I can also predict it, with a crystal ball and tarot cards, and it’s probably going to be as safe if not more

Ah yes, what could go wrong

You’re literally trying to pretend that it’s racist to criticise a cartoon of the racist stereotype of a “terrorist” which is a dark skinned Muslim.

On top of that, the joke (that isn’t really a joke and doesn’t really work anyway) could have worked with a million situations that wouldn’t imply terrorists.

The real core of the joke here is “look at these stupid arabs, they just explode themselves like dumb fucks, lol”. That’s the intention of the comic, that’s what it tries to convey, and I don’t know if you’re actually not seeing the problem, or deluding yourself because you laughed at the comic and refused to admit that you’re wrong, but you are doing the typical thing that a racist would do. So maybe think about what you’re defending, before defending it.

Wow, colorblindness at its peak

And that is why I like the ability to tag users as creeps on lemmy

Yeah, totally not a nazi perspective, after all no crimes of war were committed in the name of science ever

I mean, you can try freelancing but it’s not really a nice environment

That’s why the effort needs to be done to stop AIs legally, and by disabling profit from them (or disabling capitalism altogether but that’s another subject), not by continuing to maintain the hype and investments in AIs.

Ah, finally, a way to make more AI crap. Because we needed to have more of it.

Because jokes about pedophilia are just creepy?

Why are people upvoting this?

So we have vaccines that work and are tested.

And he’s trying to sell something that is untested, but an alcoholic beverage, which is known to be bad for health.

Yeah, I’m sure this is not just about money and he actually cares about people’s health.

“Animal rights group say the animals are supposed to be anesthetized”?

What. The. Fuck?

“Human rights group say the nazis should anesthetize the jews before gassing them”

How can you be part of a group supposed to defend animal rights, and yet be fine with the idea that a bunch of braindead psychos is going to take them and stab them for fun, as long as the animals are sleeping?

That if something is useful or necessary, then you can never say that it is bad.

A simple example of that would be the military.

It’s a hard challenge to manage to be very racist while at the same time trying to help against discriminated.

Yes and sexism is about gender, not sex.

But sure, let’s continue on this bad faith argument, since my point was that I am against objectification of both men and women, so whether it is about sex and gender it’s the same since it’s related to neither. So how is it sexist?

Yeah, indeed.

Still waiting for you to explain how something is sexist when it’s not related to gender btw.

Her outfit matters as it makes the character incoherent. No one in the show wondered why a battle robot would wear heels. She didn’t say why either. As such, her character already doesn’t make sense. It is heels and a boob armor, it could have been a broom up her ass, either way it doesn’t make sense and it’s not about “her looks” but about the implications of the character deciding to wear something like this. Borgs are supposed to be ultra-rational, this makes her character stupidly incoherent.

And how is the fact that a kid is shown as being sexualized and romanced by adults characters about her looks? My point was that she’s a kid mentally, and yet portrayed sexually, how is that about looks? Of course, the underlying meta explanation is that she was just a sex object put in the show for her looks, but my point was precisely that characters in the show, since they don’t know that, are apparently fine with dating a kid. This is a horrible character, no matter her looks.

Overall, most of my points were not about her looks, but they do relate to it since the character was made badly just so that it could be objectified. To try to make you understand, her looks are not the problem, but the main reason that pushed the writers to make a bad, incoherent, shitty character. And of course I didn’t even start digging into the things you mentioned because they are too many and less bad than what I mentioned, but yes, her actions and choices are incoherent, her relationships weird and bad and basically child abuse, and her performance was pretty abysmal. I just focused on the initial, core problem of the character, which is that it was written lazily because they didn’t care about it making sense, about picking a proper actress, or about thinking about the moral implications of their choices, as all that they wanted was an object-woman.

Yeah so you’re ignoring most of what I’m saying on purpose.

I explained multiple times why the looks of seven, on top of being pure objectification which has negative consequences outside of the universe of the show, also have a pretty bad impact within the show, making it a bad character both from a meta and in-lore perspective.

I even said that if everyone was dressed like her it wouldn’t have the same impact (even though it would be far from fixing the character).

If you’re not going to debate in good faith there is no point, have a good day.

I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

Seven is wearing heels and a boob armor as an objectification. The reason this is more significant than, I don’t know, some random action movie crap objectifying women, is that star trek (and I would say, especially voyager) was not overall sexual, but they went out of their way to make a character that is overly sexual compared to both the tone of the show and the concept of the borg.

My criticisms were not about her looks, but about the goal of her looks and the implications of them. As I said, it is not only gross to try to make a character just to make people get hard while watching the show, it is also incoherent with the universe of the show (as before, borg and heels don’t make sense) and extremely immoral (again, the character is shown as having the mind of a kid, not understanding sexual matters as you would expect from a kid, and yet the show is fine showing her as a sexual object).

The people responsible for the character are pieces of shit, the character is an abomination, and the looks are part of the package and a big symptom of why the character is bad. On their own, her looks wouldn’t be the problem, if it didn’t raise a lot of problems. As an example, if star trek was showing all characters wear overly sexual outfits like seven’s, then this would be a different matter; but this is not the case. TNG was a bit like that sometimes, with Picard and Riker’s pajamas that open down to the knees and weird stretching yoga sessions, and as such it’s hard to specifically pinpoint a character, as it’s just a general ambiance. Voyager doesn’t have that.

Also, you keep on talking about sexism, but complaining about objectification is not even related to gender so I struggle seeing how that even fits. Objectification is always bad, no matter the gender, it doesn’t make sense. The difference with seven is that her objectification wasn’t a “once in a while” thing, it was permanent, as it was the whole purpose of the character, and it’s not like the writing surrounding her saves anything.