wampus
@wampus@lemmy.ca
- Comment on From Snoop Dogg to Lap Dogg 7 hours ago:
Me personally? I wouldn’t care either way. I’ve seen a woman on the street fingering the ass of a muslim dude before, and just sorta walked by. But I don’t have kids. I imagine if I had kids, I’d be opposed to public ass-blasting.
A parent that I work with has had awkward conversations with his kids, after they came to Canada and saw guys kissing / making out in public. I can appreciate that such PDAs can prompt similar ‘awkward’ conversations, but also that they’re much less ‘common’ than encountering them as part of a big budget movie – and encountering them in public is often an easier way for parents to broach the subject. Kids noticing that stuff is unavoidable as they mature, but having it forced to the front by media / schools is questionable, and I can appreciate the parents’ concerns on that front.
- Comment on From Snoop Dogg to Lap Dogg 7 hours ago:
Poor word choice perhaps, wasn’t intending it to be taken as ‘hard core’ graphic sex bdsm, but more hardcore bdsm as in a couple clearly into that lifestyle - like a dad that wears a collar or whatnot. The latter would still be inappropriate as it would prompt questions difficult to answer for parents, and topics that are reasonably beyond a kids maturity level. It’d be fine in a pg-13, but not in a G.
- Comment on From Snoop Dogg to Lap Dogg 13 hours ago:
It’s an abnormal relationship type with a dom and a sub. Just like homosexual relationships are abnormal relationships with non standard partners involved. One is just more abnormal than the other. Both raise questions about sex, as was the point with Snoops clip – his kid explicitly asked about sex stuff, because he encountered the abnormal couple on screen. Snoop wasn’t comfortable discussing that with his grandkid in a movie theatre, and felt put out. That’s a valid response, no matter how many lgbtq+ people scream in nonsensical rage.
You may not like the point, but it doesn’t make it invalid. Just like you may not like hetero people’s reaction to homosexual content in kids media, but that doesn’t make their reactions “wrong”.
- Comment on From Snoop Dogg to Lap Dogg 14 hours ago:
If you put a bunch of hard core BDSM content into a movie for kids, it’d be considered inappropriate. Even if the BDSM community argued we have ‘no problem’ exposing kids to other kinds of relationships. It’d prompt similar uncomfortable questions for adults, and I reckon could lead to negative interactions that could damage the parent/child relationship.
No matter how you spin it, lgbtq+ gender stuff is abnormal, and applies to a relatively small minority of people in the overall population. Forcing those conversations onto hetero couples is inappropriate. Children of lgbtq+ couples may/can have those conversations earlier, as their households will likely encounter the questions regardless – just like a family of hard core BDSM practitioners would need to explain to their kids why mommy and daddy have a dungeon in the basement. That doesn’t mean every kid, and every family, should go through the same crap. Especially if, as a non-member of that community, your response will almost definitely be “wrong” according to that community.
- Comment on From Snoop Dogg to Lap Dogg 14 hours ago:
This thread seems so triggered.
He’s not expressing an uncommon opinion. Lots of parents/grandparents dislike overtly lgbtq+ content in kid-focused media, because it results in kids asking questions the adults aren’t prepared / comfortable answering. They’re basically just saying that discussing “adult” relationships is an “adult” topic, and shouldn’t be something coming about as a result of a little kid movie.
- Comment on If there's a sort of "apocalyptic" event but there are still surviving communities, will people be able to make eyeglasses again, or are people with vision issues gonna be fucked? 1 week ago:
Eye glasses started showing up around 1300 AD. Implies the basic tech / processes required to make them is relatively simple, given that they’ve been around in some form ever since the middle ages. Granted, they wouldn’t be as sophisticated as they are today, and many people with very niche issues would suffer.
Anything more modern, requiring microchips or heavily integrated international supply chains would go poof. Personally, I’d worry about dental and medical stuff we diagnose with x-rays. Like it’s not too uncommon for people to have a root canal these days… but it didn’t become a more ‘common’ thing until around the 1800-1900 period. Hell, getting your wisdom teeth pulled in a post-event world would likely suck some serious ass.
- Comment on Should visitors to a country (tourist / visa-holders / people staying temporarily) have the right to criticize the government? When should an immigrant have the right to criticize the government? 4 months ago:
Lots of people seem to think it’s either or, and it really shouldn’t be, in my view. (I’ll note I’m canadian, since it seems to matter to some these days).
The argument that foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to protest is to me somewhat valid, but with a bunch of reservations. Peaceful protests, publishing op eds, (obviously) University papers, online posts, and other ‘regular’ forms of expression I’m totally in agreement that they should be allowed to express themselves/participate.
But we’ve also seen cases in Canada where our immigration levels got so high, that we literally had CCP organized protests in favour of a detained Chinese CCP Billionaire, as well as the tearing down of “peaceful protests”/awareness things in regards to HongKong and the crack down the CCP did there. We’ve seen large, organized groups of Indian students – their messages of “go get free food” being amplified by foreign controlled social media – draining our food banks dry, the loss of that social support helping to fuel class conflicts and increased animosity towards Indian people as a demographic. We’ve seen ‘protests’ leveraged by foreign powers to sow discontent and animosity intentionally, and/or to control the narrative around news stories.
