she tried to run over the cop and/or thats what he thought when he fired, anyway
Even if this was true, it’s honestly irrelevant. You’re not supposed to fire upon the driver of a running/moving vehicle period, lest the vehicle become an ‘unguided missile’ (via dead weight pressing on the accelerator) that can cause who knows how much more damage.
ICE’s own rules explicitly prohibit it, I saw someone citing them earlier.
The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said.
Neither does “black lives matter”, to the vast majority of people. It makes perfect sense for the typical person hearing that phrase for the first time to react with confusion. If you explicitly say “black lives matter” to someone, you are, whether you realize it or not, implying to that person that they are racist enough that they don’t believe the lives of black people have value.
If I made a point of telling you “you know, the earth is round”, that implies that I believe that you don’t already believe that (otherwise, why would I be saying it to you?). So a response fueled by confusion/indignance from you would make perfect sense.
I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.
people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything
Deliberately out of context, not to misquote you but to say that but this part of the sentence rings true for me, lol. I have never seen “white lives matter” expressed in any significant capacity. Probably saw it written or heard it said less than 10 times since BLM started as a named thing.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic.
Well, no. Taking “rotten apples” literally doesn’t mean apples are inherently rotten, it’s just a descriptor.
What I have more of a problem with is that the exact same thing exists within stereotypes of femininity, but “toxic femininity” never gained any steam as a concept/term at all. That does more to imply ‘it’s all the males’ fault’, I think.
I’m reminded of someone once mocking the notion of a fanny pack being marketed to men with a camo pattern, calling it an example of “fragile masculinity” that was inherently misogynistic. I asked them if a tool set with pink handles being marketed to women was an example of “fragile femininity”, and response I got was no, that that was also misogynistic, somehow.
Also, “manspreading” is supposedly a misogynistic, aggressive act by men denying women space in public settings, and yet, (primarily) women taking up entire extra seats by putting their purses/bags on them never ‘went viral’ in the same way, again no colloquialism for it, despite being an act that’s significantly more common, and deprives others of more space than a guy whose knees are spread out.
Ideologues won’t see the obvious flaws in their logic no matter how blatant you make them.
Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better
Better, but still not optimal, since the whole thing is about police brutality, and that slogan says nothing about that. Even with the “also”, in general it comes off as an accusation of racism toward whoever you say it to (especially since it was said mostly to other ‘random’ citizens, not cops).
If I walked up to a random person and said “hey, women’s lives matter”, I should expect to get one or more of these responses:
Because those are the implications that kind of phrase carries.
When BLM was a brand-new thing, it was a normal, and very understandable, reaction, for someone who’s hearing it for the first time to say/think something along the lines of:
It was also badly-named for another reason: the whole foundation of it was in response to police unlawfully killing black citizens. “Black Lives Matter” in no way speaks to anything involving police action. The phrase naturally comes off as an aggressive accusation of deep racism (to the point of believing a certain person’s life is literally worthless, which is a step beyond the inferiority actual racists usually ascribe to their ‘target’) when said to someone.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
“Overexplaining” already has an established unrelated definition, though. I’ve ‘coined’ “splaining” as slang for the behavior, which is not only perpetrated by both sexes, but is also perpetrated for reasons other than sex. It’s kind of a subcategory of condescension, I’d say.
When someone assumes another is ignorant on a subject, because of any characteristic that does not actually have a relationship with knowledge of that subject, and as a result, condescendingly explains something to them, that’s ‘splaining’. Also of note is that EVEN IF the ‘receipient’ actually happens to be ignorant of that subject, and of the information being given to them, it’s STILL ‘splaining’. What defines it is the combination of the unfair assumption, and the action taken based on said assumption. Assuming you know more about X than someone because they’re younger than you, is a non-sex example of the exact same behavior.
Things are still very bad for women and that is not even getting into partner abuse
Did you know that in nonreciprocally violent heterosexual relationships (i.e. only one of the two partners is violent), women are the perpetrators over 70% of the time? Yet, domestic violence is most often treated like a thing with only male perpetrators and female victims.
or topics like rape.
The narrative is such that the public consciousness is so skewed that you’re not aware that women rape men as much as men rape women, are you? Successful feminist lobbying (primarily attributed to Mary Koss) to call the rape of a man by a woman something other than “rape” so that female rapists can ‘fly under the radar’ on “rape statistics” is the primary reason this is so uncommonly known.
If you think underreporting and a lack of justice is bad for female victims of male rapists, your head will explode if you objectively look at the respective rates for male victims of female rapists.
