521
teeter totter taco (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/politicalcartoons@lemmy.zip
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

I get what this picture is saying, but I'd like to point out this is an issue that was never a problem outside of celebrity before the turn of the millennium. I say if used in defence with private issues, use whatever works if the collateral damage is only imagined people, just don't make hating a part of your identity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I don't understand what you're point is, do you know that there are no fat people present that could be hurt by this?

    Do you think that promoting bodyshaming when those shamed aren't present is ok?

    Also what's this about it not being a problem before the turn of the millenium?? Are you gonna start whining about woke millenials and cancel culture next?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I mean this is only a society wide issue when dealing with the social media panopticon.

    If you are for example dealing with a bully in person, they don't respond to the pressures of society correctly, attacking any of their insecurities is fair game if it will correct the behaviour or otherwise keep them away.

    Who the hell would think "oh no, there's someone across the globe that might have a hurt feeling if they knew about this private conversation"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Who the hell would think "oh no, there's someone across the globe that might have a hurt feeling if they knew about this private conversation"?

    I'm pretty sure they were trying to say that continuing to normalize it is a bad thing because it says to the other people in those private conversations "these are acceptable things to say to and about others".

    I think it's kinda like how some people would argue it's bad to say racial slurs, even in private conversations, because it can be a signal that racism itself is acceptable. It's similar with anti-queer slurs too. The mindset is that it's better to avoid using a person's body as the basis for insults.

    Like, I'm trans, and when I was still hiding that fact from others, I heard lots of slurs and hurtful things, because the other person in those private conversations thought I was "one of the guys". It'd be nice if more people who are not the object of mockery would confront it instead of going along with it.

    Anyway, I think that's what they were saying, and I hope I've made sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I don't think about it as normalizing because I view these kinds of words as weapons, you don't go spraying them in public like a psycho, they need to be saved for someone especially deserving and ideally without an audience.

    It's unfortunate that the horrible people of this world are still people, and have all the same insecurities as any innocent person, but that won't stop me from using the tools at my disposal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I thought we were talking about their use in private conversations in which the people being mocked are not the other person in those private conversations. So you mean like, if you're alone with a person who has intentionally harmed people without concern, those are the situations in which you'd use such terms to mock the person to whom you're speaking? I can't imagine that would matter to them. Idk, am I misunderstanding you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Bullies and their ilk have the same concerns as anyone else, even if they don't follow the social contract the same way as others. They care about their appearance, their relationships, even if it's in a warped narcissistic way they all have a place to hit below the belt. Call them fat, question their sexuality, make them feel weak or small or alone, each of these is little more than a different way of hurting another person, there is no conviction of belief in these statements.

    I'm saying the content of what is used is not my concern in these situations, only that pain is dealt in a way that has a favorable outcome. Violence with words has a place in society for all of the knowable past and foreseeable future, but in my opinion should only be used for utilitarian retribution in a way that promotes peace and harmony (such as getting that person to leave the altercation).

    Now with everyone on the internet everything is a public place, it's new to society in general and people sometimes don't realise they're being watched and listened to not just by their personal relations, but any number of strangers ready to jump in the line of fire and get their feelings hurt. With all that said I'm done with the topic, internet strangers don't get to police the morality of my private speech and if I ever say anything untoward to someone I actually know, I'll make amends to them only.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent