ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11hr ago
It's not turtles all the way down; the first step, the foundation, comes from the peaks of the bimodal distribution: there are a large number of people who have XY chromosomes, a 🍆 between their legs, a higher T/E ratio, and a certain mental aspect that (if they have it at all) is of a certain type; there are a similar number of people who have XX chromosomes, a 🌮 between their legs, a lower T/E ratio, a different type of that mental aspect (if they have it at all).
Yeah, I picked up on you setting up the "core" group with the biological definition, but we were discussing the edge cases, and I specifically asked what would they be identifying with. You didn't say they're identifying with female physical attributes, or even female psychological traits, you said they'd be identifying with their "gender identity". I even asked about the burly lumberjack scenario, so we could discuss a specific instance, and make sure this isn't just a misunderstanding or a question of poor phrasing, and your answer indicated that literally none of these things are required, only "gender identity" is. This is pretty "turtles all the way down" as far as I can tell, and puts into question whether the "core" group is even necessary for the definition.
There was a time when the Abolitionists had a long way ahead of them.
That's what pedophile rights advocates say as well.
The next day, Henry announces: "I now identify as a woman; therefore, you either have to let me use the women's room, or make the [redacted]s use the men's room! Either way, they'll get what's coming to them if they don't man up, ha ha ha!"
Uh sure, someone explicitly stating "I have been acting in bad faith this entire time!" while villainously twirling their mustache does seem like a reliable indicator of bad faith, I'm frankly surprised even with that you set your confidence at only 95%. It seems like in any realistic scenario, where they don't loudly declare their intentions, the bad faith actor will be given free rein.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22hr ago
Women don't like autists (arguably for good reason), but it's good to have an intelligent mate (higher income, higher chances of all sorts of success), but intelligence and autism often go together. What do? Set up a selection process where the rules are somewhat complex, and opaque. Anyone who can figure them out is probably intelligent. Anyone who wants to talk about them is probably an autist. BOOM!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
When I started this thread I thought we could use it to help each other troubleshoot issues like this, but it's been so long since I did anything in Unity, I have no idea what you're talking about. Hopefully someone else can jump in.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Alright, I mostly figured out the background thing. One the player moves to another background cell, the dead bugs are copied to a standard texture, and the GPU texture array gets rearranged so that the movement is seamless (which you can see by the background color changing, but the bugs that got rendered into the background staying in place). It seems to work well and reasonably fast (not counting the first time it's triggered, which I'm hoping to get around by pre-triggering it when the game loads). Now the only thing missing is reloading the "standard" textures into the GPU when the player comes back to a previously visited cell.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Doesn't work when he's trying to show off how unbothered he'd be by low quality discourse.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Oh, if you admit you're a wrecker than this was just an obviously bad idea for the forum to begin with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Ok, but only if they're right-wing trolls.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Again, what would they be identifying with?
The gender identity
So not only is a woman "anyone that identifies as a woman", not really answering the question of what a woman is, what they're identifying with is an identity, thus also not telling us anything about what the act of identifying is supposed to be, and also the type of identity they're identifying with is a gender identity, "gender" being the category that encompasses men and women.
In other words: a woman is anyone who identifies with identifying as a woman.
I appreciate the efforts to come up with a coherent answer in the aftermath of Matt Walsh's documentary, but I think you guys still have a long way ahead of you.
in the absence of indicators of bad faith
What would be an indicator of bad faith?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
This is 100% bait, and if he'd been a bit more subtle it would have been phenomenal bait too.
I'm getting old and jaded, because I can't tell what is supposed to be the difference between the bits that lacked subtlety, and the bits that were excellent.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Trains arent flashy
Old: Security through obscurity. New: Security through boring.
No, there just aren't that many competent people who want to commit terrorism against the US or other western nations. You could do a straight rerun of 9/11 even today, if you got together a bunch of reasonably competent people.
If she identifies as a woman, yes.
Again, what would they be identifying with? What does this mean?
(I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)
If he is lying
How would you know? How do you know that the trans women that do put on a dress and whatnot aren't lying?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
No domesticable beasts of burden, for plowing, or even for food. Native grains are shit.
I'm completely unimpressed with that line of argumentation. There's no evidence that animals in other parts of the world were any more "domesticable" at the time we started domesticating them, or that the grains were better from the get-go.
Unless the argument is there are no native beasts of burden, period.
Not unless they identify as such.
What would they be identifyng with?
(Perhaps you're thinking of gender presentation?)
If it has nothing to do with presentation, does that mean a burly lumberjack type, with no desire for hormones, surgeries, or cross dressing, and male behavior and mannerisms, is a woman, as long as he says so?
Did Virginians call themselves "northerners" during the Civil War? Do Seoulians call themselves "north Koreans"?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
The word "species" has a clear and commonly understood definition. If two individuals are capable of interbreeding and the offspring produced are themselves reproductively viable then those two individuals are of the same species
I'm pretty sure there are exceptions to that, biology is pretty wonky.
For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas
So effeminate men are women, actually? And trans women, who aren't adopting the female gender role well enough aren't actually women?
Yes, and? No one who's from there would refer to himself as a "south German". Not during the Cold War, not after.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
There was one back on Reddit, because they prevented the blocked from replying to the blockee at all, rather than just hiding the response from them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Given that no one told him they want to make him a slave, what were you defending it from?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Any that come close to "Demonic pigskin talking about bringing back slavery. Fuck the 'norms' you deserve to killed fuck you cracker bitch" on their level of emotion? Any that you would personally defend like you're doing this one?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
I'm not shoehorning you with anybody. I'm just bemused that these "group X should be able to react emotionally to your arguments" demands are seemingly only made of me, and literally never on my behalf. I couldn't care less which group you belong to, or if you don't belong to any group at all, I care about the dynamics.
I'm not asking you to prove your past track record, I'm asking if you can think of a similar argument from the other side that you would treat the same way.
No different than if your priest tells you to shut up and listen because you are a sinner…
Except that doesn't happen.
I’m not Christian but if your local priest decides you cant partake in eucharist, as punishment for certain actions, in certain denominations aren’t you no longer in good standing?
For one, these days, not really. But the bigger point is that's an entirely different thing. This is chastising someone for what they did, I'm talking about shutting someone up because of what they are. Even in the former scenario there's a difference between Christians and progressives, in that Christians give you, in this case, a literal path to redemption. You stop doing what you did, you confess, and you're good again. With progressives once you're cancelled, you're cooked. Public apologies only make things worse.
Nobody has asked me to wax feminine balls
I'm old enough to remember when "almost as Republican as the Republicans" meant forgetting about economic leftism, and pretending the wokeness is what made the Democrats "left". It's also peak cope to act like anti-wokeness is consultant brained - all over the world it's unpopular with voters, but popular with the elites.
More options
Context Copy link