this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
2159 points (98.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

7681 readers
1869 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You seem to imply that we have to maintain the same decorum in anonymous online spaces as we do in real life.

I feel like here lies the root of our disagreement.
One one hand you are right, I do imply that there are similarities between anonymous online spaces and real life public spaces.
On of them is consequences: the people on the other side of the screen can be hurt by what we say as much as they would be if these things had been said to their face and this should make us be mindful of what we choose to write and what we keep for ourselves or only share with friends in private spaces.
On the other hand, you've been mentioning political correctness and decorum as reasons for which I would criticize your post. I don't feel like I'm big on either, be it online or IRL (as a vegan I've been politically incorrect and have lacked decorum in a online and IRL discussions and would do it again in the same circonstances). But to me, reinforcing the toxicity of a public space (online or IRL) for an oppressed category is never a good thing and I try to avoid it. As for why I believe your first post belongs in this catagory, I've explained it as clearly as I could in my previous answer and I don't think I can provide anything more.

When I’m online I can allow myself to be pure ego, because that’s the point of anonymity in the internet. I will continue to enjoy that as long as I can. Anything can be offensive to someone so I don’t worry too much about what is or isn’t offensive, especially so in anonymous online spaces.

Again, IMO focusing on the offensiveness is missing the point.
For example, were I to write FUCK YOU FOR MAKING LIFE HARDER FOR WOMEN IN AN ALREADY MISOGYNISTIC SOCIETY, that would be offensive to you. But I think it would still be ok because afaik we're both men talking about how to react to women's bodies and in this way neither of us belongs to a category that oppresses the other so I would not be reinforcing a toxic societal structure that makes your life and the one of people in your category harder.

To your second point. I think it is fine to sexualize all bodies, because we are sexual beings. [...] it’s perfectly fine to let your first judgement be sexual. It’s wired into us and to act otherwise is denying human nature and even animal nature itself

I don't fell like I can provide an educated enough answer to this, so what follows is just how I feel. I'm always very cautious when I read that stuff is part of human nature, or that it happens this way in nature... because of two reasons. First, lots of stuff has been said to be human nature for a time before being proven to be social conditioning. Second, it's an argument that is most of the time used to justify shitty behaviours, so...
I could offer the couter argument that in my opinion, the first judgement that happens in nature is "is this dangerous to me?" (source: none, but I also don't believe you can provide a better one for your point).

I think women should embrace it and do it to men in return. The reason women don’t is often decorum or some idea of how a woman should properly think and act

The reason is societal conditioning, which makes men behave as if women were mainly sexual objects and women behave as if their existence is conditioned by whether men find them attractive (based on criteria that change all the time). This is learned very soon in the childhood and reinforced by mainstream culture (think of the number of "romantic" comedies in which women that don't fit the current criteria for beauty are completely ignored by the man protagonist, of the number of movies that don't even pass the bechdel test...)

We can acknowledge and respect the person for who they are after we know them, but before that I think it’s perfectly fine to let your first judgement be sexual.

I'm again not trying to judge what happens in your mind, and your first judgement about someone you see or meet belongs to you alone. But I'm also saying that while we feel what we feel, we can still choose how we act. And we can take a bit of time to think about how our actions (and what we say or write) affects the individuals that receive them and in which societal dynamic they fit. And for me that's a better measure of respect than the vague impression that somewhere in our mind we respect the person. I usually respect the woman next to me in the street by not groping her ass or not making a loud comment about her cleavage, however attractive I might find them inside myself.

By no means does that mean that I reduce people simply to their sex appeal, rather that without anything else to go on, that will be my first thought. I mean I can assume a lot of things about this lady from where she is, what she’s doing, other parts of her appearance etc. But I would only be assuming. Her being hot is the only objective (her attractiveness is a fact, fite me) assessment of her I can make.

The problem here is that no one can know what happens in your mind. The only thing anyone can know objectively is how you act, and in this case what you write. And what you wrote was taking attention from an important fight to divert it to subjective bodily (not gonna fite you because that's not who I am, but I'm not gonna agree with you either) comments about perceived hotness.
So for all effects and purposes, independantly of what happens in your mind, you actually reduced this person to their sex appeal in a public space and I really don't think that is ok.

Thanks for taking part in this discussion in good faith. I'm going to stop here for two reasons. First, IMO we've both made our points and positions quite clear and I don't think we can provide further useful material. Second, I'm about to shout insults at you and I don't believe a productive discussion can happen after that.

So in a nutshell, I think humans better as monke and I allow myself to be monke online if I feel like it.

FUCK YOU FOR MAKING LIFE HARDER FOR WOMEN IN AN ALREADY MISOGYNISTIC SOCIETY AND IF YOU'RE SUCH A MONKEY GO EAT SOME FUCKING BANANAS IN A FUCKING TREE INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A SHITTY MAN THAT OBJECTIFIES WOMEN!!! (oops, looks like I'm lacking decorum)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sexuality is not misogyny. I’m for the absolute sexual liberation of humans regardless of their gender. You seem more interested in keeping the same old social constructs but with different pretenses. So from my point of view the only one re-enforcing patriarchal notions and perpetuating the subjugation of women is you.

Think about it.