Es ist traurig, dass Luftscamsa aus ihrer Vergangenheit leider nichts gelernt hat.

Es ist traurig, dass Luftscamsa aus ihrer Vergangenheit leider nichts gelernt hat.

That’s an excellent analogy. Zooming out from that scenario, should we welcome the notion of being afraid of being afraid of somebody based on their skin color, because there’s an inherent prejudice of them being dangerous? If so, should we be encouraging each other to vocalize these kinds of prejudices? And by extension, is it acceptable to draw sweeping conclusions about a group of people based on their generic traits?

Swap the word “man” for another group of people based on generic traits and continue your sweeping generalizations.

Those are the two options?

Has anybody looked into the possibility that we put down all these dangerous creatures before more people get hurt? Better safe than sorry.

It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.

How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.

It’s ironic we’re dissecting which kind of bear is dangerous, while implicitly accepting the premise that all men are dangerous.

I’ve always thought this is such a generalist scenario, meant to deliberately portray all men as dangerous and categorically make them look bad. Imagine we swapped out “men” for another group of people.

Excellent advice for most of us here. It’s ironic you should write that while I was standing on Prodalp.

So I’m guessing this isn’t referring to the overly racist stuff from the 1940s and '50s because those weren’t hit movie series. We’re getting there through a process of elimination.

You have for some reason decided that I disagree with you, but I’ve not. I’ve only tried to point out the escape hatch for proponents of mutilation to argue for, and why the comment that you originally replied to is not “whataboutism.”

HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world wrote:

Wrong, bitch.

You seem terribly upset, but there’s no need for name-calling. Nobody is “delegitimizing” anything here except what you are making of others inputs to the discourse.

For what it’s worth, we both agree mutilation is wrong and should be prohibited, so there’s really no reason to be so angry and childish in the first place.

That’s great and all, but I’m only trying to understand the opinion you put forward in your original comment.

“DuckDuckGo is an internet privacy company, best known for its search engine, web browser, and mobile app that do not track user search history or personal information.”

Well this was a useless interaction. Not sure how that has anything to do with Disney, the article or your original comment for that matter.

For what it’s worth, I don’t like the way they depict Caucasians, either.

You’ve claimed we should ignore other forms of mutilation because “whataboutism.” I think it’s reasonable to argue that any kind of mutilation should be prohibited, instead of carving out exceptions. By that logic, my question remains: do you disagree, or should we instead just try to make female genital mutilation less bad?

“Here’s some random link to try to make sense of a comment I made, good luck.”

What are you suggesting? That female genial mutilation be made less brutal, less invasive, less unsanitary or less lethal?

The point is that we should ban any kind of mutilation.

It’s a HP Pavilion Power 15-cb091nd.

Genuine question: What do you recommend? I want to replace Windows 10 on a 8-year-old midrange laptop with something that works reasonably well in terms of performance with a connected 4K monitor.

I’ve already tried Ubuntu, but unfortunately the experience has been marred by bugs such as poor performance, visual glitches, windows jumping around when attempting to move them, and DPI settings not being able to be applied per screen.