ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
The tower of Babel cannot be completed. Not by humans.
Careful now, for some of these people your terms are acceptable.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5hr ago
You can not replace what he has created (5.4 trillion dollar valuation of Nvidia!) with your average Joe, it is not possible.
Again, Jensen Huang alone is so massively valuable that even hundreds of thousands (probably even millions) of net negative parasites would be cancelled out.
Not really. It's true no amount of average Joe's can replace a Jensen Huang, but the truth is he depends on them as much as they depend on him. This is trivially observable by the fact that none of these people are able to "cancel out" impoverished populations of other countries, and have to go to the US for their success.
It's also telling you measure his contribution by the valuation of his company, which is an absurd thing to do. In the mind of a valuation appreciator, all you have to do is subtract government expenditures going to the net negative parasites from the company valuation, and as long as the bottom line is in the black,you're good! The reality is that just like no amount of average Joes can compensate for Jensen Huang, even if you get enough of them that their total contributions exceed $5.4 trillion, no amount of Jensen Huangs, and no amount of money transferred by the government, can compensate for the social erosion caused by mass immigration from incompatible cultures.
Yes, and part of that cultural change is a culture that values being smarter and harder working than what we currently have. A culture of grinders and geniuses.
That's not the cultural change that's happening anywhere in the west. We are constantly being pushed to erode our standards, and a significant justification for that is the push for greater "diversity" necessitated by mass migration.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17hr ago
Well, they're closer to it, so they have a better view, and their statements are the best data I have.
That just means the best data you have to support the existence of gender identity roughly rivals the data we have to support astral projection. It's not skin off my nose if you want to believe in it, but if you're demanding a sweeping reform of society, I think you need to back your demands with something better.
Then whence the concern about a man claiming to be a trans-woman 'being given free rein', if he is not doing anything wrong with the acceptance given to him?
I just meant that he'd be allowed to take advantage of any benefits stemming from "identifying as a woman". If you don't see anything wrong with that, what exactly has Mr. Mustache Twirling Villain done wrong in the exact same situation?
We don't, or at least shouldn't, tolerate cis-women harassing other cis-women in the restroom; thus, if trans-women aren't allowed to do anything cis-women aren't, then trans-women, or cis-men claiming to be such, are not being given 'free rein' to harm anyone.
a) Telling someone they're supposed to use the other bathroom is not harassment.
b) I don't recall phrasing "free rein" in terms of harm. I just meant there'd be no barriers to entering into women's spaces.
Those are circumstances under which I would compromise from the pro-trans maximalist position.
If it's a compromise then it's not a definition. The point of a definition is to communicate a concept between different people, so that they can reason about it and debate it. It sounds like rather than trying to do that, you are first trying to reach a specific goal, and are tailoring the "definition" to how far you think you can get.
"For most purposes" means that some contexts might call for a different definition.
Oh, fair enough, the conversation is going long enough that I forgot that.
Other than being fairer to certain people who, to be honest, are having a terrible enough time of it already.
("Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?")
I don't think it would make it fairer to them in any way, or how that they're having a terrible time when all of society is not forced to buy into their belief system.
Are there trans activists who have rejected offers of 'gender-neutral bathrooms for everybody, as long as the wash their hands'?
No one I ever talked about responded with "oh, that sounds lovely, actually" when I made that argument, and I'd say that the burden is on the trans activists to initiate the conversation with that demand, if they want to use the "civil rights" argument.
I don't know how else one would enforce the bathroom bills being proposed in the red states, given the overlap between, at a minimum, the most female-presenting quintile of trans-women and the least female-presenting quintile of cis-women.
a) I notice you're showing any examples of Karens demanding genital checks, or denying my point that no Karen has ever actually done so, in any way, thus proving this is a pro-trans shibboleth.
b) An honor system + resolving corner cases with government ID's with sex-based markers, sounds like more than enough to me.
And? If the idea is that our rulers get to do whatever they want, even if their constituents are against it because "neener neener, you didn't vote hard enough" (even when they clearly did - see the policies under the "fascist" governments of Italy, Poland, or the recent DIGNIDAD Act), then it's time to stop pretending "democracy" as a concept has any substance to it at all.
More options
Context Copy link