Ⓐ☮☭

  • 54 Posts
  • 4.06K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 20th, 2023

help-circle


  • Having done a few clicks to look into why this specific article is gendered.

    Cybernews is reporting an article By NL times

    The article by NL times was already gendered.

    NL Times has wrote other non gendered articles on this issue but this article was prompted by a lawsuit being prepared by Offlimits

    Offlimits is an organization that combats sexual abuse.

    The context of this Lawsuit is the discovery of telegram and other channels for the distribution of “creepshots”, often sexually pictures taken from compromising angles.

    The victims of these creepshots are almost always women.

    Its similar to catcalling. It does happen to both genders but if it happens to men its a noticeable rare event. By the time a women reaches adulthood its another tuesday.


  • You may not be aware of this or do it intentionally but responding “what about the men” when the topic focuses on “women” is a common frustration online.

    The reverse scenario, where the focus is men rarely gets a comment “how about women”

    You’re technically not wrong though, everyone could be affected and i do expect journalistic pieces to be inform more broadly about an issue, but the issue does seem to disproportionally affect people who appear to be women and its also fair to note this difference.

    I am sure there is no ill will on your part but i have seen online “fights” break out over this pattern. At first it confused me but once you understand it, you notice it everytime even when the post is by and for women and posted on a women focused community it will get a comment like this.

    There are enough articled and discussions calling out the meta privacy issue in a non gendered way. The few adressing women are not harming any man.







  • Not a historian but if recall correctly the swimming test followed the logic that water is sacred (baptism) and would reject a witch

    If you float your a witch, sink and you are innocent. Too bad some drowned this way.

    This was not an recognised science, but common folklore, the people demanded such test after there where already rumours.

    The majority of witch trials happend within a real court but they usually made sure (torture) that there was a confession.

    For a commoner, who may not have experienced the means to get confession first hand they had no reason to doubt their word.

    There where also some ready answers for your exact questioning, one is that witches have no power of their own but get it from Satan, who is “the father of lies” some confessions included a supposed promise by Satan to protect them, which didn’t happen and gets turned into a warning that Satan will deceive even those that are loyal.



  • I would certainly hope you get an exception to bring your own sugared something when showing proof of medical needs.

    But i have never seen it explicitly stated that such exception is possible on events that ban you from taking food/drink. Which appears to be more and more common as culture gets bought out and enshitificated.

    Mayve i am too autistic to assume such exception exists but i have been burned by assuming common sense will apply many times before.

    Its also not just diabetics, some medications can cause thypoglycemia too. It also shouldn’t really matter what the reason is.

    Its odd downvoted dont work on your end, my comment has 5 of them.



  • Its not a big problem if you are not one of the people with a medical issue that need a reliable and exactly known amount of sugar.

    Its a life endangering problem if you are.

    Foods are rarely as standardized as drinks. Medical professionals relked on the availability and exactly known amount of sugar in regular code to prescribe it as part of a diet.

    This was at some point even adressed on my local news when they changed the coke zero packaging to be more like regular coke. There is an increased change a customer (or waiter) could grab the wrong can and taste wise you wouldn’t know. This goed both directions.

    People who can’t have sugar may be served sugar.

    People who require sugar may be served sugar free.

    I bet the scope of this problem is small but at least some medical professionals and health groups agree that this is not the way to go.


  • There is way to much sugar in coke

    But be the devils advocate. The current anti sugar trend is worse.

    Sugar is a natural and useful component to the body. There are times where having sugar available is not only important but can save lives (including some types of diabetes)

    I have gone to locations where all provided drinks where zero sugar and bringing your own drinks not allowed. Thats is not an improvement.