you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

Criticism for a woman's originally limited distribution but now leaked nude pictures in a context that didn't mention or even tangentially relate to nude pictures, hers or others? I'd say that's at least skirting misogyny.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I can't say I actually understand or care about this, but is hating someone misogynistic just because the person you hate happens to be a woman?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Nah, not necessarily, though I think bringing attention to their sexual activities when it's not at all related to the topic is getting iffy. Then it's a matter of why. Might be slut shaming, might be they're just an arsehole, might be something else altogether.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah it's deffo a weird thing to bring up in relation to a comic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Ever been to the chippy on 23rd? Bloke sells the worst fish, and the cost! So have you seen the pictures of his weird cock?

    A completely normal conversation with strangers for @SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    this analogy is definetly weird. but justifying mod action? idk.

    however the author is a woman and for some reason i don't understand, women get more backlash for things like that, often even from other women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Shouldn't consider it completely unrelated. The comic's last panel says "I will not indulge in your poorly disguised fetish." That's a sex thing. So the comic opens that domain of discussion by making use of it. Nudes are another fetish, so bringing them up in the already approached avenue is theoretically within the general context.

    Also, no offense, but when discussing someone's creations, unavoidably the person themselves also becomes a topic of discussion. Their past actions are brought up, in relation to the topic at hand or not. It is something we all do, whether we realize it or not.

    Is it misogynistic? I'd say it borders on it as well. However, can we be sure this wouldn't have played out the same had said nudes were of a man instead of a woman?

    But I think in this case, the user themselves and their history are what triggered a permanent ban instead of a lower punishment, which in my view shows that the comment itself wasn't really out of context after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment