this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
691 points (76.1% liked)
memes
10428 readers
2488 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except for the annoying extremist feminists. I'm sick of the "you're wrong and this isn't open for debate" bullshit that prevents actual conversation.
I understand that reaction when the "discussion" is allowing adult people to exist, or whether objectively true facts are real.
The issue occurs when purported facts are just merely opinions or regurgitating talking points, you used to see it heaps on Twitter, someone alright posting their mini rant and sprinkling in "facts"
The thing is at some point people with hateful messages win simply by debating and putting their hate out there. Choosing not to engage is everyone's right, nobody is obligated to debate anything.
Exactly. There are those few who are willing, able and good at debating hate mongers so that others can see. Most people aren't and that's fine. Hate doesn't deserve the attention; it deserves being ostracized.
It shuts down discussion that could sway people reading the discussion by not explaining why it is true and also shutting down anyone else trying to explain. I see it most frequently used by people who had a discussion sometime in the past and don't seem to understand that not everyone was there at the time.
Like I agree that a woman is the only one who should decide if she should terminate a pregnancy, but when that is the response any time someone asks why there is no opportunity for someone to explain why that is true for people who haven't ever had it explained to them. They don't have to explain, but they also don't need to shut down discussion.
Nobody is obligated to explain repeatedly the same point to every lazy idiot who can bother to STFW before asking a question. And then you have sealions and people JAQing off.
They are not obligated to explain, but they are not correct for saying that nobody else can.
I'd just say that existing good explanations elsewhere (and perfectly searchable ones at that), they shouldn't.
Ah yes, do your own research is a great way for uninformed people to find the right information.
No individual is required to do anything, but someone linking to a good explanation shouldn't be discouraged.
Your position seemed to be that every time a person ask a question, somebody should answer the question or provide the link even if the person hasn't bother to do any research first.
"How to ask questions the smart way" was written for a reason.
It would be great if you replied to what I said instead of what you assume I mean.
No, "they" don't need to shut it down, but "they" might want to and that's OK. If we're talking about forum mods, they might use their judgement to decide they don't want their platform to be a space for debating something that threatens the safety of their users.
You want to make your own forum where anyone can debate anything, then absolutely go right ahead. Doesn't mean somebody else can't make a forum they refuse to allow debate on certain issues.
And people are sick of having their rights "debated" when they themselves are safe from any consequences. Be happy your rights aren't threatened in the same way.
If it was a right, it would be outlined in the constitution. You're talking about perceived rights. And for men to a small extent they all ready are. You accidentally get a women pregnant? Oops, they can force you to pay child support until that child is 18. If you're a real "femanist", this should clearly be wrong to you. Women deserve the right to decide to have a baby before a set timeline. But if women get the right to choose, as much as I love women, you're on you're own when it comes to child support unless the man originally agrees to the child. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Used to see that mentality heaps on Twitter, that X isn't up for debate etc. People should really go back there if that's how they want to engage in their online discourse, the point of the fediverse isn't to be another echo chamber.
Could you give an example of two of which topics you want to debate that others say aren't up for debate?
These types of tyraids are a pretty good example of what I mean
Either someones personal opinion, a hot take based on their own perspective or something similar. There's plenty of discourse that could happen here but these people just want their own echo chamber
I'm not really interested in opening a link to that site. I was more asking you to list, in your own words, an example or two of topics you think should be up for debate.
All topics should always be up for debate. If you're putting an idea forward in a diverse circumstance you'd better be prepared to debate it. Anything else just seems petty and acting like the victim.
Yes https://kbin.social/m/my_mouldy_memes/t/294760
…dude what the fuck did I read LOL
A comic that shows a good example of misogyny. Bigots who hate women use the term "feminist" to attack women. It's the same shit as complaining there's no "White History Month". The point of those terms is to promote equality while calling out the oppression of said group that needs their rights protected. But attacking verbiage that everyone understands is a way for bigots to dogwhistle and attack those groups.
And addressing your poor comment further: you're part of the problem for believing the original comic is actuate or agreeable in any way. Bullshitting the general statement that you're about equality is a joke. Yeah? How about the equality of people in Africa compared to feminists in America? You feminists gearing up to tackle that inequality any time soon? No? So obviously your focus is much more restricted, and that's fine. Just stop the bullshit. Feminism is not and never was for progressing anything but female equality, so stop virtue signaling that it's about equality for all when that's clearly not the case.
Whataboutism at it's finest. Angry men are amusing.
Keep dodging actual conversation and debate with your straw man arguments and fake moral superiority.
I meant the comments.
Can you provide examples of what you mean by this?
https://kbin.social/m/my_mouldy_memes/t/294760/-/comment/1362008
The comic clearly illustrates its point and that reply is succinct. If you have a problem with the verbiage, perhaps you should educate yourself on why it was chosen. You and I both know what it means. The man in that comic is a misogynist attacking women. You and I both know that, too.
First, let me say I support women's rights and the advancement of women. Getting down to your reply, though, this has to be one of the most misguided and poorest attempts at a response. You seem to misunderstand my point, and you make numerous assumptions without a bit of evidence and act like you have some secret knowledge. We both know that? No. We don't. I agree with femanism being about the advancement of females. My argument is that feminism is not in any way about overall equality. It's about equality for women. And I support that. But don't feed me your bullshit line that it's about equality.
It's always easy to spot the misogynists. They just go right on and tell you.
It's easy to spot stupid people the same way!