• Zorque@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    The joke is contingent on linking completely unrelated factors. If you don’t, the joke doesn’t make sense. Its based on accepting the premise that sexuality has literally anything to do with environmentalism or responsibility.

    Sure, its a premise posited by those mired in toxic masculinity… but why accept that premise? That is the core of the joke, accepting a premise that is wholly false.

      • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not the person you’re replying to, but I made the original comment in this thread. I made another reply about how this meme’s conclusion is flawed, but its premise is too. And it (inadvertently, I don’t think OP had any malicious intentions) erases centuries of homophobia in the process.

        The basic argument being made here hinges on the fact that the person in the top picture (Louis XIV, I belive but I was never good with monarchy) is wearing items associated today as being feminine and says that modern men have regressed in their sexual security for being too afraid to dress that way, but ignores the fact that those items didn’t have those connotations at the time. It isn’t like King Louis said “yeah I know these shoes make me look gay, but I’m going to wear them anyway.” It’s a false comparison between two tome period, attitudes, societies, etc. being made.