161–169 of 169 posts
Maybe she floated the fake story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The news story is literally that she's the _first_ female captain, so it's safe to say that there are probably a lot of deeply entrenched prejudices against women in those roles. Jokes are (almost?) always political because it only works if you share similar views about what the world is like and how it should be. In this case the joke is that women are unfit to be captain, the setup is that "they" eventually "let" a…
> If you don't think women are unfit to be captain (or at least "intrinsically less fit" or whatever) the punchline doesn't work. You seem to have a rather linear view of humor. People laugh at (and enjoy) comedians they disagree with all the time - a well crafted joke can be considered well crafted and funny by many people, regardless of the target or the listener’s personal beliefs.
Having watched hours and hours of comedy roasts and heckler takedowns on youtube over the years, I just don't see this in practice. The butt of the joke never gets it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No other ships were impacted by the storm. If the captain was a European or American national he'd be all over the news. His identity is newsworthy. My guess is that the Western media is having trouble confirming the identity of the captain and/or finding any details of his identity.
> If the captain was a European or American national he'd be all over the news. Citation needed. HN is going down the drain with low quality comments like these. Identities are probably hidden to prevent Western media from spinning a bullshit narrative about how the crew nationality was a factor in the accident and get more clicks with clickbait headlines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What/who is "the media"? I see this pattern where you define a class so broad any proposition becomes a truism, and productive discussion becomes impossible.
The media are a trusted class of society who are afforded a blanket level of respect based on their role in society. The media have started to act in the best interest of their clan vs society as a whole. The Media has fragmented and serves their niches but not society as a whole. So talking about the media as a whole is possible without having to identify tribes within.
I'm not saying you are not making a point - it's just a unnecessarily broad point that is difficult to discuss constructively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People here in Egypt think it is funny. That's why the media likes to publish these fake stories. They are not anti-women or something like that, they just think it is a good joke. But it is not funny at all.
If the "joke" is predicated on the fact that she is woman, then yes, they are in fact "anti-woman".
Gender discrimination and prejudice are absolutely terrible (I feel I have to say this before I'm accused of discrimination). But the article doesn't say if she was actually the one at the helm of the ship, and it also doesn't explain why it would be bad to hold the captain of that ship responsible for the disaster (regardless of gender).
“At the time of the Suez blockage, she was working as a first mate, in command of the Aida IV, hundreds of miles away”
I think being “hundreds of miles away” qualifies as “she wasn’t at the helm of the ship”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What in the world? This is the most out of place reply I've ever received. I can't begin to understand what you think you read and the volumes of strange assumption you made about me I honestly don't know if this reply represents sanity at all. Literally nothing in the reply even appears to relate to a single word I said. The entire reply appears to be based on a completely different post?
haha oookie dokie. i do ok, thanks[1]. i feel you're reacting to a gentle yet eccentric message in a pretty uncharitable way, and so this interaction would maybe not be productive for either of us EDIT: ok, against my better judgement, i'll engage and try to communicate better -- the leap where i may have jumped off your train of thought (and it was a jump, but is always very evident to me) is this: i disagree that i…
I would charge that your "network centricism" is a buzzword to help you rationalize ignoring bad things in our world. I would charge that it appears to be nothing more than "Completely ignore things you can't change", which is a honestly horrific ethos to live by.
"Comparison of how women are treated in their local communities [elsewhere] with how men are treated in China is completely irrelevant and counterproductive imho"
It's only irrelevant if Chinese people are irrelevant. Sorry to state hard facts, but this comparison is only irrelevant if the plight of the Chinese person is irrelevant.
To you, maybe.
I don't take offense to how you write, I think you use 100 words where 15 would work, and I think you enjoy the concept of ideas more than thinking them through to their endpoints. I amount all of this response to nothing more than justifying not giving even 1% of thought to the plight of people who are oppressed in the world. The highest IQ "Out of sight, out of mind" I've ever witnessed.
I think you're clearly smarter than me, but I think you have some very immoral ideas. I don't mean to offend, I just think it's shocking how one can compartmentalize so efficiently that you think it's a "red herring" to bring up real oppression in the world because, basically, you can't do anything about it. Reality isn't a red herring and to even suggest that real situations happening right here today right now are "red herrings" is just such a feat of smart stupidity to me.
Thanks for replying. But I fear your opinion is why it's so easy for genocide's like the one happening there to happen. Out of sight out of mind, it's a red herring and trap to think about it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony when people use these "gotchas" whenever anyone talks about women entering jobs they've been previously denied or actively removed from (e.g. programming?) is that you're literally complaining about the same thing as feminists, just from the other end. Yes, we should encourage women to take on ultra dangerous[0] jobs they're underrepresented in. We should also stop thinking the problem is a lack of encourag…
I always find it fascinating, when people start to claim words for themselves. I don’t even necessarily disagree with OP, it is just that the majority of it’s speakers (maybe within a context) decide what a word means in a language.
"Toxic masculinity" has been purposefully misunderstood by self-styled anti-feminists to mean something it does not. I agree that it's a bit obtuse and unnecessarily provocative, but the only other meaning than the feminist one is the one either based on genuine ignorance or purposeful misdirection.
"Feminism" is a broad political term referring to a wide range of movements and academic fields of study. I wouldn't claim that "Buzzfeed feminism" isn't in any way "feminist" but this brand of "pop feminism" is clearly driven by profit motive rather than ideology. Gillette, Disney, etc aren't promoting "feminism" out of genuine care for feminist ideologies, they're doing it because it makes them money because in pop culture "feminist" has been watered down to a generic "supporting the status quo but in a good way".
If anything, the majority of speakers probably use "feminism" to vaguely mean "women's rights", but I'd wager beyond the very online crowd, few people even have heard of "toxic masculinity" or can think of a meaning beyond literally just creating ad-hoc synonyms (probably wrongly, because they expect it to be about "men bad" because that's what pop feminism often boils down to).