Promethiel

Fuck was your plan to stop the genocide in Palestine asshole, go kill Net with the brassy swinging of your massive balls? Go fuck yourself, you ain't helping anyone, Palestinian or otherwise.

So you feel whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men? Or do you agree that that is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender?

They're agreeing with you it seems to me, and sharing their anecdotes that despite that reality which they agree with, let me re-emphasize that, despite that reality (that using one gender's struggles to whatabout another's is considered both ineffective and borders on conflict-seeking, inherently), that in their experience, they have seen the same the same whatabout tactics used to dismantle discussion when a "male centric" issue is the discussion catalyst, as when it's a "female centric" issue originating the discourse.

I can't speak for that other commenter to your follow up question though, so I'll answer it for myself: I do not feel that whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men, no.

As a matter of fact, I feel that they're employed more often to stiffle discussions on "woman centric" concerns precisely because of how little Men's issues are discussed, and the reason for both is the same. That this is a side effect of the patriarchal systems in place doesn't absolve either side from the requirement to be genuine if genuine discourse is sought, though.

I have seen what the commenter is mentioning and right here on Lemmy to boot. Because whether male or female, a whatabout is an easy rhetorical blanket to reach for, and many do.

I believe that both genders (including and specially men, who must own up to the fact that collectively we're the gender with the greater frequency of offense against other genders if we're ever going to get to addressing why it's the same systemic patriarchal roots binding women's rights that choke out the existence of men's rights issues) have to be willing to communicate.

Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but "TooManyMen" aren't listening that they're (women) speaking for them both too, and I feel those men who are able to hear some of that message need to help out in stopping the whataboutism wall in their brothers before they get going...

The same way that I believe there's women who need to do the same for many of their sisters in the public square.

Divided is how we've gotten to this, unapologetically more viscerally dangerous for womanhood world that pretty much always has been, but I feel that it is united that we'll reach any dreams of equity or widespread understanding between the genders, if we ever will.

In short, I agree "that that [whataboutism tainting discourse] is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender", but the mere axiomatic observation falls short of the next step:

Both sides need to acknowledge and give each other the room to voice out their feelings, views, ideas, etc, genuinely (trolls and agitators need not be entertained) while still keeping an eye for the possibility that unity lies not in knowing the correct answer but in the shared questioning.

Fellas let's do (and encourage our brothers to) better whether we think it's fair or not, and ladies, understand (and share with the sisters who it's safe to) that a hypocrite and someone whose barriers are breaking will appear briefly as the same before change is undergone.

Same, but (at least in my case) you can't ever listen to that bastard brain and do more than a small amount. The margin is thin and the prize of folly is being up at 3AM, yawning sleepily, but awake.

Those amounts aren't USD yeah, probably habit when writing down money. The 170k and 360k figures are the WoW virtual currency aka "gold".

There is a floor to WoW token's gold value from what I recall (it's been years since I interacted with Blizzard and WoW) but no ceiling.

Dunno how hard it curbed bots/unsanctioned gold sellers/fascist scum grassroots campaigns (no, really, look into Stephen Bannon and WoW gold it's so fucking stupid) but!

Blizzard absolutely realized and then moved to take all the money that was being left on the table from 3rd party virtual currency sales, and they apply every measure and analytical tool to maximize that profit because of course.

This mount's release is literally them inflating the price of the virtual currency ahead of real life earnings calls, because it absolutely will sell and give them the revenue infusion that the WoW token's rise in value is meant to provide for as long as they want until it's time to pump the numbers again with another mount/high sought store item.

A very similar variant in form and function to this mount was once available in-game and trade able with a rarity tuned that it ended up being sold for the WoW Token equivalent of ~$500 at the prices at the time, as there was no store version or similar option elsewhere.

It's no accident that when the price of the WoW Token is at its lowest, here comes a slightly updated and dolled up version of that same highly sought mount version.

WoW is where real economics, car ownership culture, hoarding, and dopamine treadmills collide and Blizzard doesn't just know this but have it charted on 5 year plans.

Trivial, smart, and likely amongst the first operational considerations when "real" political advocacy organizations do it.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they had a BYOD policy and the "PAC" exists mainly in three forms: A hastily made app, Leon's drug fueled rants, and the media's overestimation.

Not all.

Carriers tend to have internal hangar spaces, repair/loadout spaces, machining capability, assisted takeoff/landing systems on the flight deck, etc.

To "carry" the aircraft and expect them to perform their roles, the carrier has to be a mobile light airfield and not just a deck to land and take off from.

Edit: Not to say they can't sail or don't with any of them on the flight deck of course, but that's maintaining a certain level of readiness that has some posturing inherent. I guess that's true for all military readiness doctrines.

While your point that sometimes people just have AI image associated traits is very salient, I worry you might not be considering the lengths these things will be used and why online discourse (in my worried opinion) is utterly fucked: The past ain't safe either.

For now we still have archive.org but without a third party/external source validating that old content...you can't be sure it's actually old content.

It's trivial to get LLMs to get image gen prompts done to "spice up those old news posts" at best (without remembering to tag the article edited/updated or bypassing that flag entirely)...and utterly fuck the very foundation of shared and accepted past reality not just presently but to anyone using the internet itself to look through the lens of the past at worst.

Software has been leveraged to do mass arbitrations against companies that insist on enforcing it, somewhat leveling the playing field in the power imbalance, at no less a cost than courts ultimately for the corps. Tricky enough they've found it hard to make language against them too.

So in a sense, it is de-enshitification but it is more likely borne from Steam throwing in the towel against a losing proposition (preventing costly mass-arbitration) than doing so because they want every user to have the maximum legal recourse.

A W is a W though, imo.

Holy fuck. That is beyond the pale, and I'm sorry you had to go through that. Chills thinking how wrong that could go.

They uh, would need to remain capable of speech for that. Surely there's official act way of stopping that.

The sword. A literal sword of Damocles, above "tHe MaLiCiOuS eNtITy". Is that what you need to hear to feel you've won? The divine rights of kings and the paradox of tolerance to meet the same end, there's a solution to your Gordian Knot.

Now hit me with the defeatist game theory take against the groups that already would take everything.

You utterly missed my point, as that is not what I did.