And that’s really no surprise: one of the stated methodologies of authoritarian regimes, for attacking democracies, is to basically sow civil unrest through the amplification of contested issues/topics. They’ll amplify/fund controversial right-wing and left-wing viewpoints in order to cause internal conflict. They’ll hype up race conflicts. Like how the majority of people are totally fine saying both “Hamas is bad” and “Israel’s genocidal actions in gaza are bad”, but somehow it’s always framed as just a 2 sided thing where you’re on one side or the other, is great for authoritarians: why fight a democracy, when you can make it fight itself. If we’re accepting Students/people from authoritarian regimes, we have to be realistic in acknowledging many of these people will share the regimes beliefs, and will be actively working against our governments / peoples. They aren’t the stereotypical refugee seeking a better/freer life, but rather people with malicious intentions and a desire to disrupt.
So I’m fine with such people having visas and non-permanent citizenship revoked if the person’s involved in criminal activity (violent protests), and/or if they’re a primary organizer/instigator/funder of such things, or (as was the case with some ‘student’ groups in Canada) they’re actively coordinating their protests with foreign embassies/agents. I’d also be in favour of increased scrutiny of people from such regions when it comes to long term stays / partial immigration (where they don’t renounce their former non-democratic country). Lots of countries also expect singular citizenship, I see no particular issue with western democracies at least requiring that their citizens not support/be registered citizens of authoritarian dictatorships. If you want to live in an egalitarian/democratic country, you shouldn’t be supportive of authoritarian autocracies/dictatorships.
And again, similar to the note about ‘one side or the other’, in terms of free speech, most folks generally recognise that there are some reasonable restrictions / repercussions involved with it. Hate speech, explicitly calling for the killing of some group of people or what have you, clearly not a ‘right’ for most sane people – at least, not one that wouldn’t come with consequences. In the same way that the left is fine boycotting Musk for his Nazi salutes (he’s free to express himself as a Nazi, and other people are free to take issue with that / not support him because of it), foreigners explicitly challenging the existing norms of society should be prepared for potential consequences if they do so in a manner deemed inappropriate.
- Comment on 'Doctor Who' Star Varada Sethu Fires Back at 'Woke' Critics: 'It Means We’re Doing the Right Thing' 4 months ago:
So the argument is what, that the white people who had a ‘role model’ for their kids shouldn’t be annoyed that the industry is removing that role model, because race shouldn’t matter. But also that race representation matters, and that it’s important for other races to have representation by taking over the roles of those figures.
It doesn’t upset me, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Like I accept that parents want to have positive role models that ‘look like’ their kids, as it helps kids development. So it makes sense that minority groups want to see themselves represented as such in media, and that they’d celebrate established characters being swapped over to be their race/gender. However, that same line of thinking explains why white people are annoyed that their kids are ‘losing’ role models that ‘look like them’. If you assert that ‘race matters’ (and I accept that it does for kids), then it seems reasonable to be annoyed that those characters are being ‘taken away’ for practically the same reason that it seems reasonable for minority groups to be happy to see themselves represented. If race representation matters for the character and kids having positive role models, than its arguably worse to disenfranchise the larger group of kids.
I mean, we’re busy watching young guys flock to alpha dumbass influencer bros, in part because there are fewer and fewer positive role models for them to look up to.
- Comment on 'Doctor Who' Star Varada Sethu Fires Back at 'Woke' Critics: 'It Means We’re Doing the Right Thing' 4 months ago:
Scarlet Johansen as the Major in Ghost in the Shell Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One in Dr Strange Controversy around characters like Iron Fist etc
Asian fictional characters often get white washed. Results in protests from minority groups who feel they’re being denied representation in their own culture’s created artwork, and roles in movies/shows – just like how replacing caucasian fictional characters results in protests from groups who feel they’re having their cultural representation in media suppressed by minority interests. But whatever man. Guess those dont count.
- Comment on 'Doctor Who' Star Varada Sethu Fires Back at 'Woke' Critics: 'It Means We’re Doing the Right Thing' 4 months ago:
The people who cheer for the replacement of historically caucasian roles with minority actors, are the same people who protest the replacement of historically minority roles with caucasian actors. And they wonder why there’s push back.
- Comment on ICE Returns All Migrants From Guantánamo to Stateside Facilities 5 months ago:
Maybe the US should like… return Guantanamo to Cuba, since as far as I know Cuba never agreed to the US setting it up on occupied land. The US just cuts cheques to pretend they’re paying, but Cuba ain’t accepting. The states even blocks trade with Cuba, so it seems really implausible that Cuba’s cool with the US having a torture site in their back yard.
It’s like the cops surround your house to prevent you from leaving / talking to your neighbours. Then they sometimes just break in and rape your wife, then leave $5 on the nightstand and claim she was a prostitute. Plus waterboarding.