhetoric? There are a lot of people on your side who would agree with you if you just dropped the needlessly sexist and divisive rhetoric.
And before you get there - and if not you then I’m sure someone will think of saying it - yes, it’s true that the world and system we live in isn’t as hostile to men as women, black people, and immigrants, but progressive spaces definitely tend to be the opposite. And believe it or not, that actually has an effect with pushing younger men into the arms of the alt right; you can insult them and just call them fascists if you like, but that doesn’t change the reality that young hormonal men going into progressive spaces and seeing this kind of rhetoric will feel excluded, pushed out, and like the world is against them.
Should be pretty clear if you actually bothered to read it, but I’ll spell it out for you: P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E-S; and overall people who acknowledge the experiences of women that this is supposed to highlight. And I am also on that side, I just think you’re doing an absolute shit job of it, being needlessly discriminating, and creating division - as I already explained.
By just highlighting the experiences of women in the society we live in, and all the sexual violence they fall victims to, and how much violence is specifically directed at women - without resorting to cheap inflammatory “memes” (*). And as another way to a solution, we can also just try to be and create good role models for young men.
(*)And saying that has actually reminded me, that’s usually exactly how the far right likes to act and spread their message too: inflammatory rhetoric that can make a catchy sound bite that will reach a lot of people, but which has no real depth to it. I’d rather not those tactics and actually try having real conversations.
What are you talking about? When did I even say anything like that? Of course they will still get threats, the point is what is the best way to move forward, raise attention to these issues to bring about a better society, instead of making the situation worse, which is what I think your behavior does.
I’m really not sure if you’re even engaging in good faith and I’m not gonna spend all day on this, so this will be the final thing I’ll say:
I think that meme is unnecessarily divisive and will cause the average man (at least young man/teenager) who stumbles into it to feel attacked, and even more so when accused of either “not getting it” or “being a misogynist”; and in a time when they are just a couple clicks away of falling into and alt-right pipeline that will acknowledge their feelings and tell them the left/progressives have it out for them, it’s really unproductive to use rhetoric like that, which can make them feel “othered” and part of an out group.
I’m sorry, but if a “debate” like this is all it takes to turn someone into a redpilled incel, they were going to become one anyway and we have much bigger problems.
The fact is that women get attacked just existing in an online space and a scary amount of men feel threatened any time a woman speaks up for herself. Because that’s patriarchy. When the power structure is threatened in any way, No matter what example a woman gives, no matter how hard she attempts to not be divisive, there are still a bunch of men who feel threatened by her suggesting that any man may possibly pose a threat to a woman because they take it personally.
And they will feel ‘othered’ because the patriarchy has raised them to believe they are the superior humans because of their gender and any suggestion that some men may do the wrong thing where women are concerned is an explicit threat to them personally. And the whole point of this is that a woman doesn’t know whether the strange man she encounters in the woods will do the wrong thing. There’s just no way to know whether or not a man will assault her. People can claim that’s true about strange women as well, but, again, that’s missing the whole fucking point. Again, though, the point will be missed no matter how diplomatically it is put because it challenges the patriarchy.
Okay, this comment was the best so far and actually seemed to care to make a point/converse, so I’ll make just one final reply.
Your first sentence might be true for older men, or men who are already “allies” to put it simply, but it’s simply not true for younger men, and again it’s also just unhelpful and pushes people away. Overall, it makes you sound like you care more about being angry and being right, than actually helping to make society better. Not that I don’t understand that feeling by the way, I’m just saying it’s unhelpful and not constructive.
And yeah, off course there will always be some men who will feel threatened anyway when people raise the issue, but the question is how many feel threatened and “othered” in one situation versus in the other situation. I mean, I’d hate to fall from a ladder, but I’d rather fall from a short ladder than a tall one; does that make sense? I’d rather you go with the option that will push less young men into the arms of people like Andrew Tate, rather than the one that will push the most just because you’re angry and want to make your point in the most brutish way possible.
And they will feel ‘othered’ because the patriarchy has raised them to believe they are the superior humans because of their gender and any suggestion that some men may do the wrong thing where women are concerned is an explicit threat to them personally.
They feel “othered” because the meme is inherently sexist, and if they complain they get called sexist. Again, imagine if instead of “men” this is talking about a marginalized group and the problem becomes explicit. Just because men are not a marginalized group in society, does not mean that the same feelings are not evoked in them when confronted with such rhetoric.
You make a lot of good points, but where I am stuck on is the idea of blaming these videos (especially the initial ones, not all the reactions) for people falling off that ladder and becoming an incel. That takes years of grooming and if they were at that point, something was going to push them over sooner or later.
Also, maybe it is sexist for all of those women to find strange men more threatening, but it doesn’t change the fact that a large number of women do feel that way and maybe it should be explored why instead of criticizing them for it.
You should look into the origin of the word meme. It’s not terribly old and you clearly don’t understand it. You’ve also gone and thrown away your benefit of the doubt by arguing semantics on what’s clearly meant to be a lighthearted and hyperbolic comparison. Propping up random ideas and putting them, as words, in someone else’s mouth is dumb as hell. Pretty sure there’s hundreds of places online where you can argue with other people who don’t know the difference between socratic and aristotelean logic.
Yeah, so I think it’d be fine, since I’d think the charge limit would be about the same as the discharge limit of the power bank. It would heat up a normal amount for charging and being charged at the same time, but I don’t think it would melt down or anything. It’d just drain slowly over time.
A quote I heard from a Greek minister (from memory). “If Germany had a choice between doing the right thing and hurting France, they will hurt France.”
“We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms.”
Estimating how many copies you sold based on your own ‘data models’ which is impossible to track? Isn’t that like a giant red flag for laundering money?
Yeah I don’t understand how that works. Will that even stand up to a lawsuit? Wouldn’t they have to give up stuff in discovery if a game company sues to find how they were billed?
I think it’s crazy that they want to write invoices based on estimations. Why didn’t I ever do that? “Oh yeah, I estimate that I worked about um… 2 weeks on that feature.”
Surplusable farming is literally the basis on which all civilization is built
Like the whole point of the way things work for us now is that you don’t have to be a farmer or a hunter or a gatherer to be able to have access to a consistent source of food.
People romanticize about the idealic agrarian past but human civilization was literally invented over how back breakingly difficult that kind of work is for people who aren’t built for it.
This is also a major point of livestock. If you have more produce than you can eat, feed the excess to some animals and they will keep those calories fresh and delicious over the winter.
Adding on to that, its not just the surplus produce. Its all the rest of the produce that’s unusable by us humans.
When we grow something like corn, we’re only growing it for the kernels that we can consume. We can’t physiologically make use of the stalks, stems and leaves, but an animal like the goat? They’ll chew up anything green and turn that into usable calories we humans can make use of.
Doesn’t even need to be green, just any sort of plant or really any sort of organic matter. Eating goats that have lived off of old trash is probably not the best idea though
Which neatly raises the point of how modern large monoculture does a lot less of that kind of use of agricultural products unusuable by humans.
Absolutelly, the whole of a cow slaughtered in a slaughterhouse is famously used (down to the hoves) and nothing thrown out, however you don’t see goats being raised on the unusable parts of a corn plant (whilst wheat straw is actually used as feed, for corn the silage for cattle made from it uses the whole plant including kernels not just the left-over unusable by humans parts).
This is one of the things I find funny about modern day self sufficient communes. Subsistence farming is awful, industrialized farming is less awful, but still far more work than most are willing to ever do.
In theory, some of those communes are cool. Way less wasteful than suburban living arrangements.
But I do worry about those communes, honestly. The demographics they attract are easy to abuse: aging conspiracy theorists with low education. If the commune owns the land, or even worse if an individual owns the land, then those people could be forced to leave and become homeless. Even if they did own property in the commune, it might be able to act as an HOA or local township and start charging them until they can claim the property that way.
Modern farming techniques consider sustainability, the larger problem is countries using traditional methods that are extremely harmful like burning forests.
Yeah sure. They consider sustainability in that the current generation of poisons they use haven’t been proven unsustainable YET. When they are proven unsustainable, they’ll move to the next generation, that hasn’t been proven YET…
Also systemically annihilating everything except that one crop you want to grow makes your farmland an ecological desert, that doesn’t sound very sustainable either.
Unless you’re of the conviction that farmland shouldn’t be in any way part of nature, and we should concentrate on just growing crops there and every other kind of life there should be discouraged, and by doing that as dense as possible we keep more space for actual nature.
