MartianNight
No bio...
User ID: 1244
MartianNight
8mo ago
The project was pretty much under the radar until the ADL issued a statement last week. Now this might develop into a big story.
Ah yes, the organization that openly supports the establishment of a Jewish ethnostate on stolen land is deeply concerned about the theoretic possibility of “whites only enclaves” on privately purchased land in the US. I literally cannot imagine a group in America that has less of a leg to stand on to voice this concern than the Zionist hawks of the ADL.
MartianNight
11mo ago
Links to:
- The supreme court judgment (full judgment, press summary)
- Gender Recognition Act 2004
- Equality Act 2010
(Am I the only person who finds it maddening that in the year 2025 newspapers still don't bother to link to the easily-findable publications that they base their reporting on?)
On a more meta-level, this feels like legislation from the bench. From my understanding, the 2004 GRA updated the legal definition of "man" and "woman". The Equality Act was passed in 2010. Presumably, parliament was aware of changed definition when they passed the Equality Act. If they meant "biological woman", not "legal woman", they should have specified that.
I think that's a fair criticism, but I think there are at least three strong points arguing against your interpretation, which are also mentioned in the judgment:
-
The Equality Act 2010 was meant to replace the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Sex Discrimination Regulations 1999, which predate the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and obviously intended to use the biological definition. There is no evidence to suggest the lawmakers intended to change the definition of man and women.
-
The Gender Recognition Act creates a distinction between legal sex and biological sex; it does not abolish biological sex (how could it?). Interpreting the EA as referencing biological sex is not inconsistent with the GRA, especially since this is the most common interpretation. You could argue that if the EA wanted sex to be interpreted as legal sex, it should have defined this explicitly, and since it doesn't, it could be reasonably assumed to default to biological sex.
-
The EA only refers to “pregnant women” and never “pregnant men”. This implies the word "woman" refers to biological sex, because it would be unthinkable for a law to exclude biologically female legal men (trans men) from protection of discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
I admit I'm biased because I oppose genderism in most of its forms, but I think the judgment is defensible.
MartianNight
11mo ago
I'm not sure if you needed an account for that, but at least that was optional, and you didn't miss much if you ignored it.
What was dumb about it was that Ubisoft couldn't even be arsed to keep their site up and running, making that part of the game technically unfinishable in recent years, if it wasn't for fans reverse-engineering the encryption algorithm (luckily, they used a symmetric algorithm instead of something harder to crack). And of course, the fan-maintained websites are still up and running: https://darkroom.bgemyth.net/, because apparently fans can do what billion dollar multinational companies cannot.
Let me highlight this part:
Arguably, Ubisoft has been fighting the good fight. I make fun of Ubislop titles, and their super generic, open world, casual action adventure mechanics. But they are still ostensibly offline big budget single player games.
I recently bought the remastered edition of Beyond Good and Evil, and the launcher doesn't allow me to play the game without creating a stupid Ubisoft account. Why the fuck would I need to create a Ubisoft account to play the single-player game I already bought and paid full price for? (Incidentally, I bought this game three times: once on PC, once the updated version on XBOX 360, and then again the remastered version.)
To be clear, this is a 100% offline exclusively single-player game with no online components whatsoever! There is absolutely no need for online accounts!
The only way to circumvent this asinine garbage was to put the console in offline mode, which is a hassle. And the only reason that works at all is that Microsoft put its foot down and didn't let hell-tier companies like Ubisoft block their games from running offline. Fucking Microsoft is the hero in this story! Let that sink in. MICROSOFT! I cannot emphasize this enough. How the hell do you fuck up so badly as a gaming company that a longtime gamer like me thanks Microsoft for not letting you ruin the gaming experience even worse for your paying customers?
This fucking shit make me hate Ubisoft with a fiery passion. A company that fucks its customers over this badly doesn't deserve to survive. I wish they went bankrupt yesterday, just to discourage this bullshit.
MartianNight
11mo ago
Sure, that's why I started my comment with “If I put on my conspiracy hat...” At the same time, it's naive to assume that an attack on the opposition couldn't possibly be politically motivated because there is some friendly fire.
MartianNight
11mo ago
If I put on my conspiracy hat, I would say that this is exactly what you would expect from a group that wants to get rid of certain politicians without making it look like their actions are politically motivated: throw a few of their allies under the bus too, to make it look like the actions are politically neutral, while knowing full well that the impact on your enemies is much more severe than on your allies.
This gives your actions the veneer of neutrality while still achieving your political aims.
Amadan, you are a fucking hypocrite and you're a disgrace of a mod. You constantly spread Zionist propaganda while pretending to be politically neutral.
You intentionally conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and deride criticism of Zionism as “Joo-posting”, an intrinsically dismissive term, as if the people who have some concerns about the genocide-in-all-but-name that is being perpetrated by Israel in the middle east are just cuckoo-bananas.
Again in this comment, you create a false dichotomy between “Jews and Jew-haters” as if you can be either in support of Israel, or you must hate the Jews, which is far from the truth. I have no issue whatsoever with the many Jews who live in my neighbourhood, nor with those Israelis who are content to remain within the internationally recognized borders of Israel. I do hate anyone who supports the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, whether they are Jewish or not. I make no secret of this. Any attempt to conflate that opposition to Zionism to “hating Jews” is obviously disingeneous.
Even in this reply you stroke your own dick by waxing poetically about how you magnanimously tolerate the “Joo-posters” (a derisive term you invented to ridicule those who don't share your pro-Israel bias), as if banning people for disagreeing with you wouldn't violate half a dozen stated rules. Your tolerance of anti-Zionists is only commendable if this is an explicit Zionist space which is founded on the principle of promoting Israels divine right to annex Palestinian land and carpet bomb Palestinian civilians. If that's not a founding principle, you don't get brownie points for tolerating people who are calling out the state of Israel on its gross violation of international law.
I wouldn't be writing this reply if you were just another random Zionist voicing his dumb opinions. In that case, I would just flip the bozo bit on you and ignore your stupid takes from now on. But the fact that you're an actual moderator makes that impossible. I would think moderators should be extra committed to following the rules of the Motte, including being kind, charitable, not antagonistic, avoiding weakmen, not being egregiously obnoxious—all standards you fail here.
More options
Context Copy link