• tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I’m very confused, isn’t the reply in support of trans people while the OP is clearly against them? Like why bother replying with that if you agree with the OP?

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Because I thought there was more than one interesting thing about this so I pointed a different one out?

      I mean, I know the Internet rewards polarization, but I didn’t realize it had gotten to the point where more than one concurrent observation was seen as controversial.

      I guess you are misunderstanding “screw the meme” as implying I find the meme objectionable, maybe? I don’t, I mean “ignore the meme for a moment, what’s up with that other part of the response?”

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I’m not asking why you replied. I’m saying why would the second person bother replying unless they disagreed with the OP. They sound like they’re in support of trans people, which would mean you’re disagreeing with that. But your comment doesn’t sound like you’re disagreeing with it, it sounds like you agree with them.

        Your comment is very very confusing if you read the post as commenter number 1 saying something very transphobic, commenter number 2 giving a definition that disproves commenter number 1, and then commenter number 3 making a meme.

        • lime!@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          if you mean the post in the image, only the second post is transphobic. the first says you can’t “define a woman” without excluding people who are afab.

          if you mean this thread, i just see discussion.