• nile_istic@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 hour ago

    My dumb optimistic ass scrolling to the comments under this post thinking “maybe this time iT wOn’T bE sO bAd” lmao

  • Vegafjord demcon@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    5 hours ago

    The thing is that if we challenge the machine, it gets noted immidiately as being aggressive. The reason for this is because language is normalizing machine thinking. What will push workers in line, what will cool the bloom of the masses, what will paint the mighty as delightful, what will alienate us from our peers and nature.

    By taking guardianship for our languages, challenging our everyday words, we normalize the meaningful, normalize humanity.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      20 hours ago

      You’re making a great point in favor of ramping up feminism. Like wow I didn’t realize it was that necessary to speak out for it here.

      • minorkeys@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        15 hours ago

        So go even more overboard? I actually 100% agree. The faster feminist rhetoric jumps the shark, the better. Go at it as far as possible y’all.

  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    23 hours ago

    Surely she could have thought of a third position between those two so that a dial actually makes sense, over a switch.

    Charitably-interpreted, it could be an impressively self-aware piece on the binary thinking of ideologues, to genuinely feel there is literally zero middle ground between those two extremes. But she probably actually feels that way.

    It is possible to support a cause, even emphatically, without being insufferable. I’m reminded of an occasion a number of years back, when a friend of a friend who, just after we all sat down to order dinner, ranted for minutes, completely unprompted, about how chairs are shaped in a misogynistic way, which led into the nonsensical claim that, on average, males sit with their knees further apart than females, as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies.

    This is all to say I have a feeling, especially based on her reaction to it, that the teacher’s comment was in response to something closer to the above, than to something like ‘a job shouldn’t pay someone less just because she’s a woman’.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      22 hours ago

      You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization. It’s a brilliant piece.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        22 hours ago

        You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization.

        But as my anecdote exemplifies, it is absolutely possible to move away from ‘raging feminist’ without moving one iota closer to ‘complicit in dehumanization’. Those two things are absolutely not at opposite ends of a spectrum, objectively.

        It’s a brilliant piece.

        Can’t agree, but you’re welcome to your opinion.

      • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        23 hours ago

        The original phrase is pretty lame anyway. If you can’t do a thing, how can you be expected to teach it? I’d rather have a teacher that actually knows how to do the thing they’re trying to teach me.