this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
282 points (99.6% liked)

LGBTQ+

3247 readers
70 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de 87 points 2 days ago (1 children)

first off:

Ashley Cummins, who is now a mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter who fights under the name “Smashley,”

"Smashley" is an awesome name

Cummins also said that, one time, another officer intentionally failed to search a homicide suspect for a weapon and didn’t tell her, putting her in danger, according to KNSD. In another incident, she was told to leave a crime scene for no reason. Sometimes, other officers would just yell at her over the police radio.

fucking freaks. and not the fun kind.

[–] Shou@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Looks like the men felt threatened. Ashley Smashley Cummins was too badass for them. MMA fighter and cop? Damn she is cool.

Men specifically are susceptible to feeling threatened by women in a position of power. (Hence why so many cultures and religions prevent women from having a higher status than men) And amre much more likely to look for ways to make the person seem less like a threat. Popular methods include sexual objectification and bullying in the workplace. Negligence and passive homicide are extreme though.

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I believe one of the studies (but I am quoting a Tumblr post) showed that higher skilled males had no issues with even higher skilled women, but low skill males became hostile to the presence of women in spaces.

[–] Shou@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah. It's the relative status and how we detect an "easy target." If it is smaller and/or female, it is an easy target to dominate. Which usually involves bluffing or taking food in chimps, but can turn to violence. Females who are too assertive are killed. Plus, females do it too. Just less so as they generally have more to lose and less means to win with. I'd say we came a long way, but not long enough.

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago

Once again someone takes what I'm saying all the way to left field

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 87 points 2 days ago (1 children)

All these companies trying to end DEI are the same ones who keep having lawsuits against them for discrimination and harassment.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 36 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's almost like they forgot that they rolled out the DEI system to protect themselves from lawsuits.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago

Regulations are often a substitute for litigation.

And litigation is a substitute for what the law euphemistically refers to as "self help" where someone uses violence or the threat of violence as a remedy for perceived wrongs.

[–] don@lemm.ee 43 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Fuck yeah, get them racks! If the city pays enough out of its ass to set someone up for life because their employees are ignorant shitbags, maybe they’ll do something about the diversity, equity, and inclusivity of the people they hire going forward.

Or y’know, don’t, and keep making people rich be being fucking stupid.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There is one fundamental truth to the privatization brainlet scheme, that "the city" doesn't actually care about the budget because it's not their money.

It's the money of everyone that lives there.

Budget not balanced? Raise taxes or cut services. Will anyone explicitly link it to cops being pigs? No, they just won't, that's not how human brains work.

This is just one of the reasons qualified immunity has to end or be severly restricted.

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I hope she stops being a cop now.

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago

She's a mma fighter now.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

She was working in the mud with some goons.