*has totally been looked at by a dermatologist

Ooh I see. Thats one solid mix-up. But I still think its good to take it seriously as a controversy, even though it shouldn’t be as it’s positive change. The backlash shows it’s still a fight to be faught

Of course you can. The female m&m was not depicted as a feminist though, was it?

Might be a free win for the company, which of course only cares about profit, but I think it’s still somewhat important development of discourse as it is the dismounting of sexism

I don’t know if you have noticed, but cartoon characters depicted as female are usually depicted as sexy. Almost always in pubs.

If you care about oppression, you will understand how the reduction to being sexy for men (“objectification”) of women all over society is important. Imagine the violence of not being seen as a person by default, an agent, but an object to male desire, the male gaze.

Again and again, since the wake of feminism, men bring up that relativist argument. Oh you feel oppressed because over your whole lifetime and that of your mother and sisters men treat you like a peace of pretty meat? Well, wrong, honey, look at “literal real problems”.

This is the relativist argument I was talking about

Playing off one kind of oppression against another has never done any good to emancipatory endeavor (aka the left)

Well, kinda, yeah. Discoursive power is a thing and brings sorrow. The recent change (also called “wokeness”) that adresses the reproduction of sexism is accordingly important.

As I understood that post, it redicules said change in discourse. So it contains this discoursive element of men making fun of feminism, or at least applying some whataboutism, as seen my fellow responder, doesn’t it?

And I mean that, maybe I’m wrong. I’m open to criticism.

“Hello I’m a man and the public objectification of women as per se sexual objects in popculture is not relevant. Am I right guys hahaha?”

So trying to destroy it and making sure its accurate and complete turns out to be the same thing

Damn that hell of a good explanation, thank god I can use those holy words in the future with their whole blasphemic potential. Ironically, it will prolly make me sound like a christian…

That makes sense. Your doc wouldn’t try to convince your shit explains the universe tho

I never understood how “hell” and “damn” are considered forbidden words by christian-conservatives. The stem directly from their own vocabulary, they are all about those categories, yet they don’t want to see them in discourse

I thinl you would really need to adress my short answer to your comment if you take this forum or it’s members serious in any way. This also means you’d need to do it if you take your own Impetus serious…

Neccessary tactical support for the democrats should not blind us regarding their standing towards class. I guess this is what OP wants us to remember

A trait in common does not equal identity

Thats something entirely different though. Using votes to show disagreement/agreement makes sense as a tool of democratic communication. This goes for comments that contain statements.

OP describes a “jail” type of usage, where there is nothing to disagree but people downvote amyways (to feel superior maybe), wich sucks cause it reads like hate

Ja, habe ich auch gar nicht so verstanden. Die Wettbewerbssemantik war, eigentlich sinnloserweise, behelfskonstruktion um allen differenzierte Kudos zu geben

Achja stimmt. Ja ok die hat gewonnen bzgl. heroisch Faktor. Alan Magee, der nach Flaktreffer 2 mal bewusstlos geworden und dann in den HBF von St Nazaire gekracht ist, gewinnt m.E. Faktor funny (und - Name)

Ja aber die war doch noch in dem Flugzeug innen drinne drin

Juhu zusammen Ü