• spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    “On a pic of someone with a shirt with a sexual joke on it, a commenter makes a sexual joke related to the shirt’s sexual joke” is not entirely out of left field.

    Okay agree. Just please approach this “well technically” rhetoric with caution. Can be easily misread, as I did, just in the opposite direction.

    …how is its usage on the shirt not a double entendre?

    It is, I just phrased it weird. Let me go edit it.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Okay agree.

      Cool, we’re in agreement. 🙏

      It’s not appropriate (as the context of the selfie originator is unavailable, and absent that context or other signifiers, any selfie should be assumed to be non-sexual), but it is dependent on an assumption of or misreading of context (presumably in good faith) rather than a sheer bloody-minded determination to give a passing woman the metaphorical wolf-whistle.

      Just please approach this “well technically” rhetoric with caution. Can be easily misread, as I did, just in the opposite direction.

      I mean, it’s more than a technicality considering your response was to accuse him of having his first thought upon seeing a woman to comment on her breasts unprovoked. “This your first time on the internet?” implying that such comments are inherently acceptable is a dick response from him, so fuck him, but a defensive response of some sort was going to be inevitable given the (ha) context.

      If I mess up cleaning a pan because I rarely use pans (tinfoil brigade reporting), messing up cleaning the pan is not made okay by the fact that I do it rarely (I should have been prepared, I should have been more attentive, etc), but if someone accuses me of having left the pan dirty on purpose, I will absolutely respond with vitriol, when otherwise I would have inquired as to what I did wrong or been apologetic (not to imply that that’s the average response from someone objectifying someone else inappropriately, simply pointing out that IF they’re reachable, they then become less reachable by that human reaction). Because then it’s been transformed from a mistake to a deliberate offense.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Completely off topic but it’s funny to me that when we have a cordial disagreement I get pummeled with downvotes—even if we come to an understanding in the end.

        The power you wield, PugJesus. Use it responsibly.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              17 hours ago

              That would be way cuter than downvoting someone for a good faith disagreement!

              With all seriousness, while I do actually wish I had that kind of power, the more likely explanation is that you’re in the uncomfortable position of speaking truth to power. There IS a sexism problem on Lemmy and it DOES need to be addressed, and that you’re vocal in attacking it is inevitably unpopular. I generally take the more moderate side in our disagreements, but that also means that there are inevitably shitheads ‘agreeing’ with me not because they share my opinion, but simply because I’m commenting in opposition to an opinion they hate even more.

              Fact is, while I absolutely believe everything I say, it’s also true that nothing would get done if everyone was part of the ‘shake hands and make nice’ brigade. I definitely stiffen the quills and get pissed when I see sexism that I think is deliberate, but unintentional sexism is still something that must be driven out. Hell, I’m part of the problem in a sense - I’ve definitely seen edge cases where I thought “Fuck, is this sexist or am I being sensitive?”, and left it entirely without comment, not even a “Just wanted to let you know it sounds a bit” or “Could you clarify…?” because I didn’t want to wade in.

              It’s something I criticize others often on other subjects, but the fact is that everyone has issues that they are harder and softer on. People who are part of the asspat brigade may be useful for eventually reaching out and bridging the shitheads to a less shitheaddy mode of existence, but we’re fucking useless in driving the fuckers out of places where decent people congregate, and both are necessary - in varying proportions according to the state of a given community. Lemmy needs more people who take a hard line against sexist behavior, not more guys who see where the prickly reaction button is being hit - Lemmy has plenty of us already.

              Keep doing what you’re doing, spujb. Someone sure as hell has to.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        yeah exactly. i dont really know why i censored my name but im the one who made the “its not intrinsically evil” comment, i want to give people the chance to see that what they did was weird rather than coming down hard right away.

        also if you want the original video: here haha. fair warning the video is nonsensical and verging on word salad.