this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
764 points (95.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

7480 readers
2051 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Trying to categorize people into strict definitions for the purpose of determining their responsibilities without considering feedback from the people themselves about how they want to categorize themselves violates Kant's categorical imperative, also known as Granny Weatherwax's definition of sin as “when you treat people as things”:

The nature of sin

“There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example.”

“And what do they think? Against it, are they?”

“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”

“Nope.”

“Pardon?”

“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”

“It’s a lot more complicated than that—”

“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”

“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”

“But they starts with thinking about people as things . . .”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Do republicans think we're gineapigs? Born completely formed with no developmental years?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -5 points 22 hours ago (36 children)

From a biological perspective, this question has been answered already as it's really not that hard.

Many people apparently just don't like the answer.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's funny, but it's not really a rebuttal, since the claim is that it doesn't exclude any cis women. A better rebuttal would be antinatalist women who are also born with defective ovaries. (I'm sure there'd be at least one person like that.)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

at least one person

I recently learned that 1 in 5000 women are born entirely without a uterus.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago

The concept is worthless because its hard to define

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›