1343
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
1343 points (97.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
11493 readers
333 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
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.