It’s bad for both sexes, but it is literally objectively worse for males. Your ignorance of this subject just proves how wide the empathy gap really is.
The Innocence Project is all about getting wrongfully convicted people out of prison. Check out the linked list, filter it for “sex crimes” if you like, look at the years and decades of wrongfully-served prison time, then see if you can find any women.
There are no cases of a man molesting a girl and then successfully gaining both legal custody of the child, and legally-awarded child support - from the child he molested. But reverse the genders, and precisely that has happened.
This constant trivialization/erasure of male suffering just makes it clear how little people like you actually care about equality. Anyone truly seeking equality would be equally outraged about injustices suffered by both sexes.
I’m reminded of how outraged feminists were about the inequality when men possessed a significant majority of college degrees[1], but in the present day, after the myriad of programs/grants/scholarships exclusive to women got it to the point where women are now significantly more than half of college graduates, and men are in the minority, suddenly feminists aren’t concerned with that inequality anymore.
One of the many reasons the claims that feminism was for everyone and that there was no need for male-focused advocacy (and that, in fact, such advocacy was inherently misogynistic) because feminists ‘had it covered’, always rang hollow.
One more quick example, an anecdote from my own personal life: a feminist friend was complaining about required reading materials for high school classes not being 50/50 re the sex of the author, but being majority male authors, which was disadvantaging the girls. When I pointed out that girls already are objectively significantly ‘ahead’ of boys in those subjects, so why was she pushing for the gap to grow even wider, her only response was to get angry.
An actual egalitarian would care about a significant imbalance in either direction that’s caused by bigotry/prejudice, regardless of who’s got the short end of the stick.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
Yes, this is actual egalitarian thinking. Special interests who don’t care about inequalities that benefit ‘their group’, or stop caring when an inequality that affected ‘their group’ now favors ‘their group’, are not forces for equality/fairness.
And this difference only became significant when the GI Bill became a thing, allowing men in the military to get a college education for free, which imo is the least the government could do for men after conscripting them, something women never had to deal with. In 1940, the difference in the college graduation rate between men and women was negligible, a measly 1.7% (5.5% male and 3.8% female). ↩︎
The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.
Just a little 90x error, lol
👆 Found the gooner.
Actually, all they had to do was make the man in panel 1 and the man in panel 3 not the same man, to not have been shitty in the way I pointed out.
It’s very simple.
The thing is, I don’t blame women for valid self protective instincts.
I don’t think labeling men hypocrites counts as a “self protective” act.
I feel like you and many others feel like my issue is simply that panel 3 is there at all, and that I’m indignant about the notion of men reacting poorly to rejection. But that’s not my issue at all. I explain below.
Ghosting is antisocial bullshit, but it’s the easiest solution available to a potential for real, serious harm, especially when you are only one of some dozen guys one woman might be dealing with on the subject.
You’re misinterpreting the core of my distaste with the comic.
All the comic had to do to not be shitty in the way I’m criticizing it for, is have the men in panels 1 and 3 not be the same person. That’s all. Then I could at least understand a message like what you describe: ‘this is a shitty thing to do in a vacuum, but I feel like I have to do it, to not risk an unpleasant reaction’. But by nonsensically making it the same guy, when it’s basically never the same guy doing both things (do you really think men who have those kinds of outbursts when they’re rejected, are the ones wishing women would reject them overtly? Think about it), the author is shitting on decent guys who have a reasonable desire to not be ghosted, which is not mutually exclusive with understanding why women do it.
Does that make sense?
“Not all men, also women are bad”.
So we’re just lying now?
The ‘point’ they got across is that the author believes that men who express the desire for women to be more direct with them (presumably instead of ghosting them), are all hypocrites that react poorly to directness. At the very least, they unambiguously state that assuming that to be the case is the correct thing to do.
There’s no ambiguity about that. That is the message, and it’s inaccurate and sexist.
Are both ‘parts’ within the DMs with that person, or is ‘1’ in a regular post/comment, and then ‘3’ is in the DMs?
If the latter, I don’t think I can realistically verify at all if they’ve posted any significant amount, but with the former, I probably could.
Ah you’ve edited your comment
Sorry, I’m quick to revise if I think I could have written something better, or found supporting information, etc. I don’t think the content has really materially changed, though.
You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy.
I don’t know how to do this, nor am I really inclined to dig through someone’s stuff like that (and even if I did, I’d expect only the ‘panel 3’ part to be in the DMs, not the ‘panel 1’ part too). Can you link to one example of the same person doing both (panel 1 and panel 3) things? I’m genuinely interested to see.
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.[1]
What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have ‘hate crime enhancements’ attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime. ↩︎