I feel so sorry for short-faced dogs. They almost always have breathing problems. We did that to them on purpose for our own amusement and now people want to keep that going. It’s disgusting.
Or the hairless ones. They can’t even sunbathe or groom themselves and that’s like a cat’s favorite thing to do. Cats also love to be warm and some idiotic sweater isn’t a replacement for the fur they’re supposed to have. “But I’m allergic” tf kind of selfish argument is that? You feel so entitled to a pet that you have one made for you to the detriment of the animal? It’s seriously so gross.
Yep. There are strong movememts to undo what is really a very recent and very American practice of breeding in Brachycephaly. The American Kennel Club shamefully has contributed to these standards and glorified them in pure bred animals. Look at historical drawings and paintings of pugs as an excellent example. They were typically much thinner and had much longer snouts than what is idealized today. An increasing number of European breeders led quite strongly by the Germans are breeding Retro Mops or old fashioned healthier pugs. This has unfortunately not caught on in US (fuck the AKC - seriously), but retro pugs which are cross bred typically with terriers are starting to be a thing with a few select breeders. I have a retro mop. He outruns every single dog in his weight class in the dog park both in speed and endurance. He doesn’t need a harness, he has a strong neck and uses a collar. No breathing issues whatsoever. For archival purposes please check out pugdogpassion.comTherese Rodin has been a huge influence in this modern movement and I wish everyone would review her teachings or speak to her before considering purchasing a Brachycephalic dog.
Oh yeah! I’d actually heard of people trying to breed away the smashed in snout on pugs.
Honestly I’m rather against breeding dogs for appearances in general. Berner Sennen dogs are super sweet, but they pretty much all die prematurely because of their incredibly high rate of inbreeding. I really don’t get the appeal of the hunched back people are looking for in German Shepherds.
I mean it’s literally eugenics, but for the sake of fashion. Absolutely ridiculous.
I will keep repeating this, Biden will be the reason Trump gets reelected. If he loves his country he needs to leave right fucking now. Democrats like him and Clinton are addicted to power. Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump in both election but the democrats circles of power made sure to get the candidate they wanted. Old fool.
“The scary socialist madman” accompanied by the Democratic Party apparatus? A presidential candidate Sanders along with a moderate liberal VP would have gotten both the traditional Democratic vote (as long as the party collaborated with him, rather than giving him the Corbyn treatment, which I don’t trust liberals not to do) and a considerable chunk of the electorate who doesn’t feel represented by either party. The day you guys understand that you don’t have to fight the Republicans in traditional terms, but rather, to change the coordinates of the fight, you’ll force Republicans to choose between evolving or getting buried. But the real problem by this point is whether it is too late.
No, there’s an amendment in our consimtituion that says a president can only be in office for two terms total. The only president who evaded this was FDR and he’s still villainized to this day.
Actually. I’m pretty sure hes the reason that amendment got passed.
Before FDR it was just a tradition, started by George Washington. Personally I think FDR deserves a pass, he got us out of the great depression and through WW2, it would have been hard to have a leadership change in the midst of that turmoil.
Totally agree. But imagine a 4-term Obamna presidency, with the orange avatar of conservative rage building in strength and gathering malice for 16 years instead of 8.
I am pro term limits, but you’re kinda making a good counter point. Eight more years of Obama instead of Trump and Biden… Doesn’t seem that bad. The conservatives went ballistic anyway, at least we’d have reproductive rights and better healthcare. I’m certain Obama would have been a lot better at managing COVID and the BLM protests. He was pro ceasefire in Gaza way before Biden too. Idk, for all his flaws, Obama seems better than what we got in his place.
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn’t fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m not sure you know how political affiliation or “people” work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called “connections”, and it’s how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn’t have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn’t matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders “would not be president”
There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent
The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner,
superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.
or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m saying she doesn’t align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.
“The party” is the people who vote in the primary.
Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves.
Party leadership is not the party.
It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton’s favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
The Obama campaign is a good example.
Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).
So what rules did they break for Clinton?
Campaign finance
Debate questions
Impartiality
What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
I haven’t researched how unfair Obama had it so I can’t compare.
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”
Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying “no” not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was “this is a silly story. Sanders isn’t going to be president” at a time where he was already loosing.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
She did. Eight years ago.
Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Oh please. It’s even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn’t know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Yes. Because there was clear evidence of bias. Straight after, Debbie was rewarded with an honorary chair of the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
How are you sure there was no misconduct?
How are you sure there was no impact?
When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Or, because Hillary controled the party’s finances, procedures were made deliberately obtuse to her advantage.
Mr. Miranda asked Ms. Wasserman Schultz whether they should call CNN to complain about a segment the network aired in which Mr. Sanders said he would oust the chairwoman if he were elected. “Do you all think it’s worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration, when a new D.N.C. Chair is elected anyway?” Mr. Miranda asked. Ms. Wasserman Schultz responded by dismissing the senator’s chances. “This is a silly story,” she wrote. “He isn’t going to be president.”
Shocking. She didn’t speak kindly of a person who publicly attacked her, and opted to leave the story alone instead of doing anything.
Most of the shocking things mentioned in the emails were only mentioned, and are then dismissed.
Your mistaking opinions and preference bias, which all people have, for unfair bias. Do you actually expect that the people who run a political party don’t have an opinion about politics?
The coin thing didn’t happen.. At best she won six out of a dozen, which is what you would expect. The reality is more complicated.
You grossly mischaracterize the agreement.
From the article:
This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC.
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).
In other words, her campaign agreed to give the DNC money to prepare for the general election, and in exchange they got to look at those preparations.
This was definitely the Clinton campaign assuming she would be the candidate, but it’s not exactly a smoking gun for financial impropriety regarding the primary.
Honestly, if your campaign can’t find a lawyer or accountant who can understand campaign finance management, you probably actually shouldn’t be in charge of a country. The financial arrangements weren’t particularly obtuse or obfuscated for moving millions of dollars between multiple political entities in multiple states.
Maybe you’re right but too many of us think the opposite. I would much rather a younger more progressive candidate but Joe Biden has a track record of beating Trump. Biden has done a lot of good things in his first term that I’d want to continue. Even where he hasn’t gone nearly far enough or balanced bad with good, it may be necessary to appeal to the undecideds in the middle. Biden is the only one who can overcome the Trump personality cult
If a big complaint is age, how is that a plus for Sanders? I’m sorry but he missed his chance and now is solidly in “too old for this shit” territory
How about we pick someone who vaguely approaches the average age of an American adult. There’s a ton - Buttigieg, AOC, I dunno even Kamala would be a million times better. Literally anybody under the age of 70. Why is that so hard to do?
You keep repeating it because a false dichotomy, that you must choose between a D or R, prevents you from accepting that the lesser evil is, in fact, evil. So, you’re stuck on stupid and not asking questions. This should help:
The Democrats already, quite predictably, ignored the outcome of their primary to nominate Clinton. They’re not going to do a fucking thing that doesn’t make a corporate donor money. All of Sanders proposals took from corporations to provide for humans. He never stood a chance of being nominated as a Democrat and he damned well knew it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt then his goal was education. If not, he rallied for Democrats to avoid the rise of a Labor Party during a critical time in history.
I mean, I follow the presidental race somewhat because it has global impact, but watching the debates is not worth my time, and I’m fairly certain it’s not worth anyone’s time, especially non-americans.
They’re both right wing, but moderate right wing bought by corporate interests isn’t the same as fascist. It’s trending towards fascism, sure, but it’s less likely to go on a killing spree.
It’s obviously a common vernacular simplification from authoritarian with a broad definition. This is a commonplace and accepted vernacular in most modern western media based social media outlets.
Fascist can be liberal, they can also be conservative. Or communist. Or almost anything. More often fascists will lie and say they are more socialist than many of their policies would lead you to reasonably expect.
Grown ups are talking. Go play outside. You obviously need to touch grass, child.
It’s what modern elections are, and maybe even all historical elections, though I’m not old enough to determine that. What elections should be is throwing your support behind someone that you think is going to be beneficial for everyone. I know that is idealistic, and unfortunately the current system makes that basically impossible, but Washington said that partisan politics would be the downfall of this country, and his words are playing out in front of us. I really wish we would throw the parties, and lobbyists, out and force candidates to run on policy and merit.
See, you’re talking partisan politics, I’m talking “you literally have to pick someone”. We’ve had these candidates before. You already know which one you’re going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.
Beyond that though, there’s “parties” and then theirs “sides”. One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn’t, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.
By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you’ve picked a side. The side that doesn’t want to do good for only the “right” people, or make sure only the “right” people get hurt.
The only question is if you’ll vote for that side to win, or if you’ll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.
I shall, once again, for the 6th time in my life, hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast candidate the DNC has foisted on us. I wish we had RCV so I could vote for someone good, like Bernie, or heck I’d almost take Vermin Supreme at this point.
Dude, have you actually read vermin Supremes platform, or rather his actual political philosophy and beliefs?
I read through some of them once, and had the horrifying realization that the contemporary political figure that I think I agree with most closely is:
unelectable
best known for wearing a boot on his head
I couldn’t find where a lot of his actual opinions got discussed a bit more formally, but this random video snippet from 2008 does a decent job capturing it.
If I had (got? Got. I’d love to need to make the choice) to pick between a democratic socialist or a social anarchist, I think I’d honestly lean towards the social anarchist, all things being equal.
Oh yeah, he’s totally not a viable candidate, but he does have an actual political philosophy and opinions that are surprisingly agreeable. He just lacks the actual political fortitude or will to get elected.
A side as opposed to either side is how it should be. But don’t take my word for it, George Washington allegedly warned us of the potential perils of a two-party system on his deathbed but I’m unsure if that is common myth or actually true
George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn’t want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there’s a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.
He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the “right” people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.
I don’t play these games, but my kids do. And I am thinking (as a man), why wouldn’t I want my character to be a hot girl. If I an going to spend hundreds of hours staring at an ass, I would rather it be a hot girl ass.
Right, because when Tomb Raider first came out on PS1 almost 30 years ago you could totally make out Lara’s hot ass from the seven or eight polygons that formed her entire body.
If your main goal is just to create a character that looks as lewd as possible, that’s a little sus in my books. Preferences and all that, I know, but do we really need to add to the already prevalent objectification of women?
Edit: God forbid you actually question your actions, thoughts, and beliefs
If I have the choice, I like to have my protagonist as a woman because it’s just you know different from the norm. Like I chose a female shepherd in Mass effect and now I can’t see that character as anything but a badass woman.
Xiangling (the character OP is playing) is (in)famously meta, since she is easy to get, easy to play and very overpowered. All National and International teams revolve around her, and even random teams splash her because she’s just so good.
I will be one of the first people in line to call out someone for objectifying women, but these are cartoon women. I really don’t think it’s a big deal. I really think it’s okay to ogle a fictional ass. It’s not my thing, but it doesn’t hurt anyone. It’s a victimless crime.
What if I liked to make my female character as funny as possible because that’s what I find attractive, Is that objectifying them? What if I made them red headed for that reason, is that objectifying them? Objectifying is to treat a woman like an object. Liking a particular type of woman is your preference, not an objectification of women.
I’m was right there with you a few years ago. My daughter plays, and I was sure to point out how it was catering to male fantasy and all that. But then I took her to some conventions she asked to go to. Do you know what I saw. More women then men.
And there was a space of computers that people could stop and play genshin and the like. Again more women then men. And the women were all playing genshin while the guys were playing games with more zoomed out interactions. It turns out that women are a big part of the reason for the intricate costumes on female characters and such. I still don’t know what really to make of it all, but I do know my first impression of a game just objectifying women for male pleasure is not accurate. And don’t get me started on the female cosplayers at these conventions.
Thanks for taking the time to write out a response. I think it might depend on the game and some games are probably “better” examples of what I meant. As long as it’s equal for both male as well as female characters, I don’t mind at all since that would be equality then. But in a game like Monster Hunter, some armour sets are just quite… exposing. Like, you’re fighting giant monsters, dragons and what not, but it’s probably a good idea to run around with an exposed chest and legs whilst the rest being covered by armour. The definition of armour is really loose then, I feel like.
As long as the armour/outfit fits in with the game world, I don’t mind too much since you can come up with lore reasons for why a certain piece of clothing or armour is designed the way it is. However, there certainly examples of both where it’s quite obvious that they’ve been designed for the male gaze first and foremost.
Totally agree. Viva la dirt does some great and hilarious videos about female armor in games. And some games really go overboard. I just found that it wasn’t as one dimensional as I originally thought.
For sure! It’s a tough line to walk sometimes. I guess I’d rather be a little more cautious personally. I wasn’t trying to attack anyone - just voicing my thoughts. Didn’t excpect this comment to be received as negatively as it was.
Eh sometimes people just see a downvote and they all pile on. I thought your comment was very reasonable and added to the conversation so I undid one of them, even though I don’t necessarily agree with it. Keep doing you friend. Happy holidays!
I’ve always thought we should have two types of vote. Agree/disagree and something about quality. I like to see opinions I don’t agree with. It is valuable info and makes things less of an ech chamber. But the internet is the internet.
Exactly! Why does everything have to be sexual at all times in games? Male gaze is a thing, and it’s kind of shocking that people are so seemingly ignorant about it. Just go watch porn lmao
It really was just a joke. But at the same time it doesn’t have to be about being horny or climaxing. Aside from any teenagers present most of us don’t get a hard on just from seeing a pretty girl. It can still be more pleasing for us to look at a pretty girl (if that is what we prefer) without getting horny.
It can still be more pleasing for us to look at a pretty girl (if that is what we prefer) without getting horny.
You do you. Certainly not shaming. Still, I do find everything is being sexualised nowadays;
Ads, thumbnails, films, music, video games—almost the entire internet. Ever tried scrolling through All on Lemmy or Reddit? Won’t take long for you to find erotica or something of the likes. YouTube and Twitch are even worse. Women creating content whilst partially showing and thousands of men throwing a bunch of money at them—or time for that matter (which gets them ad revenue). Not much different from OF if you ask me.
The problem is you can’t escape it. And it’s affecting children as well. They see all of it and think it’s normal. Take a glance at TikTok and you’ll understand.
In the end, I’d rather play a game for its story and gameplay instead of playing it for the “boobs and vags”. There is enough of that already.
Regarding Genshin’s large female audience, (1) there are a lot of hot male characters, (2) its two sister games have a lot of gay / lesbian characters, and therefore a large LGBT fanbase, and (3) the Genshin community is (relatively) friendly and casual, since there is no PvP.
“You” is gender neutral, in its singular and plural form. “Y’all” is a useful plural form of “you” but as a New Zealand-English hybrid I do not have the accent to pull it off. If I could shift my accent further north perhaps I could get away with “thou” and “ye” for singular and plural forms, but only where they fit grammatically.
It is explicitly plural where ‘you’ is hard to pull off as plural because it leans heavily towards singular, just like ‘they’ leans heavily towards plural. At least in the US afaik the main competitor is ‘you guys’ for plural, which is one of those terms that is normally meant as gender neutral but the words clearly are not. So despite being from a place where that is the correct way to say it I’m in favor of y’all becoming the standard across the whole language, which it seems like it might be moving towards doing.
“ya’ll” is also American English’s answer to the problem of not have a plural form of “you” (see also: “you guys” or “you all” from which ya’ll is derived).
Due to English being heavily influenced by Romance languages, but not taking its grammatical structure purely from them, we really had no single-word version of “vous” (I don’t know other romance languages aside from French).
I’m an American who’s been lucky enough to travel to many other countries, and I’m currently living in the EU.
Blanket statements on praise-worthiness are stupid; one should only praise things, people, and nations when and where they deserve it. There’s a lot to admire and there’s a lot to be disgusted at when considering just about every country and government.
What I find in EU culture socially is that people are far more exclusionary, prone to isolationism, and prejudicial about my and my countrymen’s competence and intelligence than what I was told to expect. I expected some “haha, dumb American” memes, but I didn’t expect people here to honestly believe everyone thinks and acts like our worst people back in the US. It was very eye-opening in a negative way.
EU citizens need to stop treating outsiders as 1-dimensional caricatures, but regrettably, that’s been one of humanity’s greatest faults, and I doubt it will be rectified anytime soon. I try not to get too butt-hurt about it, as we say, but it is irksome after encountering that attitude in conversation after conversation.
Übahaupt, jetzt wo si Hochdeutsch imma mea duachsetzt, und vü junge Leit übahaupt nimma richtig östareichisch^1^ redn leanan, missn ma doch schaun, dass unsa Sproch net oafoch ausstiabt, oda?
Mia hom a a longe Tradition, wonns um Mundoatdichtung geht. Da Dichta von da obaöstareichischn Hymne zum Beispü, da Stelzhamer Franz, hot gonz vü in Mundoat gschribn.
