631
Me_irl (lemmy.today)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/me_irl@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Straw-man, why don't you. Go for the low-hanging fruit to punch down. That's all you assholes entertain yourselves with while stroking hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Am I punching down? I felt like that was just a love tap, sideways. What group do you perceive me to be punching down at? Sex negative body shaming Helen Lovejoy types? I don’t think I need to aim downwards to hit them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    You're clearly misrepresenting what I'm saying and taking the piss instead of actually addressing what I mean. I hadn't even elaborated before you started making assumptions.

    And why is your example from a family show that doesn't depict women's bodies as disproportionate for the sake of turning on adult men? You're all over the place for the sake of being a mean girl and doubling down, dude.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, yeah, I was absolutely taking the piss. More specifically, I was exaggerating my understanding of your position to make a tiny satire of it, because I think it's a laughable position.

    That's different than misrepresenting it or building a strawman, because no reasonable person would think I was trying to faithfully represent your unexaggerated views. It's also different from punching down -- that generally refers to taking aim at a group that's at a societal disadvantage relative to yourself, which I'm not attempting to do.

    But sure, I was taking the piss. I'll accept that it would have been more charitable to wait to see you elaborate on your take. I've had the chance to see you do that elsewhere in this thread, though, and it only made me disagree with you more, so I think my instincts were pretty on point.

    The bit about Helen Lovejoy wasn't an example of anything, it was a reference to her catchphrase: "wont somebody think of the children???!", applied when children are in no danger whatsoever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    So you're salty that I called you out, and now that you realize your mistake you're doubling down in an attempt to save face. Typical Lemmy mean girl.

    when children are in no danger whatsoever

    You sound like a boomer. "The children are fine!1!!" The children now:

    Go upvote it and be a total hypocrite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Let’s talk hypocrisy. You don’t fight for body positivity by denouncing one body type as intrinsically sexual, inherently provocative, and dangerous to expose to children. Particularly when talking about POC characters like Nani and Chel.

    As an aside, you know what I always really appreciated about Nani’s character design? The little belly the artist gave her. It’s a small thing, and you’ll probably just pretend it was never there, but do you know how damn refreshing this shit was coming out on the heels of the heroin chic era?

    Of course not, anyone old enough to have actually watched these movies in the context they were released in is just an out of touch boomer to you. Whatever, I’ve said my piece, we’re done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •