Home
2yr ago
You're right in that using this word usually applies to adult authority figures and sexual situations. The issue isn't the definition, it's how loosely the word is thrown around.
Even in this thread, any adult that engages in any conversation about sexuality or gender identity = groomer. That's the issue. We need to have a higher standard of proof when throwing that word around in situations where it is incredibly unlikely to happen.
Home
2yr ago
Athletes are more than just sports players though. Like you, I'm assuming you're not in charge of creating federal policy, so should I just tell you to shut up and do your job? This ideology is wildly antidemocratic and definitionally authoritarian.
Home
2yr ago
You're assuming that family is typically a loving, healthy experience. You're also assuming that a healthy family is more important than a healthy individual. I also kind of feel like you're making kids responsible for how their families treat them rather than a split responsibility.
Let's flip the script here. It's 2200 and pink haired feminists have completed their takeover. While some groups tolerate straightness, the majority of people think that being straight is wrong and possible even harmful to society as a whole.
Would you tell a straight kid to stop meeting with the straights rights group at school to avoid conflict with their family? Would you tell the kid that even though they might actually be straight, living that lifestyle might result in their family rejecting them and to just put up with it? Would you tell their school to stop teaching less-popular sexual identities?
Of course not! You'd call their family and tell them to stop letting their child's sexuality determine how well they treat their kid. You'd tell them to stop acting as though their kid is gay when they're clearly not. Put some responsibility on them - they're the adults, they need to figure out how to love the child they created and are responsible for regardless of their sexuality.
Home
2yr ago
It's definitely a valid concern. But opponents of such programs/behavior also refuse to offer any other solutions for the child who expresses concerns of abuse from their parents. This has to go both ways. Any reasonable adult would want to protect a child from abuse and would take reasonable steps to do so. "Pink haired ladies" came up with one solution and it's not perfect. But I have yet to hear any reasonable alternative solution for other side of this coin either.
Home
2yr ago
You're making a lot of assumptions about the behavior that you're seeing. Why do you assume that women in the GSA are craving emotional intimacy and/or using the GSA explicitly for their solely for their own benefit? Do you not think there could be any other alternative explanations for their interest in the GSA? Have you ever asked them about their involvement? I doubt they told you that they were there to emotionally masturbate with their kids, so why would you assume that?
Home
2yr ago
I'm going to keep it real with you. You say that you're cognizant of your own biases and that you're even positively disposed towards women. You also say that a diverse cast of women have almost exclusively given you the same answer to your question for years.
Why would you think that they might not be telling the truth? I'm not saying that people can't lie, but you, like most of us, have consistently heard the same answer to the same question with little variance. I find it odd that you would question their answer so much as to write a long internet post about it. I understand that you personally have never experienced said phenomenon. But given that you're of an above average intelligence, there are probably hundreds of things you believe without having personally experienced them. Granted, you came to this discussion with an open mind and i credit you with that.
Home
2yr ago
Women (and many men) often experience threats more vividly than I do, being by nature much more concerned about physical security and much less confident in their ability to deal with a situation.
OP, this is the answer you're looking for. Like most things in life, men harassing women isn't what we think it is. It could be a man staring for longer than necessary but never making eye contact. It could be a man moving to sit a few seats closer to the girl. It could be an offhand physical compliment that would only put up blinders while riding in a confined space with a stranger.
It's hard for us men to put ourselves in the place of woman. Best I can offer is to think of every man as a 6'10'' jacked football player who wants to fuck you. I wouldn't be thrilled to sit alone in a metal tube next to Aaron Donald after he tells me that he likes my shirt and gives me a wink lol.
Home
2yr ago
I disagree with your framing completely. What if the black actress was the best actress for the job? What if she's the one who worked the hardest? Who says that an Ariel movie with a black actress will be lower quality than one with a white actress? These are all huge assumptions that you're making. The movie won't be released for months anyway, it's far too soon to make any quality judgements. This is only a conversation because Ariel is black. No one is wondering if choosing a white actor for Willy Wonka is the right decision, or if there were any 'racial issues' surrounding casting his role. No one is asking if a black actor would have led to a higher quality movie. It really just seems like people have a problem with the black actress and that's racial prejudice.
Further, why is it suddenly news that Disney is greedy? They've been this way since the 50s and they're not stopping now. Plus, Disney as a company is driven by money - pandering to audiences has been a valid sales tactic since the beginning of time. Why is that suddenly not ok? And why does choosing a black actress spur this discussion so intensely?
Home
2yr ago
If you can recast a white mermaid, why can't you recast a Chinese warrior princess?
If we accept Disney's reasoning that they want more diversity in their princess lineup, it doesn't make a ton of sense to recast Mulan as non-Asian. Mulan is the only (I think?) Asian princess, recasting her would a) remove the only Asian princess and b) keep the princess lineup diversity numbers the same. Both options wouldn't make sense under Disney's explanation of wanting more diversity. Plus, you could argue that Mulan's race makes logical sense as the movie is set in Asia whereas Ariel's race doesn't have any relevance to the movie's location.
Why not have a Black mermaid - who isn't Ariel?
I'm not saying that I totally disagree with this but I also don't think this is a significantly better option than black Ariel. FAriel as a character (& IP) is much more culturally relevant & valuable than Tiana. The 'classic' Disney princesses are icons worldwide. In terms of 'equality', it's simply more meaningful to add diverse characters to an iconic group of characters rather than creating a brand new character without any prior history or cultural significance.
It really depends on how you define and value diversity. For me, diversity isn't about simple quotas or shoeing in as many minorities as possible. It's about true inclusion and an honest effort to make things as practically equal as possible. Making a black mermaid would be the easy way out for Disney and these corporations always choose the easiest, most performative route in terms of public acceptance. This move surprised me but I encourage it since it's a better way of doing diversity than we've done in the past.
