Sucks that you had to be a Trump supporting racist, Mr. Scott Adams.
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
882 points (97.8% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40235 readers
4911 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If shitty person #1 does a shitty thing to shitty person #2, doesn't make shitty person #1 less shitty
No, but in this case it is pretty fucking funny.
Does it need to? I just love it when shitty things happen to shitty people. Its karma.
Absolutely not and it's ok to HA-HA in his face as long as the joke stays fresh, but I wouldn't call the girl "queen": she's just a gold digger that gave a valid argument for even more misoginy from the other side
You think gold digging warrants misogyny? Yikes 🤢
She just played the capitalist patriarchy, good on her. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I said think gold digging brings misoginy by consequence, I never said I think it justifies it.
Don't put words in my mouth just to cry for a cause there is no need to fight here.
And as a side, I always found the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" as dumb as the culture who coined it: who the hell is playing the game? The spectators? Of course you hate the players, they're the only reason the game is being played!
You literally called it a valid argument, don't know how else to interpret that.
Would you consider it misogyny if someone mentions gold diggers in a conversation about dating? Or if they talk about gold diggers in any context at all? Or if someone even acknowledges that gold diggers exist?
Because a lot of people would consider that misogyny.
But an instagram model openly being a gold digger lends credence to the argument that "some women are gold diggers."
So if you consider it misogyny to acknowledge that some women are gold diggers, then a woman being a gold digger is, by your very definitions, creating a pretext to justify misogyny.
(Funny how women can generalize about men, but when men generalize about women it's suddenly a problem; or even if they don't generalize but cite specific examples, people will still make a strawman argument about them generalizing so even that's bad).
It involves assuming the point of view of a misoginist who feels entitled to be misoginistic. I know it's not a position you thought you'd end up when you woke up this morning, but trying to understand what's going on in other people's head is a first step towards fighting intolerance.
"women should behave a certain way to not justify misogyny" comes off about as well as "black people should behave a certain way to not justify racism", imo
i appreciate your intentions, but this is not the way
It's not that.
It's, "if you rob someone at gunpoint then you can't cry racism when you get arrested."
It's, "if you're a gold digger, then you can't cry misogyny when someone calls you a gold digger."
Behave however you want, but if you take advantage of people then you don't get to hide behind "systemic oppression" to avoid facing consequences.
Fucking sea lions all around...
I read their comment in a way 'that stands in the way of eradicating misogyny' not in a way 'it makes misogyny allowed'
Yeah that's how I interpreted it too. However, even with that interpretation, it feels like they're blaming the victim for their own subjugation.
It's akin to saying that black people stealing from Walmart gets in the way of eradicating racism, without addressing the reason why they have to steal in the first place. If they had money for groceries, they wouldn't be stealing. Likewise, if that young woman had enough money to live a comfortable life, I highly doubt she would have spent two years of her life married to that crusty old man. Subjugated people do what they have to do to survive.
We all word things the wrong way sometimes, and that's okay. Everyone deserves a chance to clarify what they meant. In this case, however, it seems that pH3ra has only continued to double down on their original statement.
Thank you, you reasonable person
You're in the right here. Some people just lack reading comprehension.
Ah, but you're forgetting that this is the age of the internet, when discussing potential solutions to a problem (or root causes of that problem so that real solutions can be found) is basically equivalent to providing justification for that problem.
We're just supposed to paper over everything to make it presentable to an audience, even if beneath the surface everything is still a wreck. Superficial, temporary solutions are preferable to lasting solutions that address the problems at their roots.
Something about toxic positivity, and confusing descriptivism with prescriptivism.
"Does" ≠ "Should" (strawmen hate this one little trick!)
so two wrongs make a right when two wrongs make two wrongs?
One turn deserves another.
"So two wrong makes a right" is said when the responding party has nothing to stand on and needs some tired old broken statement to back up their lack of argument. When anyone says that the proper response is always "One turn deserves another". A equally useless ambiguous statement in response.
Shit clings to one another until some other shit comes along.