Though i think farming that leaves meaningful room for (some) nature to coexist with it doesn’t do that much worse in yield to make the modern ‘kill everything’ approach worth it. But we’ll see what the future brings i guess.
But just being like ‘modern farming techniques consider sustainability’ seems pretty naive to me…
The industrial farming of corn in the US requires using hybrid corn strains to reach the yields it has, which in turn requires the use of fertilizers because the natural soils is incapable of sustaining the density of corn plants that hybrid varieties achive.
Those fertilizers in turn are mainly made from Oil, which is a non-renewable resource, making the whole thing unsustainable. It’s is possible to make the fertilizers sustainably, it’s just much more expensive so that’s not done.
The US is so deeply involved (including outright military invasions) in the Middle East from where most of the oil comes because in the US oil it’s not just a critical resource for Transportation and Energy, it’s also a critical resource for Food because it’s so incredibly dependent on corn (which is estimated to add up directly and indirectly to more than 70% of the human food chain there)
PS: There is a book called The Omnivore’s Dilemma which is a great read on this.
Fertilizers are made from Amonia which in turn is made using the Haber-Bosch process which requires fossil fuels to provide the necessary energy and as reactants (see this related article).
There is also “natural” fertilizer made from organic mass left over from other activities which would otherwise go to waste, but that’s insufficient for large scale intensive farming (composting is fine for your community garden or even for supplementing low intensity agriculture, but not for the intensive industrial farming growing things like hybrid corn).
Finally, the use of techniques like crop rotation which lets letting fields lie fallow so that natural nitrate fixation occurs and the soil recovers do not make the soil rich enough in nitrates to support hybrid corn growing because, as I mentioned, the plant density is too high to be supported by natural soil alone without further addition of fertilizers.
Fertilizers are made from Amonia which in turn is made using the Haber-Bosch process which requires fossil fuels to provide the necessary energy and as reactants
That’s exactly what I said! Fertilizer is not made from oil. The factory is powered by oil. Just like your home where you garden is powered by oil.
Natural Gas - which is not renewable - is a reactant and Oil is still involved indirectly as a means to generate the power needed for the process. This can be replaced but is more expensive.
That said, it’s unclear to me if Oil is somehow used at the chemical plant to generate said energy (for example, to reach the necessary temperatures) or if it’s even more indirect than that and it’s just fuelling Power Generation plants which in turn provide electricity used in the heating, pressure generation and subsequent cooling for that process, in which case it could be replaced by something renewable.
If it is the latter case I have to agree that it’s not quite as bad in the renewable sense as I thought.
There’s still different approaches to it though. The default industrial gigantic monocultures with massive aquifer drilling is for sure missing a few delayed, less visible costs in the equation. “Improve industrial farming, adjust it back to a more normal scale and add some diversity between the fields and rotate crops!” just isn’t a very catchy slogan I guess.
Yep that’s a big red flag, unfortunate it’s so common.
To explain further, the problem is money as an end and the product the means. The best companies with the best products and services are ones that view their product/service as the end and money as the means. Such a company is satisfied when their product or service is the best it can be. A company viewing money as the end is never satisfied and the quality of the product/service is only relevant insofar as it’s not a barrier to making more moolah.
This feels like one of those right wing memes that could go either way, but let’s break it down like this Uncle Ben and Aunt Jamima are both domestic servants, do you think that’s an appropriate mascot for a company? Do you think black folks want them as some of their oldest icons?
Land of lakes also has a stereotypically dressed native woman who probably wouldn’t dress like that at all even back in the day.
I get that most people couldn’t give a shit either way but when you use your brain to think about how messed up presumably white owned companies are for using slaves and genocided people as their logos or mascots is pretty fucked.
But hey you’re not here for an insightful discussion, you’re here to get those hate clicks.
Well, the Sun-Maid girl is clearly working a job that’s mostly done by immigrants from the south these days, so using a white woman instead of a brown one denies them representation. But using a brown woman would also be racist because it would perpetuate harmful stereotypes… hm, what to do?
Little Debbie is clearly a child. Do you want children to be exploited for marketing purposes?
At least a Quakers are historically against war and slavery, so I guess he can stay.
As a European (we had slavery, made more wars than you can imagine and have probably the worst history you can’t even imagine) nice try locking people up in “black” vs “white”.
