• 7 Posts
  • 166 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 30th, 2025

help-circle

  • it’s snark, but it’s genuine, too. some people really haven’t heard it. but sure, i could have said it better, that’s fair

    the issue is that there are women who have these traits independent of if they happen to belong this “costume”. it’s a look, but it falls within normal human variance. in essence, you’ve said any women who even vaguely has traits like this is a ghoul. besides, people should be allowed to choose how they look

    it’s also using the bludgeoning of the oppressor on people you happen to have moral standing over. this meme is still ultimately about their fuckability. sure, you may find them (physically) unfuckable because you believe their appearance is a reflection of their morals. but it’s still not OK to reduce women to their fuckability. it’s the same shit people do when they misgender shitty trans people. it reduces baseline respect to privilege that can be revoked. that’s not baseline respect then lol

    (aside, i don’t think the “happen to have marriages of convenience” necessarily follows from the outfit. it might, i guess, i haven’t really looked into the marriage success rates of this group of people. but it’s not like average success rates of marriage are anything to write home about, either)

    finally, i would hope that the people in this thread who are being SUPER misogynist about it are like… putting you off. i feel like it’s not great if people are supporting misogyny in your not-misogynistic meme!

    this could have been captioned “pedophile wives cabal” or something and i think that would have been fine. re: the above “using the bludgeoning of the oppressor”, it’s always worth questioning yourself about whether you’re dunking on them because they’re shitty people or because they’re women who happen to be shitty people



  • yea if it’s implying that men are only worth being with because of their looks, it’s sexist, yea. it’s not as sexist because there’s not a societally ingrained idea that a man’s core worth is in his looks. so it’s not like it’s equivalent. but it’s almost like there are different prejudices to different genders

    or have you not heard enough people talk about women like they’re worthless because of a perceived lack of attractiveness


  • i am not a legal expert, so i don’t know if it actually holds, but my understanding of the argument presented by the article is: 1) ICE is allowed to profile people based on their appearance, and 2) there is now a requirement for trans people to apply for visas as their AGAB, ICE can now profile people for “looking trans”, based on the justification that the aforementioned rule about visas is now in effect (i.e. 1 applies to trans people now based on 2); especially because “ICE cannot know someone’s immigration status without investigating their paperwork”

    if your understanding is different, i would like to hear it





  • fractureto196He's royalty anyways; his suffering rules!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    yea a phone aspect ratio would be a pretty good change to make before we put it on display next week. or like, to have as an alternative to the booth. hm

    also yea a loss condition is currently missing, it’s something we would do if we developed the idea more haha

    glad you enjoyed it! thanks for the posting rec










  • fractureto196Web principles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    23 days ago

    i do not need that information

    i know, crazy, but humans basically just need food and shelter to live

    “newest products and services” is not in the hierarchy of needs










Moderates