@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

Usually I'd already knew the person a bit from hanging out in a group, so if you make a pass at someone, it was implied I wouldn't make more at different people until this one is resolved one way or he other.

Though to be honest I don't think knowing someone is that much of a factor. I wasn't doing it that often, but even when I picked a girl up at a pub, it was implied I wouldn't try to pick a different one up on another day. At least if I didn't want to get slapped by one or both of them.

It's more that some people are very invested in the concept not having a label, because once it's identified it's unpopularity becomes impossible to deny.

This is why all the self applied labels from "Cultural Marxism" to "woke" are quickly abandoned when the opposition gets a hold of them, and are refraamed as slurs that are supposed to mean "you just don't like the left", or in this case " progressives expect too much".

I seem to remember a lot of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist" during the ascendence of Breadtube.

Reddit has always been a place for left-wing moderators to run rampant and take action against people they don't agree with.

Is that what kids call Year Zero? I distinctly remember Reddit moderators and users successfully coordinating to bully a woke Reddit CEO out of her job.

So? How were people supposed to know she's going to get replaced by someone worse?

In another thread you're telling someone that the Bud Light boycott is totally conservative win, from your response here I'm betting you will switch to saying Bud Light going even more woke was the boycott's fault.

Again: so? Aall that means they could have just hired someone worse than Pao to begin with. If Reddit was and is unprofitable, that means Bud Light can become unprofitable, and the same logic will apply.

Gays destroyed the what now rule?

You don't have to look all that far back to remember days where the dynamic you see was, in fact, entirely upside down. DADT was implemented in the 1990's, and was replaced by gays being allowed to serve openly a cool two decades later. When my parents left high school and the male graduates applied at the draft office, the military still undertook serious effort to root out anyone gay - and I live in a nation that is friendlier to gay people than most of Europe is.

DADT was not a serious effort to root anyone gay out, it was a serious effort to keep them in. It's fair to say it was still unfair, too restrictive, and discriminatory, but it is extremely dishonest to claim that the goal was to get rid of gay people.

Even with this example in mind, it is pretty clear that progressives are explicitly destroying attempts to keep non-political spaces. Given that their protestations that they just want to be left alone quickly turned to bullying bakers, and promoting mastectomies for minors, it's fair to say their goal was never to keep anything apolitical.

For a while they were at the very least acting like all they wanted is apolitical treatment, if they never believed it, why should I take them at their word regarding anything?

but the people who bemoan politics being everywhere now are people who haven't been paying attention for all that long.

That's flatly wrong. It was indeed possible to participate in hobby groups and focus on the hobby instead of any politics for many, many years prior to the awokening.

The standard response, and the correct one, is that the people who used to get them fired and beaten and marginalised are suddenly uncommonly invested in a tolerance they never believed in.

That may be the standard response, but no honest person can claim it's correct. For example, you are not talking to a person who tried to get them fired, beaten, and marginalized, you are talking to a person who tried to protect the from getting fired, beaten, and marginalized, and tried talking extremely bigoted and aggressive people into acceptence.

The correct response is that people who were arguing for broad principles of acceptance and free speech are suddenly uncommonly invested in intolerance. I'm not going to say that they never believed in it, because it's starting to look like they always did, and were just hiding it.

Not for gay people, it wasn't.

Yes it was. No one cared what you were doing outside the hobby group.

Until there is a way to distinguish the likes of you from the likes of them, a good deal of them are going to take a dim view of people who bemoan a lost tolerance.

But there was a way to determine it, public people like James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, Peter Boghosian, the Weinstein Brothers, etc. have a track record. Private people like me also do, even though it may not be accessible by randos on the Internet, it was accessible to people in my immediate environment, who suddenly decided continue the march of progress and steamroll over all concerns.

The workplace. The military. Public life in general.

Scroll back in the conversation, it was about hobby groups. You were claiming politically neutral spaces never existed, that's what I'm disputing. You might notice the issue people are raising isn't about taking politics out of public life - something that might very well be a contradiction - but about having some spaces were we can set aside intra-societal disputes, and focus on the things that we have in common.

I'll happily concede, and point out that my point was that apolitical spaces existed, not that all of them were apolitical, and that gay people eventually won enough sympathy to overturn these discriminatory rules in large part by appealing to the very principle of apoliticism you claim never existed.

This makes no sense, there is massive political enmity aimed at people who are not homophobic, and who are saying homosexuals are legitimate members of society, and shouldn't be prohibited from expressing affection any more than straight people are.

don't say gay acknowledge homosexuality

There's been a bunch of these bills passed, so I can't vouch for every one, but "don't say gay" is mostly a lie. It's mostly "don't show porn to kids, and don't indoctrinate them with whacky pomo theories".

I think it's rather unfair to blame that one on the rank-and-file westerners. It wasn't that long ago when kissing in public was seen as indecent. The oversexualization came about through a massive amount of psyops, and arguably it was done specifically to pave the way for double mastectomies for minors, and whatever lies beyond.

I don’t think that plays out the same way for woodworking. There’s no originator to destabilize the whole community

If it happened to knitters it can happen to woodworkers. Centralization helps but isn't critical. There was no centralized platform for internet atheists, but Atheism+ still happened.

He's asking if you'd treat something that looks enough like a hundred dollar bill as a hundred dollar bill.

It's just that arguing it's the best tie breaker for sex seems rather arbitrary. I don't see a good reason why it should work for sex and and not dollar bills.

How would they send people to prison for making them if they are hundred dollar bills, and if fake hundred dollar bills aren't accepted as legal tender, why bother criminalizing them?

Part of my argument is that this is de facto the standard you're using if you use your brain's sex determination module to get information about men and women in the world.

I think that's a sleight of hand. It's like saying a stick bug is de facto a stick, because my brain's bug determination module is using that standard about bugs and sticks in the world.

The issue is that's how likely something is going to be accepted is a question of how closely you look. A fake bill is no less a fake because someone accepted it.

There already are orgs like the LGB Alliance, but unsurprisingly they were declared far-right Nazis. Even non-Queer Theory aligned pro-Trans orgs suffered that fate

What mechanism, other than perhaps sheer monetary inflation, is supposed to make the Star Wars IP value go up since Disney bought it?

  1. Spamming content does not make line go up. If anyone wanted too see the sequel to the Rey Skywalker saga you'd have a point, but they don't. Anyone buying the franchise would probably be better off doing to the Disney content what Disney did to the EU.

  2. Uhhh... maybe? Seems hard to prove one way or the other.

It's not like the new owner couldn't reverse the decision, and throw the Disney content into the trash instead.

Sex alone doesn’t govern your attraction.

Yeah, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for attraction. You can't claim it's bigotry just because it excludes you.

Getting called a man, especially a “man pretending to be a woman”, is distressing for trans women.

Aren't there a whole bunch of trans women who claim to have no dysphoria, and isn't using dysphoria for gatekeeping seen as bigoted?

Why should I accept it when I can change it? The option is literally there, it’s not perfect.

For the same reason we tend to think it's better for people with other forms of body dysmorphia to accept their body rather than change it. The option for them to modify their body is also literally there, and for a person who doesn't like their leg the result of amputation is probably more perfect than a typical result of transition.

I admit I always had trouble understanding dysphoria, but I can concede there's some amount of people for who transitioning is the best option. OTOH it seems obvious that the option to accept your body the way it is, is far superior when it's available.

There's a lot of people who don't use the word "woman" to refer to gender, and who consider someone's sex to be relevant information. Insisting on using the "trans" qualifier is an attempt to meet you half way, but as with many things, doing so only seems to result in demands for courtesy being pushed even further.