No, I’m just pointing out that “they practiced slavery” isn’t an argument you can just throw at any race or nationality in particular without inflicting massive self-damage. Literally everyone is guilty of it.
haha no. such a huge claim requires substantial evidence - and you left yourself an easy out. Many cultures practiced slavery, true. Most cultures? Maybe an argument could be made. All?
ALL?
That requires substantial evidence there’s absolutely nothing supporting it.
Now I get it, the easiest way to debase your enemy’s righteousness is to drag them down to your level. But you don’t get this one shitbag. Slavery isn’t universal. You just want it to be so it makes you feel better about your premise.
Since you’re the one making the claim that not all cultures have a history of it, I’ll leave it to you to find me a single counterexample of a culture that never practiced it. But even if that should exist, I think there’s certainly overwhelming evidence that it was extremely widespread and common practice on every single continent at some point in history.
Why is it so important to you that “almost all cultures” practiced slavery? What does that do for you?
At the risk of repeating myself: “they practiced slavery” isn’t an argument you can just throw at any race or nationality in particular without inflicting massive self-damage.
It doesn’t absolve the inherent evil of the institution. No amount of “well billy and tommy did it too” makes it right, kiddo.
I never claimed that. But I’m still waiting for you to find me a single example of a culture that never practiced slavery.
So… Now that you have multiple examples, what then sport? Will you reevaluate your flawed premise and integrate new information that refutes your logic, or will you just piddle along with the flawed reasoning that got you here?
I hope you’re willing to learn because that is historically incorrect. The first nation to abolish slavery was Hati around a decade before the first European country (Denmark). That is if we are talking abolish and keep abolished in all territories controlled. Persia is possibly the first country recorded to have used slaves but they would have periods of “abolishment” which were probably good for causing slave revolts in new areas they were thinking of conquering. Arguably the first country to have and to abolish slavery.
I suppose that once again depends on definitions. There’s likely a reason people often use the term “wage slavery” these days even though on paper, salaried workers are by no means slaves, since they can quit whenever they want to, but that doesn’t mean that in practice, people don’t end up in situations that feel like slavery anyways.
Debt slavery is another one that gets thrown around, even though the possibility of declaring bankruptcy and thus getting off the hook for only a fraction of what you owe is technically available. It almost seems as if slavery is part of the human condition, and if not externally imposed, people will find a way to self-impose it in one way or another.
Either way, it seems silly to suggest that only the slavery imposed by one particular group of people on one particular group of other people is morally objectionable, and I’m also not entirely convinced that erasing any reminders of it does anything at all to right that wrong. At some point, it must be possible to look back at the past and say “well, that was awful, but at least we’re over it now”, but that isn’t possible if you erase any and all traces of it, is it?
Yeah it’s hard to have a good faith debate about a post that wasn’t made in good faith. Anyone who’s being intellectually honest wouldn’t try to equate these company mascots.
From 1946 to 2020, Uncle Ben’s products carried the image of an elderly African-American man dressed in a bow tie, which is said to have been based on a Chicago maître d’hôtel named Frank Brown with the name “Ben” being a possible reference to a shrewd rice farmer from Houston. In 2020, Mars told Ad Age, “We don’t know if a real ‘Ben’ ever existed.” According to Mars, Uncle Ben was an African-American rice grower known for the quality of his rice. Gordon L. Harwell, an entrepreneur who had supplied rice to the armed forces in World War II, chose the name “Uncle Ben’s” as a means to expand his marketing efforts to the general public.
Only the picture. There was an actual Uncle Ben who was a rice farmer. And an actual Aunt Jemima making pancake mix. Both were born into slavery, both had white corporations exploit them. Uncle and Aunt are also both titles used in the Antebellum South for older house slaves trusted by the family.
I’m not making a statement about the post, but “it’s just shit posting” is a reeeeaaal good way to turn this place into a nazi bar. Not calling OP a nazi, just saying that this argument right here is chum in the water for them
Mia, the Land o Lakes butter maiden, is actually rather interesting, at least the modern version they got rid of. The artist was a member of the Red Lake Chippewa and the design included traditional Ojibwe floral motifs. Yeah, it needed to go, but it wasn’t the worst by a long shot.
