1332
Dial It
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
1332 points (97.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
11388 readers
1498 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:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Surely she could have thought of a third position between those two so that a dial actually makes sense, over a switch.
Charitably-interpreted, it could be an impressively self-aware piece on the binary thinking of ideologues, to genuinely feel there is literally zero middle ground between those two extremes. But she probably actually feels that way.
It is possible to support a cause, even emphatically, without being insufferable. I'm reminded of an occasion a number of years back, when a friend of a friend tagging along with our group for the first time who, just after we all (group of 8-9) sat down to order dinner, ranted for minutes, completely unprompted, about how chairs are shaped in a misogynistic way, which led into the nonsensical claim that the only reason males tend to sit with their knees further apart than females, is as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies. There was no consideration of the fact that this difference exists just as much in men and women sitting alone at home, as it does in crowded public spaces.
This is all to say I have a feeling, especially based on her reaction to it, that the teacher's comment was in response to something closer to the above, than to something like 'a job shouldn't pay someone less just because she's a woman'.
P.S. This post is from 2018, for anyone who thinks it's a recent happening, or anyone else who saw this and thought it looked familiar.
You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization. It’s a brilliant piece.
But as my anecdote exemplifies, it is absolutely possible to move away from 'raging feminist' without moving one iota closer to 'complicit in dehumanization'. Those two things are absolutely not at opposite ends of a spectrum, objectively.
Can't agree, but you're welcome to your opinion.
As an example, let's take two hypothetical feminists, A and B.
They both actively campaign and gather support toward ending sex discrimination in hiring practices, as part of the same organization. But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn't at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in, and without consideration for whether the person actually has any hiring power.
Would you say A is more "complicit in her dehumanization" than B because she doesn't do that? And do you think B advances the organization's cause more effectively than A, by doing what she does?
I would make the argument that the difference between A and B is not "dialing down the feminism", but more about the general demeanor/civility/methods. You can address the issues of B without blaming it on feminism.
If you take two people who are vegan. A will sit down and talk to you about the reasons behind their choice to be vegan, and try to convince you to give veganism a try or even just reduce your meat consumption and supplement it with vegan meals. And B will get in your face and yell at you about what a horrible monster you are for eating animal products. I wouldn't say that B is "more vegan" than A. And I wouldn't say that the problem with B is that they're too vegan. The issue is with how they treat others.
I wouldn't 'blame it on feminism', but the ideology being the motivator for the behavior is why it makes sense to me that refraining from it would 'qualify' as 'dialing down the feminism'.
Does that make sense?
But if someone (call them C lol) told B to 'dial down the veganism' in response to that behavior, I think the average/typical person within earshot of the exchange would obviously understand what's being communicated, and I don't think they'd be thinking C is blaming veganism itself, just criticizing B's behavior in the name of that ideology.
If all things are equal between two people other than that behavior, then B would undoubtedly be closer to 'raging feminist' than A.
The point is that 'emphaticness'/disruptiveness is not necessarily correlated with being productive to one's cause. That friend of a friend I mentioned before accomplished nothing but annoying everyone with her out-of-nowhere rant. She didn't put herself any further from 'complicit in her own dehumanization' than someone else in the exact same position who doesn't do that.
Your apparently believe that disruptive behavior in the name of a cause has inherent merit. I gave a simple example of how that is absolutely not automatically true. One can be extremely disruptive in the name of a cause, absolutely merited, and one can be disruptive in the name of a cause in a way that's completely pointless and counter-productive. In the same way, because the latter category of 'disruptiveness' exists, it is plainly stated that one engaging in that kind of disruption can, by refraining from it, be less disruptive without being any less of an advocate for their cause.