“b-but bears are actually dangerous!” Shut the hell up.

    • letsgo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      To use more inclusive language, of course. That’s what we’re all doing now isn’t it?

      • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        8 months ago

        Then the post wouldn’t have meaning because that’s a universally agreed upon moral sentiment on its face. The post is targeting people who would rather take offense to recent discourse rather than slowing down and considering how this moral sentiment applies to the situation. Without specifying ‘women’ and ‘men’ the post would not have contextual meaning.

        You’re free to make your own ‘inclusive’ meme that states the obvious, but the people this meme is targeted toward would see it as obvious and not consider how it pertains to their behavior.

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          It has the exact same meaning with the inclusive wording, without being adversarial for absolutely no reason. It would work just as well when said to a man getting butthurt over women choosing the bear.

          The wording in the OP is hateful, even if it is saying something morally correct. This is not a “Black Lives Matter” vs “All Lives Matter” situation.

          • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            That is exactly the situation. No part of this post is hateful; it’s adversarial because women expressed a justified fear and men just “disagreed” because they don’t like to think about it. The point is to be controversial yet morally correct as a statement. It would absolutely not work just as well if it was inclusive, people would just agree with it and no one would care.

            Do you disagree with the statement? It doesn’t sound like you do. What’s the issue? Who is harmed by this post?

      • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        The “points” you’re referring to dont at all contradict the OP but merely deflect from the issue presented

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Imagine if the police brutality movement was called “Black Lives Matter More Than White People’s Need To Oppress”. It’s working a needless insult into the message.

      I’d also be okay with other phrases highlighting how safety is a bigger topic for women than men realize, but not one that makes assumptions about “all men”. Even if I was a guy who largely hated the actions of my own gender, you think you’ll get 50% of the world on board by doing that?

      • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Does the sign say “all men”? If it did, would it matter? This is the most engagement I’ve ever seen on Lemmy regarding the issue of women’s safety, sorry you don’t approve of it.