Feathercrown @ Feathercrown @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

4,135

Joined

2 yr. ago

Me

Oh yeah that's so much better

Aah bad flag jumpscare

Why do you think they are excluded? Do those concepts not apply to them equally as much as they do to anyone else?

We could always use the GRSM acronym (Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minorities)

New pride flag

Funnily enough I just saw a massive moth, like the size of my hand. It was trying to break through the screen into my room...

I'm not disregarding the movement; I'm saying the definition is trying to be too many things at once. If the narrow definition (traditional feminism for women's rights and needs) and the wide definition (general gender issues) are too far apart, they begin to disagree. People both inside and outside of the movement are using the term in the narrower definition, and it doesn't make sense IMO to continue to try to force the wider one when we could just pick a term that's more accurate and go with that.

As an example of how this difference in definitions could be an issue, let's say that I'm a man and I want to fight for some particular men's rights issue. I would not feel comfortable taking my sign about trial verdict imbalance or male suicide rates to a feminist rally, because it only fits the broader definition. Anyone there who is fighting for feminism in the narrower definition would not appreciate me and my cause cause in what they perceive as a space to fight for women's issues only. But in the broader definition, that sign would be fine, and others would welcome me. The people using either definition aren't wrong, but the uncertainty created by having two valid definitions creates an atmosphere where it is more comfortable to fight for women's rights than men's rights.

Therefore, I think it would be smart to be able to specify, using the movement's name, if an event is about women's rights or gender equality in general. It can't be both ways; to me, the inevitable result of the uncertain definition-- a gender equality movement where it is more accepted to fight for the rights of one gender-- is clearly worse than the alternative scenario where the terms are more clear.

This thread has been helpful for understanding how others could see it as white and gold; I never realized people were actually seeing it as in shadow even given the context of the rest of the picture.

Two actually. One, the Trump admin is deporting people with no proper trials and has been ordered by the supreme court to bring people back because they weren't given due process. And two:

Project 2025 has nothing at all to do with trump or this admin

P25 is very well connected to this admin. Six of his cabinet secretaries authored or contributed to the document. Not to mention that they seem to be following the playbook quite closely.

I was mistaken-- we sent fighter pilots over to bomb them. Yup, totally not at war.

Did you just say that the USA started a war with Iran? Lol come on now.

Who just launched missiles into whose country? Check the news.

As opposed to you, who took two of my points and lied about one to refute it? Really unbiased. I've been keeping track myself separately from any particular news site. This admin is a disaster and has done things for no conceivable reason other than greed or gate.

But you can clearly see that the lighting is bright yellow-white, not blue...

Do you see em as white and gold?

Right? To be white and gold the dress would need to be in shadow, but it's clearly in light.

What always confused me is, the picture clearly seems to be overexposed, which means the blue/black interpretation should be obvious.

The "white" pixels are literally blue. The "black" ones can be considered gold due to the lighting.

You aren't paying attention.

https://www.project2025.observer/