The "women are always screaming" stereotype is sexist. It's a direct extension of the pseudoscientific hysteria diagnosis that used to be commonly accepted. "A women," as you put it, might scream, and you might find that annoying. Women as a category have higher pitched voices on average, and the line between "reasonable yelling" and "hysterical screaming" is often just one of pitch, even when the cause for alarm or injury is the same.

Additionally, neither I nor any of the women in my life "scream" in response to injury. We yell in pain just like someone with a masculine voice, if a bit higher pitched. Some may, but it's not common and is usually reserved for situations of extreme alarm or fear, or occasionally excitement. Any time a woman does scream on video, you always see someone in the comments complaining about how annoying women screaming is. The same is never said about men screaming, unless they scream "like a girl."

9/10 times. How out of touch are you?

I thought the point of this was to treat them both the same. If yes, you're not cool for invalidating two people's genders, if no, you're still not cool for invalidating one person's gender. Maybe I'm misreading but I don't see your comment represented in the meme.

The bottom row is absolutely a strawman. I'm not vegan, for the record, but there absolutely isn't a biological need for meat in humans. If that were the case, lifelong veganism wouldn't be possible. Also, no one is wishing starvation on anyone. This meme takes what could have been a good point about letting perfect be the enemy of good and just makes it vegan bashing, of the strawman variety.

Regardless of what the "normie world" thinks, gender is a social construct and people can do whatever they want. That doesn't make them a troll and doesn't invalidate them. We can't just throw people out for being "too different" for fear of what the "normies" think. We all were too different not that long ago. We live for who we are, not for the approval of anyone else.

I have never said or meant "men are trash." I don't know who gave you that idea. I explicitly didn't excuse the behavior, I stated it was wrong and unjust, yet explained the societal nuance and why it isn't okay to equate "men are trash" and "women are trash." I'm paying nothing forward.

I am not suggesting that it's okay to make men feel responsible for the actions of people that share only a gender with them, nothing else.

Again, you can stick your head in the sand. It's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue with you. You can choose to learn or not, it's your life.

God forbid a rhetorical argument fall into multiple categories. I never said whataboutism and false equivalences are the same thing. You happened to do both. Equivocation has nothing to do with setting two things as equal, it's the use of ambiguous language to avoid the bigger picture of an issue or to avoid committing to a stance. It is another form of logical fallacy. Via equivocation (omission and vague language) you omitted key facts (social power imbalance) that makes bringing up a connected, but not equivalent, issue (replacing men are trash with any other group, which is a form of whataboutism) a false equivalence.

You can say I don't know what I'm talking about. That doesn't make it true. Your equivocation of your whataboutism argument led to forming a false equivalence.

All lives matter in response to BLM is both whataboutism and a false equivalence. Just because someone didn't say "what about" or "these things are equal doesn't make those facts untrue. There is an implied "what about all those other lives, don't they matter?" which in itself implies that the societal inequalities BLM rose in response to are equal to the pressures felt but the rest of "all lives."

God damn bougouise feminists.

Lol

This is reductive. I do not disagree with the fact that generalizing diverse groups is wrong, and I made that fact clear in my comment. You either didn't read my comment, didn't understand it, or are maliciously choosing to misrepresent it.

<3

It did. OP's client doesn't display it. It's pure miscommunication.

whether they are ever released or not

This is the most important line. They might not ever be able to be rehabilitated. Maybe there's something broken in them that can be fixed with therapy. Maybe there isn't, and they never can be released without significant danger of reoffending. Either way, it isn't our place to execute anyone for their crimes. If there is a crime, there will be innocent people convicted of it, and if there is a death penalty, there will be innocent people that receive it. The entire point of the post is that the definition of "pedo" continues to be expanded, until it's really just being used as an ever expanding label to apply to political out-groups.

Where you draw the line may be different from where others draw the line, but no matter where you draw the line, some innocent person is dying, and maybe someone that committed no crime but being marginalized. As the post said, conservatives have been trying to expand the definition of pedophile to include queer people for decades, and ramping up the violent rhetoric as well. The more we advocate for violence against those we consider deserving, even if their crime is heinous, the more we assist those trying to expand the definition in their attempt to wield that hatred as a weapon against their chosen targets.

In summary, if you're okay with the death penalty for pedophiles, then you're okay with innocent people that were convicted wrongfully being executed too, and maybe for political reasons if the right gets their way.

My fiancée, for one. My close friend as well. Not every trans person feels dysphoria the same, or even at all. Don't presume to know other people's journeys or preferences, we're all different.