I don't mean to diminish the larger point you're making about feminism not having middle ground, but from an interface design perspective, a dial very much implies a continuum of settings. When there isn't middle ground, the interface should be a toggle switch instead.

Of course this is art, not a real device, so obviously a dial is appropriate because it's a response to being told to "dial down," not "switch off."

(I almost feel like there could've been something different about the way the dial was depicted -- maybe with a range with "raging feminist" next to "complicit" and something more extreme above it, or maybe indeed using a toggle instead of a dial -- in order to emphasize that "raging feminist" already is as "dialed down" as you could reasonably ask for, but such UI realism would probably just clutter up the design without improving the message. As art, I think the artist got it right as-is.)

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You're not wrong. But I picture this dial to snap between two settings. Like ones that are used for on/off switches. Not like a continuous potentiometer type.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

No, the point is that there really is no middle ground with these people.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

This comes off weird. Especially when in context to the post.

[+] EfreetSK@lemmy.world -12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I fully agree. This applies not only to feminism but in general - if you want to convince people about something, you need to plan your approach, what to say, know what works on people etc. You cannot just rage like crazy because there's a high chance you just create a counter reaction.

F.e. I'd say we can all agree that gay rights are the right thing. But if you come to some conservative village, start shouting at everyone, being super aggresive and rage like a maniac, I'd bet that the only thing you achieve is that you'll be labeled as "that crazy person"

I'm really surprised of the responses to this comment, I find this to be a common sense

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

-Martin Luther King Jr

Got a lot of the same vibes, really

[–] CandleTiger@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Preach on.

I went to the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, NY, and of all the things that really struck me hard there (it was a lot) I think the biggest hit was realizing how fucking long it took between the start of mainstreaming the movement and women actually getting the vote. None of the women who started that movement lived long enough to cast their own vote.

There was no "women's black panthers". There was no threat of violence if women can't control their own lives. Everybody got to pretty much just stay comfortable with their nice order. And change did. not. happen. For years.

Maybe the slow pace was worth it, I don't know. I'm not a woman and I'm not much devoted to order. But it seems pretty clear that "avoid offending anybody" is not an effective tool for change.

[–] EfreetSK@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Fair enough, good quote (btw I'm not from US so my knoledge here is limited). Although I'm not sure what portion I agree/disagree with it, I have to think about it much more.

But I mean, even MLK understood that there's a limit, right? Like he didn't take AK47 and started to murder all the racists he saw but have chosen rather strong but non violent approach and he thought about what he was saying and what "works". And that's all I'm saying, I've never said that you cannot take a strong stance. But if you turn it to 11 and just RAGE!!! then be prepared that you might not achieve anything or even make the situation worse

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.

Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.

[–] EfreetSK@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I fundamentally disagree

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 week ago

I’m really surprised of the responses to this comment, I find this to be a common sense

The closer a person and the people they care about get to the chopping block the less common sense it seems.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments