You have the love the male commenters going "nuh-uh, that's not what women experience!1" as they get offended and make it all about them and "not all men." And then can't figure out why this entire thread just lends this comment credibility. It was one of those every single thread things on reddit and it's no different here. Except maybe worse.
Any policy that comes from this would also benefit men that have had to live with fake abusive images being generated of them. But some people would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. As long as women don't get stuff, then it's worth it for men have to suffer a little extra, amirite? /s
fuck straight white men.
But of course, this is what it always comes back to for men who try to make some transparent argument against protecting women from fake nude photos, revenge porn, domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc. It's never a real argument. It's some insecure guy getting his feelings hurt by just the mention of equality. They don't feel special anymore, so they inevitably claim that women being protected from abuse is somehow a privilege. It's just tired and predictable.
People care about women, you goon. Realize that there are many more important issues affecting the global landscape, we shouldn't care about some fake naked pictures of a popstar.
This is the dumbest paragraph.
"People do care about women! That's why 'we shouldn't care' about the slew of abusive fake nude photos of them all over the internet! Literally every other problem on earth is more important than protecting women. See? I totally care!"
Don't be obtuse and pretend you think this is just about "a popstar." This problem and any legislation affects countless women and girls.
One thing about Lemmy is that it's so much more misogynistic than reddit ever was, which I would have never thought possible.
Why is the assumption that it's always and only homeless people. Every time there's one of those viral videos of people stealing shit from stores it's somehow never homeless people.
But I guess if you want people without homes to start committing property crimes, one way to do that is to "move" them - meaning having a bunch of cops come, forcing them into areas with no services that they're unfamiliar with, and then having waste management steal literally all of their worldly possessions and throw them into a dumpster. Yes, that will keep them from stealing in order to survive /s.
It's always the people who bitch about people without homes who have zero interest in learning what it would actually take to help the problem. If they actually cared, they would never advocate for just "moving" people, because if they used their brain for two seconds they would know how much worse it would make the problem. These are human beings. You can't throw them away, sweep them under a rug, or make them disappear into thin air. They need resources to rebuild their lives. I wish it were requisite to be homeless for a week in high school or something, since no one seems to be able to imagine what exactly they would do if they woke up tomorrow with nothing. It would never be a problem again.
I'm formally homeless, and I enjoy knowing that people are making the effort to point out that the only difference between us and "them" or "those people" or "the homeless" is that they lack a roof. The word "homeless" has so many negative connotations that there are people trying to reframe it's meaning to be more objective. Everything we say and do has meaning, so changing a narrative is extremely important.
But sure, fuck those people. /s
Sorry what's your alternative? I'm guessing communism?
capitalism is the most efficient economic system we can come up with
"Everything I don't like is communism." There's always one of you morons in every thread. I'm sure this comment will change everyone's mind.
This should be a motivational post to get people investing.
Totally, because people who are struggling just love to take risks with their money.
Some of us go to concerts alone. It's not that crazy to leave a single seat open.
Not that that should ever be the consumer's problem anyway.
California is doing a hell of a lot better than any other state. That's why it's always people who don't live here who want to say shit like this.
No state is perfect. This is the US after all. But major California cities are the best you're going to get in terms of anything even resembling progressivism. If people who don't live here or have never been here want to make the choice to believe conservative propaganda about homelessness when it's a nationwide problem, or about crime when it's decreased nationwide, then that's their own problem.
There's a documentary and a dramatized show about her life on Netflix. CPS had been there. Doctors had suspected Munchausen's but couldn't do anything. Their neighbors knew something was wrong but couldn't prove anything. What she did isn't necessarily justifiable. But "they should have gone to the cops" is ignorant af.
stupidly strict about things like pot but unhealthy drinking habits are encouraged
Hmm where have we heard that before
the statistics don't lie that men have stopped approaching women because it's not worth the potential headache
Where are these stats about how often men approach women
he was a competitive ballroom dancer
That's a new one.
When are we going to start banning flavored alcohol like White Claw and Mike's while we're at it
Is it just me, or do most top comments on this post read like astro-turfing?
I've been thinking this a lot about posts on lemmy and it's really disappointing.
But it's not just the corporate stuff that's disappointing. A post on the front page right now about Spotify not removing the intentionally hateful transphobic song has an entire comment section justifying hate speech.
I question staying on lemmy more and more because I'm seeing trash rhetoric like this more and more and it's fucking gross.
nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet
To your point, maybe if what we got in return were worth a shit, people would be more willing to pay. But it gets shittier and shittier, more and more inundated with ads, worse journalism with more clickbait and AI, all for prices that go up every year to multiple times per year.
It was more reasonable when you could go to the store and pay for one newspaper or one issue of a magazine. Then if you really liked it you could subscribe. Now there's no other option but to subscribe. Not everyone wants to be paying a bunch of separate subscription fees per month just to get decent news, and not everyone wants one hundred percent of a news outlets content. But we're charged for it regardless. Fuck no, no one wants to pay for that.
Maybe if it were one of the only things that required a subscription. Like it used to be. But now, almost every single thing we use comes with a subscription charge and there's usually no other way to pay for it. It's all or nothing. And it gets totally exhausting, aggravating, and ridiculously expensive, especially when they force you to pay for a bunch of shit you don't need, or they charge you cancellation fees on top of an extra month, or raise the monthly price without telling you, or tack on extra charges for shit that should just come with it in the first place, etc etc.
My point is, no one should defend the subscription model. If an outlet does good journalism, they'll have donors. PBS Newshour, NPR, Democracy Now, they're some of the best souces and they're all nonprofit. And, what do you know, none of them have actual ads.
And shoutout to local libraries to loaning current magazine issues online. I get a Libby notification every time the New Yorker comes out. And I'm sure they're losing a ton of money because I don't personally pay for a subscription /s