Sort-of memes that are cracking you up at the moment

.

7 Attachments

What the fuck is this bullshit combining posts?

It's bad enough that all the pictures are miniatures, but you go and then counter my workaround.

Livid.

2 Attachments

I suppose I just need more effort for the post part than a full stop.

2 Attachments

it would be great if there was a way forward that didn't make anyone fearful of their rights; however, people obviously are scared and you haven't answered what they should do if they're not persuaded.

What rights are they/you scared they are losing?

This is also true of a lot of white people who don't want to see an equitable society for them and other people as they think that by providing that equity, they will somehow become disadvantaged. But, they are wrong.

Saying that we should cut transphobes or terfs some slack because it's been that way for a long time and they should be given time to adjust, just doesn't wash. It's been a problem for as long as that construct has been around (moreso in some cultures than others). Trans people have been around forever. And they are dying, either at their own hands or at the hands of others because they're either not getting the care they need or because of the extreme opinions some people hold.

How can it be a radical shift to ask that you treat a woman like a woman/allow a woman to live like a woman, unless you don't believe that teams women are women. Same also goes for trans men who also suffer the same prejudices but are less often the victims of some of the more violent crimes or vitriol.

But I'll stop here lest the memes buzz becomes any more harshed.

.

1 Attachment

Seriously? How does it know? I thought two posts would get around the merging.

I now feel like a failure.

3 Attachments

by providing that equity, they will somehow become disadvantaged. But, they are wrong.

Hang on a second. Admittedly I posted all those memes to move things along, but that bit makes no sense.

How can you have one group with enhanced rights and privilege, and then reduce or remove that privilege and enhanced rights without it being disadvantageous?

You can put forward a moral case for fairness, but there is self evidently a disadvantage.

What happened to all those 80s South African politicians? Apartheid ending didn't exactly do their careers any favours.

Basically this. If you don't think that feminist issues apply to trans women, you clearly don't recognise trans women as "real women" and are therefore a transphobe.

You're taking a quite extreme example there to make your point. Obviously taking down systems that massively unfairly benefitted one group over another is disadvantageous to that group in power. The same argument for taking slaves away from slave owners. But the point is, affording the same rights to all women (AFAB or trans), does not mean taking rights away from AFAB women. Just in the way that making sure Black people aren't unfairly treated doesn't mean that white people need to start being unfairly treated.

That's a jump and a non sequitur.

There is plenty of scope in between before labeling people as transphobes.

Sure it's an extreme eg. But if you give it some thought there will be plenty of other instances, big and small where the dominant culture is giving something up.

Overall having a fairer more equitable society is good from a moral pov, and hopefully gives the society the best shot at utilising all its resources.

But if you give it some thought there will be plenty of other instances, big and small where the dominant culture is giving something up.

I actually can't think of anything in the case of trans rights and also don't see the point of this (weird) line of thinking.

What rights are they/you scared they are losing?

I think that's been laid out by enough women not to need me (not a woman) to rehash.

This is also true of a lot of white people who don't want to see an equitable society for them and other people as they think that by providing that equity, they will somehow become disadvantaged. But, they are wrong.

I agree, they are wrong, but I think this feels different in terms of how resolving it will rest on the creation/reshaping of rights, whereas previous moves towards equity seem to have resulted from increasing the number of people who are given an existing right that had previously been reserved (in law or in practice) to a privileged few.

Saying that we should cut transphobes or terfs some slack because it's been that way for a long time and they should be given time to adjust, just doesn't wash.

But that's not the argument. The argument is that a lot of people are not convinced that we've thought through all the consequences of this and that simply saying "if you don't accept X, then you're a Y!" doesn't really carry the wider crowd as well as it does in our bubble.

How can it be a radical shift to ask that you treat a woman like a woman/allow a woman to live like a woman, unless you don't believe that teams women are women.

I don't think it's radical at all at a personal level and I think it falls within most people's worldview of not being a dick, when it comes to respecting other's wishes and simply doing what you can to preserve the wellbeing of your fellow humans. The radical bit (for me) is the wider philosophical restructuring that it might entail. Men and women are just category labels for groups of people, we can draw the boundaries of those categories wherever we (as a society) choose and no one definition is more objectively correct than another as long as you can define them coherently. We could well move from using sex as the boundary between those categories to using gender identity and there are good compassionate reasons for doing so (and "trans women are women" is exactly a petition to shift the definition in that way), but given that the "old" definition has functioned for many purposes (even if not for being inclusive) it does feel radical to just shed it (which is how many of the more slogany arguments come across). Even just as a "legacy" definition, sex is useful for understanding how previous patterns of privilege and oppression as a result of gender roles are still playing out.

There is actually a nuanced argument to be had about all that but the memes thread isn't the place for it. Basically, you should be able to hold a reasonable and nuanced position on that and also realise that "Is it OK if I identify as a helicopter?" is 4chan-level edgelord asshattery.

Take it to a better place to argue nuance, don't be a basic asshat edgelord here.

Basically, you should be able to hold a reasonable and nuanced position on that and also realise that "Is it OK if I identify as a helicopter?" is 4chan-level edgelord asshattery.

Yup, this.

Why can’t we all just get along

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMd2rQm6a/

1 Attachment

Since you posted it twice, I have to ask, what is the spider / kinky one about? Is the joke that the legs are kinky? Dont get it

What an utter fucking dick. Dont ride like a driver, drivers are cunts, streets are for people, slow the fuck down. Glad he got slapped.

How can you have one group with enhanced rights and privilege, and then reduce or remove that privilege and enhanced rights without it being disadvantageous?

You can put forward a moral case for fairness, but there is self evidently a disadvantage.

Unless the benefits of a more equitable society counteract that. Taxing the rich is an immediate disadvantage to them, but investing it in reducing inequality reduces their chances of ending up on a pitchfork, so that would be a net benefit for them.

That's as close to a meme as I'm getting: the rich should pay taxes as a form of anti-pitchfork insurance.

Dont get it

The creature ends up being called DADDY long legs, implying some sort of BDSM kinkiness

Daddy!

adding the daddy bit. made it kinky. getit?

https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1404462063464947712?s=19

Enjoying the David Marshall memes.