It’s pretty self-explanatory that spineless Western media outlets are in dire need of content and public support to get their clicks and image boost. Even if someone were to bring up the point that the shelling is in fact not done by Russians, it’ll go down the typical propaganda blur process, either:
- getting outright ignored, and on social platforms, the posts are seen as “pro-Putin” and are automatically disliked, censored, etc; or
- getting sent farther down the rabbit hole under the accusation that it’s “pro-Putin propaganda” and then a narrative is slowly built up about how they’re in fact the ones to be correct.
For the last point: look up the Karl-Marx-Allee and see its history with regard to being “Stalin’s bathroom”. In short, about a decade ago, a person thought it’d be funny to claim this boulevard in Berlin was called “Stalin’s bathroom” (due to some marble decoration) during the DDR times.
In the similar, repetitive fashion of anti-communist perspectives that the West takes on, an editor found it to be “credible enough”. It was then rooted into the Wikipedia page and as a result led to a lot of media exposure, cementing the fact it was “Stalin’s bathroom”.
The same person tried to edit their joke out years later and the request got declined by a Wikipedia administrator. They later came out to be a journalist who detailed the situation in full, and that is the only reason it got enough awareness to be fixed. At the same time, it could have been highly possible the journalist would have been called a liar and not been trusted, meaning we’d still think this joke was real to this day.
Media ethics and digital competence are imperative to have for this exact reason. Too many people however simply refuse to or cannot acknowledge these things, either by own choice or not. It is really sad.
It somewhat comes across like the poster may have a history of potentially controversial posts or comments? Regardless, I personally can’t say I have a very sophisticated perspective on this matter; there are much better takes out there, but in case mine could inspire or influence someone regardless:
I am personally fine with neopronouns and other extensions of neogenders, etc. This can be primarily exemplified or justified with the main desire or comfort of the person making be request, which comes at remotely no cost or inconvenience to a potential speaker.
I would argue that any other stance on this is practically inane. Those who feel themselves inconvenienced by having to use a certain name or a pronoun for a person, and then proceed to call the person making this request a “snowflake”, are in fact the snowflakes themselves.
This topic has however been greatly denounced by social media through targeted remarks that thematize gender identity as a whole. The primary example of this would be posts showcasing persons getting riled up after their neopronouns or neogenders are not respected, or absurd mockery where one insensibly ‘identifies’ as an a ‘helicopter, animal, etc’.
Those kind of posts are usually found in very irrational circumstances, such as the implication of a person raging out over the fact that they weren’t referred to by [insert strange-appearing pronoun here]. A significant amount of those situations are fabricated for the purpose of hilarity (serving the same audience who will watch “Karen gets epicly owned compilations” after coming home from high school) and denouncing the validity of the LGBTQ+ community through supposed “bad actors”.
At the same time, it also isn’t out of the question that a person could legitimately have an exaggerated reaction over something like this, but again, their actions are often depicted as being representative of the entire community, which they are absolutely not.
I believe another imposition behind neogenders, xenogenders, etc.; is that they would serve as an eventual lead-up to the abolishment of the perception of gender, gender roles, and so on. This is a cause that I would fundamentally support, as I am personally against the concept of the “indoctrination” that people go through.
To exemplify the latter: there is no inherited condition for boys to “hate” pink, or having the urge to become bodybuilders and know how to change a car tire. It is the result of cultural evolution being misconstrued where one’s fate and personality is now predetermined by a 50-50 genetical coin-toss that people feel obliged to uphold.
It’s ultimately a toxic manifestation of societal expectations and I am strictly against the suppression of sentiments and feelings only for the sake of upholding conservative traditions and the ludicrous barriers established between genders that serve no practical purpose.
Neogenders, etc. serve as an adaptation to the current gender-dependent state of society, where individuals attempt to formalize and construe something that conforms to their identity; which is, in my opinion, completely fine.