BlooregardQKazoo

BlooregardQKazoo t1_jea5dwg wrote

I agree that the comment you replied to sucks, but I just want to chime in that the term most definitely does not easily communicate that. I had no clue why the author was choosing to misspell misogyny. Of course I was also able to read the article just fine without understanding why they were using that spelling/word.

3

BlooregardQKazoo t1_jea4lx6 wrote

>she's clearly upset about Donald Glover's dating choices

I feel like you're interpreting a whole lot from one line here.

It seems relevant, in an article questioning his view of black women, to note that he doesn't date black women.

I also can't help but notice that rather than simply disagree with her on the relevance, you're accusing her of being overly emotional about it ("she's clearly upset"), which is a common way that women are silenced.

You are free to disagree with her, but you should not try to discredit her by attributing emotion to her and then attacking her on that ground. Your take largely boils down to a more polite way of saying "look at this women, she's acting hysterical!"

−9

BlooregardQKazoo t1_ja8gv4w wrote

Call me crazy, but I don't care when a bit character is changed. Heck, in this instance I didn't even notice and assumed the character was always black because, again, bit character.

Anyone who gets upset about something like this is just looking to be upset. It's presumably performative and not real.

And in general I only care if the character's race is important, which it certainly is not for this character.

1

BlooregardQKazoo t1_istsuzd wrote

>people are burnt out with Star wars content

Sadly, this is exactly it for me. I was burned out on the terrible movies but The Mandalorian brought me back to giving Star Wars a chance. Then Boba Fett was bad and Obi-Wan was terrible and I'm back to just not being very interested in Star Wars.

Maybe I'll give it a shot later if Mandalorian S3 is good and makes me want more Star Wars.

17