• HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Missed opportunity not to photoshop the model name as a “colt rape whistle” on the picture

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It is a whistle(like a referee uses to make a sound) a woman uses if she feels or knows she is going to be harmed in some way so as to call attention to her and hopefully get help with her situation.

      Basically, the meme is telling women to shoot their attackers.

      • CaptainBlagbird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        What confused me was that a whistle would be used by holding to your mouth, so I assumed it made fun of suicide. Good thing it was just my stupid brain overthinking again.

        • yumpsuit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          A whistling blowgun would be in the spirit of the thread. Some of history’s grandest feminists have been skilled in using poisons

    • P00ptart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It was a thing back in the day (maybe still, just to a lesser extent?) they gave women whistles to blow when being sexually assaulted. But found that nobody really responds to a whistle. So then they said to scream rape, but again, most people didn’t bother. Last I heard, they said that yelling “fire!” Was more likely to get someone to help you. Or ya know… Don’t rely on help from an apathetic populace.

      • Wetstew@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I think that’s the point of a rape whistle, people might ignore a call for help, but will instinctively look towards a shrill piercing whistle.

        They might not help, but extra visibility might deter the attacker.

        • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 hours ago

          It was a horrific story. Fortunately, it’s not actually true.

          Researchers have since uncovered major inaccuracies in the Times article, and police interviews revealed that some witnesses had attempted to contact authorities. In 1964, reporters at a competing news organization discovered that the Times article was inconsistent with the facts, but they were unwilling at the time to challenge Times editor Abe Rosenthal. In 2007, an article in the American Psychologist found “no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive”.[7] In 2016, the Times called its own reporting “flawed”, stating that the original story “grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived”

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

        • OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          The problems that get left out of that story’s narrative IIRC was that she was inside her apartment building’s lobby. Like yes people should have responded (assuming they could actually hear her, most apartment lobbies aren’t built with acoustics in mind) but that’s way different from there actually being like 20 people in the street looking on as the Bystander Effect implies.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            EDIT today I learned that the reports of witnesses and their inaction was grossly exaggerated by an unscrupulous journalist. So the following statement is almost entirely fabricated. My apologies. Comment left intact for transparency.

            38 people in her neighborhood admitted to hearing her and choosing not to intervene. They all gave different reasons for not helping.

  • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Get something without a manual safety if you’re going to carry it. If you have to pull it, you don’t want to be dicking around with the safety when adrenaline is hampering your fine motor skills.

    • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I believe more important is to train on your kit. If you know how your gun works with ‘muscle memory’, you won’t even need to think about dicking around with the manual safety- it’ll be done my the time you think about it.

      Even if you get one without the manual safety: train on that. The familiarity and comfort of the wielder is far more important a factor than any particular component of the gun.

      • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I like to fiddle with the little lever that goes between single round, burst, and fully automatic, kind of like a fidget spinner or a finger skateboard. But it’s also good to just bind it to Mouse4 right next to a bind to switch to your knife, you know, so you can run faster

      • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Training on what you’re going to carry is important, but all the training in the world can’t prepare you for the real thing. Adrenaline is going to interfere with your fine motor skills. It’s just a natural consequence.

    • doingthestuff
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah I’ve only ever had one handgun with a safety and I never carried it.