I just love the idea of a native american being iconfied for… butter.
like, wow, that’s so very, very native and authentic - butter.
I get it, it’s the land-o-lakes, minnesota, and they take butter fucking serious folks, they make it, they eat it, they sculpt it, so yeah, they’re REALLY into butter… but why the stolen iconography? why associate the native americans, who didn’t domesticate cows, with butter of all things?
like what the actual fuck was the line of thought?
Your thoughts are interesting, but I always presumed it was just a simple tribute of sorts. Like you said, Land-O-Lakes, beautiful, natural scenery of America…accompanied by a beautiful Native American woman.
Now take the product itself, like you said, make it make sense. Ehh. Maybe you just can’t. They wanted a mascot & instead of a smiling cow or potato, they chose a woman. Sex sells!
cultural appropriation sells. it’s not just any woman kneeling serving up the dairy products, nah… keep telling yourself it didn’t mean anything, maybe one day you’ll believe yourself, but make no mistake, they wouldn’t have put a white woman kneeling there.
The native cultural influence is pretty strongly interwoven in the fabric of Minnesota. It’s very possible the thought process was just that the locals associated that image with their state, just like the brand name.
The Anishinaabe and Dakota have had major influence on the state and that’s been recognized more in recent history with the renaming of certain places back to their native name, like Bde Maka Ska.
Most of the naming in the metro(and the state name) comes from the Dakota peoples. The Anishinaabe were located more in northern Minnesota and Wisconsin so you’ll see the influence there. For example the town of Biwabik in the iron range which is the Anishinaabe word for iron.
Lol that is so spot-on I can’t believe the parallels never occurred to me. One exception though, I really had good burgers in such a place in Haarlem / NL.
run by four interchangeable lumbersexual white guys in their mid 20s who are having the time of their lives and one white chick in her late 20s who is just so over it.
Engaging in sexual intercourse with Mildred is perfectly fine as long as there is mutual consent. However, it is not required. Kind words are usually sufficient.
I don’t think I could have sex with a woman named Mildred. Just imagine hitting it from behind, and then you remember her name is Mildred. You’d go soft like a wet noodle within seconds.
I think under 35 is kinda young. Maybe a few hundred years ago you would have counted as old but nowadays with modern healthcare people live much longer and healthier.
But like nah. There was some evidence Saudi Arabia backed 9/11. No evidence Israel backed 9/11 that I’m aware of.
I know this shitpost and Israel are genociding and doing fucked shit right now. But call them out on the shit they did. Don’t make up shit they didn’t do.
More than some evidence Saudi citizens backed them. However the claim that the government was tied to it was denied. However a portion of the report, or the missing 28 pages as it came to be known, was on this subject. Biden has since declassified, and released, these documents. They show that the ties to the government were real. They have phone, and other communications such as e-mail, between people involved and members of the government. This includes tying a hijacker to a Saudi diplomat. It is called the ENCORE report.
because they are one of the major players helping to secure the petro dollar, they allow us to have an enormous military base there that we use as a platform for operations all over the middle east, we have intelligence sharing agreements with them, they will work with Israel, they have major business connections to a lot of the firms and corporations that own our legislators, to name a few reasons.
Because not everyone in the government actually likes this relationship with the US, nor did most of the government support the attack, or Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, even its government, isn’t a single person, nor is it some sort of hive mind. It is thousands of people, that fight for their own personal interests, and break down into factions of different ideas over different things.
The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens
If this photo is not edited? So you were saying it was edited? What the fuck dude, find a real example of Twitter fact checking being fucked. Don’t make shit up. What are you 7 years? Or a paid troll?
My friend, I will give you the benefit of doubt and believe you when you say that this post’s purpose was to make fun of how shitty Twitter’s community notes are, and that is indeed an important topic to shed light on, so people won’t treat community notes as reliable.
However,
You can rest assured that a significant portion of the people who saw this post believed it as straight fact.
It is impossible to overstate how gullible people on the internet are, and how readily they will straight up believe conspiratorial BS, especially surrounding controversial topics like Israel.
That’s how Poe’s law works, and it is attitudes like yours that don’t take this shit seriously that end up inadvertently contributing to an environment full of libelous antisemitic conspiracies on the internet.
I beseech you to carefully consider this stuff if you ever plan to post such a thing again.
lemmy.today
Top