Home
2yr ago
Planting a flag in something and saying "this isn't yours anymore".
Did their original race make the character more or less 'yours' ? If the answer to that is yes, then it would make sense to add more representation in media so others could experience that connection to a character. If the answer is no (as I presume), then changing their race shouldn't affect your relationship with said character.
taking more icons away from white men.
Why is James Bond an icon to you?
Home
2yr ago
That's what grinds my gears; the smug assumption that the only reason anyone could possibly object to such race-swapping is because they're a horrible racist.
People assume that there's some sort of racial issue behind the Ariel situation because: A) the scenario is so inconsequential and B) the arguments against it are either weak or slippery-slope assumptions. This doesn't mean that anyone who is anti Ariel is racist, but it does leave the door open to wonder why anyone would be so vehemently against this move.
And would your Facebook friend who is so eager to change things up for the sake of diversity be happy to recast Mulan so that a Black woman could get the lead role? And if that's different, how is it different?
Most Disney princesses are white, including Ariel. Mulan isn't. Disney is (openly) pro-diversity, so it makes sense that Disney would want an Asian princess too.
If they're going to recast Ariel, then every cast member should be Black for internal consistency and coherence.
There aren't any rules or reasons as to why the recasting of one character should lead to the recasting of all characters.
Can your Facebook friend explain to me why new Black Ariel is still a redhead, and not having her own ordinary beautiful natural hair?
Why does Ariel's hair have anything to do with race of the character? Moreover, Ariel's red hair was one of the characters' defining features in comparison to the other princesses of the time.
Nobody is objecting to "let's do a new movie about a black mermaid" if they can write a good story and hey, maybe there are even folk tales and legends about black mermaids, who knows? But this isn't about 'let's give little Black girls a character they can identify with, so they can dress up as Ariel for Hallowe'en', it's about wringing every last penny out of their property by re-tooling it to get another extension of marketability.
The functional difference between "let's do a new movie about a black mermaid" and "let's do a remake about a black mermaid" are quite inconsequential. Both versions exist, and given that we're talking about a children's character, both characters existing has no real ramifications for practical life.
Look, I hate the shameless antics of Disney as much as anyone, but is that really what this discussion is about? What does Ariel's red hair have to do with Disney's endless greed? And did this penny-wringing really start with Ariel? More importantly, if the Ariel was white, would this still be an example of Disney's greed?
Home
2yr ago
What kind of leftists are you hanging around? I'm not trying to no-true-scotsman this, but at its core any leftist ideology by definition is "challenging how our society is currently organized". I've seen literally thousands of posts and comments on leftist boards talking about how our current economic and social conditions have directly led to negative psychological trends. It's one of the few things that all subgroups on the left would agree with and fight for.
Home
2yr ago
Twitter's official blog in 2011
Not that I love defending Twitter, but a lot has changed since 2011. That was the wild west of the internet and back when people saw the internet as a fun novelty. Social media is wayyyy more than a novelty today - we've seen social media influence elections, enable terror cells to form and communicate, drive people to suicide, and worse. Given that in 2011 they also had a much smaller user base, it's not shocking to me that they would change their tune once we realized the monster that social media has become. There's definitely an argument for how Twitter has approached this, but to argue that social media sites should be a free-for-all isn't realistic at all.
Home
2yr ago
I'm not sure this applies in this situation. It would be different if she had a serious bipolar swing and decided to do this on a whim - instead, we have a clear trail of where her issues began, sufficient evidence to suggest that she's indeed suffering from a severe mental illness, and plenty of time for her to change her mind. Stripping freedoms away from people with mental illness seems like a step backward regardless.
Home
2yr ago
In regards to point two, I think you're looking at diversity in a vacuum. Diversity isn't just about what shows are released right now in this moment, it accounts for the past as well. We have plenty of all white shows historically. We also have plenty of shows where the cast is like 90% white as well. In this context, it isn't surprising that today an all-white show would be frowned upon for diversity reasons while an all black show would be appreciated for the same reasons.
Home
2yr ago
Meanwhile we've damaged two deeper principles: keeping politics out of where it doesn't belong, and actually meaning it when we said that we wanted race not to matter.
These are your principles though, not intrinsic principles. I personally think media is a great way to talk about politics and historically it's been a common practice (think of older novels with political messages, etc). Regardless, most media is political even when it's not explicit. You can make an argument that politics doesn't belong in movies but it's just an argument, not a deeper societal principle.
Along the same lines, 'not wanting race to matter' is fully loaded as well. I'm not sure where you stand on this issue, but there's plenty of proponents on either side of this debate. It's hardly a deeper principle.
Home
2yr ago
duh, if two people disagree then one of them has to be in charge or the issue will never get resolved" doesn't seem to come up very often.
I don't find this to be true at all, whether in my personal relationships, business, or even politics.
Further, even in this case, who do you think should be in charge? In traditional gender roles it's obviously the man, but why? In a lot of ways this is what the 'battle of the sexes' is all about: One group claiming a right to power and the other challenging it.
Home
2yr ago
If men are naturally stronger than women, why is female-on-male rape a problem at all?
The answers to that question should give you the answers to your question as well. Further, given that the article is talking about a competitive context and not in averages, I think it's easy to see why your question misses the point a bit.
Just to be clear - the entire contents of the bag are worth over $2K while the suitcase is only worth $295 brand new. It would really shock me that someone in this position would a) risk a government job for petty theft B) steal a non-collectible, relatively inexpensive suitcase. What's the max you could even resell a used $300 suitcase for?
Obviously this story is really weird. But life is crazy enough that something like this could happen and at this point it was likely a mistake.
More options
Context Copy link