It was a joke rather about potentially finding you had a secrect Nazi neighbour than a reference to real happenings! You’d have to be pretty determined to lug a great price of rock about with you if you were on the run!
I did see another article today saying it was a soldier, but not a German, who brought it to the US. So your comment appears to be in line with what happened here.
The sub heading says it was missing from an Italian museum so my guess is it was probably looted and brought over (I admit I was too lazy to read further!).
Next week on ‘My neighbour’s a Nazi’’ …
Prepostosaurus more like…!
I guess the man’s hair makes her fingers look more pointy. If you’re eternal and out to drink blood, you’ve got pointy fingers y’know.
Could be, could be! That would make some sense. Like “sooo, anything to say about that?”. Good shout, didn’t think of it like that!
Okayyy, I have absolutely no idea how you come to that conclusion. I have only shared thoughts, beliefs or opinions, which I have tried to clarify, not justify. I have not made any outright claims.
Not one person has asked me single question either about myself or what exactly I mean. I have been presented with cherry picking of words I’ve used, assumptions about myself, filling in of blanks etc to level wild accusations at me despite none knowing me in the slightest.
If you think I’m wrong with my belief that what I saw was sexist - that’s fine.
If you think I have been overzealous in how I’ve spoken - fine also (But that’s a reflection of my frustration, not attention seeking activity that I’ve been accused of).
But the rest…absolute fantasy land stuff!
Not one person has tried to discuss the interpretations you refer to (or anything else) so I haven’t really had anything to work with.
I’ve already stated I’m not outraged. Fed up, frustrated, sure. But anything else is putting words in my mouth, and there’s been plenty of that.
Oh the hypocrisy of accusing me of being full of shit! Anyway, happy to say goodbye too.
Now that’s a punchli…oofff…suckerpunched!
Well I gave to completely disagree and I think that’s through a misunderstanding of what my actual point is trying to be.
That is: the choice of image is at odds with the text. Yes I made an exaggerated projection to aide my point that I see this as being sexist ( e.g. would such an image be used if it were a man?). But that doesn’t mean that I am trying to be sanctimonious or looking for an argument.
I simply saw something I didnt’t like the look of and spoke up about it.
My use of ‘for once’ was meant to refer to my belief that women can be all too often sexualised - tying in with my belief that sexism played a part in the choice of the image.
I don’t care for praise here, I only saught to raise an issue that I perceived. I feel no ‘white knighting’ about this, and if you were to meet me irl you’d soon enough learn that feeding my ego is one of the very rare things that I do, but I get your point that it can be easy to fall into such states of kind. I’m not perfect but I don’t think I’m being an ass here. Clumsy maybe, don’t express things like most people maybe leading to misunderstanding maybe. But not any of the rest.
Should I just be quiet about sexism then? Yes, this isn’t a major part of the wider issue of sexism, but sometimes it is important to discuss the smaller, more subtle parts too.
Again, see my other comment for more detail. No offence was felt per se, I just had a moment of intolerance and wanted to say something for once. I think there’s been a misunderstanding of why I said what I said. Please note that I said the image wasn’t sexualised (even if much of her public/promotional imagery is), in fact I was making a point of the lack of it! Plenty of grass touching at my end, but thanks for the thought.
Ok so yes I was projecting onto the article creator. You are correct about that. However I stand by my point that was the writing and the choice of image are jaringly at odds. I.e.
“Here’s person A, look at this serious question they asked about a serious topic, oh and he’s a non serious gif of them at the end” it subtly underminds the validity of what that person said. It is quite subtle, but that’s also part of my point. Prejudices can be very subtle, and I was calling that out.
As a standalone image, I am with you in that description. However, my description is me accentuating my point, not a subconscious outpouring, let alone a reading of that image.
I’m not enraged, but I also wasn’t in the mood to just scroll on by that time. If you read anything into that then all I can say is that you’re mistaken. I get it, there’s a lot of unhinged people out there (such as for the reason you described) but I am confident in my beliefs being overall soundly grounded (if not perfect).
No, very much not. Rather a fed-upness of seeimg woman (and other social groups) belittled in mainstream media). See my other reply re being a little ott, but that’s a reflection of not being in the mood to tollerate more bs like that. Just treat people with some level respect and consistency regardless of who they are. If that was a man, there would’nt be a pic of them slurping a soft drink at the end.
Ok, a little ott in my comment maybe, but it is a jarring contradiction with the otherwise seriousness of the article, which I believe stems from stronger, deeper or ingrained misogyny. E.g. “we can’t have an article about a woman without portraying her in a cute (but at least not obviously sexualised in this case) way”.
Is that leadership or just breeding and/or social dominance though? Do they tell others where and when to hunt e.g.? I’m not so knowledgeable about seals of any species so a genuine question.
I’d argue that parents are different to a ‘leader’ as we perceive them, or as I read was suggested in the comment. Children will stick with their parents, up to the point at which they’re ready to start their own family, like you say, but is that leadership in the same sense?
But yes, I agree, pack = family is accurate.
I’m sorry, is that gif at the bottom ms Grande? If so, that is misogyny at it’s worse. “Look at all the serious thing she said and did, and now a cutsie pick of her sipping fizzy pop like a vacuous airhead!”
We’ll never make any progress whilst mainstream media continues like this.
Dogs don’t need a leader - the whole alpha male wolf thing has long been disproven, by the original author none the less. Dogs are highly social and live in groups, yes, but there’s no boss dog. Very few animals have a concept of a leader. In fact I’d argue that none do and it’s a totally human idea.
I like your cat/dog thinking idea though. Cats very much think ‘me me me’!
It’s as if someone has been telling a tale that there’s been some kind of 50-50 conflict over the past 80+ years…
Haha I missed that clear horrendously nonsense statement! F-ing social media doom-scroll-disease! After all, what respectable vertebrate would lack any bones?!
Maybe if there was a public transport system still running that was not just a cash cow and stifled for the benefit of big oil then it wouldn’t matter who used it when.
Some people wake very early and may only be well enough during rush hour to travel… and yet they’re not supported in doing so, even though it’d cost relative pennies.
Oh and re your last Q, disabled people aren’t allowed to go out on the lash or to the theatre etc, they’re disabled so should be tucked up in bed staring at the samecwall they’ve been staring at all daytime. It saves the government tens of pounds a year that!
PS I’m not being narky at you, rather the system.
I think the point is that enabling a: allows an individual to repeatedly comit the crime and b: allows more people to comit the same crime. Ergo worse than an individual criminal act.