zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
I don’t disagree with his definition, not disagree that it’s a problem, but it’s still feels a bit to anti-Wokey in that he calls out things that he just disagrees with. #metoo brought down some terrible people who did terrible things, I don’t think you should call metoo in and of itself woke, not overly moralistic to be mad about sexual assault, there should be some nuance there.

He also calls Bud Light woke for… acknowledging the existence of a trans woman? Again not excessively moralistic to reach out to a constituency he happens to not like.

>>techfe+Go2
Yeah, that's just nuts. Let's be very specific: the issue was that Bud Light hired Dylan Mulvaney to do a social media promotion. It's not as if Dylan's face was on beer cans available in stores or anything. And this simple act caused a massive backlash. I would think that this might raise some questions about who exactly the prigs were in this instance.

>>Bryant+sC3
The backlash arose for many reasons, but this article explains the most principled one:

https://thecritic.co.uk/dylan-mulvaney-did-not-share-our-gir...

It's not priggish to take a stand against misogyny, is it?

>>blasor+wy5
The "misogyny" that article purports is just... being publicly trans.

>>azerni+hS5
Exactly. It's fundamentally misogynistic for these men to appropriate a "woman" identity, and Mulvaney is a very typical example of this.

Think about it. If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes?

>>blasor+iU5
No