Und weis ma grod eifoit: Es gibt a a eigene Wikipedia in unsam Dialekt: bar.wikipedia.org Oba do dua i ma söm schwah, dass i des vasteh. De is scho in da äagstn von de oagn Mundoatn gschribm.
(So, jetzt woas i net, wöcha Sproch i im Dropdown do untn auswöhn soid… Wei wirklich Deitsch is des jo net…)
[^1^] I am fully aware that the dialect I’m writing in is not called “Austrian”. The two big dialects spoken in Austria are “Alemannic” and “Bavarian”, and the one I’m writing is the Bavarian dialect. I’m only using the word “östareichisch” here, because that’s what I expect most people to use in spoken conversation.
Oh Gott, Oida. Ich habs gerade geschafft, den Text zu entziffern. Aber ernsthaft, ich glaub bei sowas immer auf den ersten Blick, dass da wer nen Schlaganfall bekommen hat und einfach mit dem Gesicht über die Tastatur gerollt ist lol.
Although honestly I’m not sure how much of this is Scots and how much is just specific to Scottish twitter lol
So actually having done some more reading this isn’t Scots - I’m fairly sure this is Scottish English which is somewhat a merging of Scots with English.
yea and galician “looks like” a dialect of spanish, norwegian “looks like” a dialect of danish, and afrikaans “looks like” a dialect of dutch. hell, i can say english “looks like” a dialect of ulster scots. “dialect”/“accent” and “language” are meaningless words
that being said the text in this post is scottish english, not scots
My two year old’s best friend is a three year old… Jfc it’s like watching innocence and insanity play together. I love her friend but damn she’s brutal. While my girl is still a bit too small to be hurt or angry about mistreatment and lets so much slide. And in a year my forgiving two year old will be this intimidating mess.
I know nothing about anything bad Ukraine has done, I don’t follow the war as much as I used to. I just see a lot of downvotes on anything critical of Ukraine
Probably because all criticism seems to come from people with a clear and contemptible agenda, even when it’s true, and it often isn’t.
There’s plenty of room for critical support but the critics mostly just seem to be cheering for the invasion. Probably because all the fair criticism revolves around the fact that war is hell.
I wouldn’t say all criticism is from people with contemptible adgenda. That’s a hyperbolic statement, it could be received like that by the reader but it’s prejudiced for people who try to remain as fair as possible.
The war is a complete shitfest for all humans involved it’s awful thing its endured all this time but unfortunately as a comfortable westerner, I think it’s the right thing for ukraine right now to stand up for their rights.
My point is UK and US have done some unspeakable things but history is written by the winners and we’re not taught about the atrocities our allies have done in previous wars. As a brit Dresden springs to mind and I wonder if Ukraine will have any similar controversies spring up after the war. We fucking killed 25,000 people with basically no justification.
With risk of sounding like a dick I’m going to ask you a question (sorry my directness can come across as being rude) Does my comment make me a person who has a “clear and contemptible adgenda” to you? I know I’ll get downvoted by others but I’m more interested in your opinion
You need to be more specific. There are some valid criticism that can be pointed at Ukraine, but if the criticism is along the lines of “Nazi Ukraine” then that’s just perpetuating Russian propaganda and should be downvoted. Most of the criticism of Ukraine I’ve seen falls squarely in the Russian propaganda camp.
While they’re waging a war against the country that’s known for its troll factories[0] and long traditions in information warfare, just downmodding all negativity against Ukraine is sort of a safe bet.
You might want to note that for things that matter, like corruption that blocks actual EU membership, the negativity still exists and is legit.
Years ago I consulted for a French company and analyzed their processes. Heavily depended on Excel. They all pronounced Excel Sheet as “Excel Shit”. All day long it was sentences like"…and then I make an Excel Shit here", “… then I give the Shit to my colleague”. It was glorious… (and technically they were right).
Like, that I get now, but it’s worth pointing out no kid in Australia obviously even knew what a “redskin” was. Hell, I thought Comanches and Apaches were snakes because of the Huey Cobra.
Wait a second… Oh my god, just realised a Blackhawk isn’t named after a hawk, this is also a native American peoples. Like the NHL team, duh. And that’s my wife’s second fav team because she thinks it’s a cool logo and “I’m glad they’re repping the native Americans.”
See?
Anyway, I strayed from my point. I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful. If there’s a dark history, no one’s researching that, they’re more interested in other things like buttering some toast and then deciding to put a documentary about native Americans on because of the cool image.
Maybe if your only reference to a culture is an insulting one, they’d rather you not have an impression at all. Though I dunno much about Australia. That bunch of bogans seem to like people to think bad about them.
I really like seeing other cultures on stuff. Seems a shame to remove that stuff, kind of disingenuous or disrespectful.
This would be true if what you were seeing was culturally representative. “Redskin” is a racial slur and the images on that package are racist caricatures. All of it was created by white men, using Native Americans as mascot for their product.
These images were not created by or for Native Americans, and they are racist and insulting.
The most disrespectful thing you could do is to keep using images like this. The most disingenuous thing you could do is argue that they earnestly represent the cultures they depict.
I don’t see how that’s racism. There’s no discrimination of traits, assertion of superiority or inferiority of races, and it’s actually being used to help sell a product and brand identity which requires.positivity.and.attraction from others.
Culturally inappropriate? Sure, could be. That’s up to that culture to determine and advise though. But we know the artist was also of the same group of indigenlus people.
The artist responsible for redesigning the Land O’Lakes logo in 1954 and creating the iconic image of the Native American woman was Patrick DesJarlait. DesJarlait was an Ojibwe artist from Red Lake, Minnesota, and his design has become closely associated with the Land O’Lakes brand.
Ask yourself why Aunt Jemima was chosen long ago. What stereotype did she represent? What is her back story supposed to be? … That is the obvious starting point.
I don’t think it’s hard to connect the dots on this one.
As a general position, hiring a minority to produce art doesn’t mean that all uses of the art are positive.
An old motherly Southern Black woman. Reminds me of any number of real life people I’ve known. The whole “depicting Black people is racism” thing was cooked up by and for white people.
Well that’s kind of funny. You’re right that white people cooked up her image. And they did so specifically with the idea that she would fit that stereotype of the older slave woman who has always worked in the kitchen, and is happy to do so, and because of that she’s really good at cooking.
By the way, the word “aunt” was not used to be respectful, but rather specifically to be disrespectful. That particular nuance has faded over time, but the history is real, and once you learn it you can’t forget it.
The sad thing is, you could have inferred this without looking it up. You could have asked yourself why they didn’t use a cartoon character of a white woman, with a white sounding name. The fact that you didn’t, and that you didn’t bother doing a web search, shows how much you want to avoid seeing racism in the modern world. But just because you don’t want to look at it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Reality is not that kind, my friend.
Finally, don’t take my word for it. Ask the company itself why they changed the name. They have documentation on the subject.
The company changed to to avoid being targeted by a mob of stupid people, obviously.
and once you learn it you can’t forget it.
You can “learn” anything, but it doesn’t make it true. All that crap coming out of your mouth? White guilt bullshit. Trying to find racism under every rock. Actually erasing Black history (ie actually doing racist things) out of a good-hearted but empty-headed attempt to avoid racism (or even worse, the appearance of racism). It sickens me. Stay in your lane.
Unless you’re talking specifically to an anti racist audience, you really gotta explain what revisionist history mammy meant for those who want to whitewash the antebellum south. Even then there will be plenty that are willfully ignorant.
This, the woman behind Aunt Jemima has a pretty progressive history as well. This just reaks of the usual problems we get from Liberal Virtue Signalling. Creating something incredibly offensive in a poor attempt to be less offensive.
Remember when Cartoon Network discontinued Speedy Gonzales because white people called the character racist, only to reinstate him when Latino and Hispanic watchers were like “Where’s the only Looney Tune that represents us in anyway?”
Some company decided to change their logo because it looks dated and might give the wrong impression. How is this even a problem?
As for liberals causing problems, yeah maybe they go a bit too far some times and can be over sensitive. But the other side is literally trying to take us back to theocracy, where women only have the rights their husbands will allow them. They’re not even pretending otherwise any more. I’ll take oversensitive over that any day.
I know, I’m not saying I support the Republicans, but the Democrats don’t actively want me dead so I reluctantly support them. However, I do ask people acknowledge the difference between Leftists and Liberals.
And the issue is that their attempt at being less racist, resulted in the erasure of black people… which is in and of itself more racist than the logo ever was.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.