@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

I've had exactly one roommate who was really into him, and it was definitely parasocial.

The best recipe I've ever personally made was a Mediterranean olive-bean-and-greens pasta.

Girlfriend also makes a mean olive bread, but that's probably driven by the focaccia rather than the weird, briny fruits.

Losing olive oil would be a tragedy.

I wouldn't expect any mainstream Americans to do so unironically.

The acceptable way to criticize democracy, here in the US, is to claim the Other Guys defected first. Don't listen to the racists; they've been trying to take away human rights. Keep the commies from getting any power, since they'll just use it to dismantle democracy. He deserved arrest, since he was obviously abusing the office to sell secrets. Lock her up; she can't get away with white-collar crime.

Actually believing that the PMCs should be ignoring the people is considered gauche, even for most of the alleged PMCs. Such sentiment will almost always be couched in an appeal to justice or rationalized as protecting Democracy.

But it does matter if the OP is a troll. There are rules for a reason. No matter how many insightful, wholesome, galaxy-brain responses get made because of this bait, it’ll still be a turd on the doorstep.

very much encouraged and glamorized

Show this to the guy downthread arguing that trans acceptance will lead to plastic-surgery acceptance. America already has a significant fraction who are into obvious voluntary surgery; it’s just mostly split on class lines.

I can’t agree on the alleged social threat of trans people, though. Targeting children is somewhere between irresponsible and unethical, but that’s not what they are doing. Literally every trans person I know is an adult and firmly focused on affirmation rather than evangelism. That may lead to a false positive rate by encouraging uncertain members, but this isn’t somehow unique to trans issues. To me that means the live-and-let-live category should apply.

By all means, protect the vulnerable, especially children. One can’t get tattooed before 18, and tight controls on other body mods are reasonable. But don’t mistake the cherry-picked worst examples for a general argument.

To be fair, nobody thinks the kilt makes it okay today, either. That’s still a masculine signal.

This is the fault of the OP for mentioning a sex/gender distinction and then proceeding only with sexes.

It seems obvious to me that “gender” is a useful term, even if not in the way that some trans activists would prefer. Start by treating “male” and “female” as strictly biological terms defined in the obvious way, ignoring all edge cases. Some activities are clearly aligned with one these categories. Males are more likely to do testosterone-fueled activities like lifting heavy things and fighting.

Once we consider culture and perception, we run into some confusion. Not all of the correlations have an obvious biological reason. Maybe there’s a good evo-psych reason for women to be way more into books than TV, or maybe not. And there are plenty of jobs which may have been male- or female-dominated historically, but aren’t anymore.

So it makes sense to have a second set of terms referring to these categories and not the purely biological ones. A male or a female can still act “masculine” or “feminine” based on culture and circumstances. These are clearly not hard boundaries if only because humans are so socially adaptable. From a purely descriptive standpoint, sex and “gender” aren’t the same.

Being male or female may not be based on clothes or hair, but being masculine or feminine is.

Embrace the sex/gender distinction. By which I mean—set aside the terms “man” and “woman” for a minute. Let’s use “male/female” for sex, “masc/femme” for gender, and ignore the edge cases.

Your proposed usage of “passing” would be “male signaling femme enough to get femme pronouns.” Conventionally, it’s more like “male signaling femme enough to be assumed female.” “Representing a trans person as cisgender” was a pretty good way to put it.

Yes, this is some level of Problematic, in that it asserts sex/gender mismatches ought to be invisible. I don’t think this is a settled issue. For those who believe social interactions are grounded in gender, not sex, changing perception of the latter is unneeded. For others, decoupling sex from gender is hard enough that they won’t feel satisfied unless they can pass. Naturally, the whole issue is complicated when fighting over the terms “man” and “woman,” which don’t historically handle the sex/gender mismatches.

Personally, I have a hard time blaming those who wish to pass. Avoiding cognitive dissonance seems like something worth endorsing, especially when the burden is mostly on one’s own shoulders.

This is a weird sort of handwringing. I’m not convinced that the problem is real and not just your projected disgust for BLM.

Maybe for Hispanic representation? I’m a Texan, and locally Latinos are pretty prevalent in culture and government. I can think of celebrities, but probably not to the ratio of 1 in 5. Somehow I imagine that the Hispanic population can name more.

Black Americans both make up the second largest minority and the largest historical impact. Seems like a natural target for marketing. You see Native American films and representation getting recognition for similar historical reasons.

Asian casting gets plenty of press. It’s usually because Hollywood’s trying to exploit the Chinese mainland market.

All in all, not seeing a huge disparity here. Maybe you should provide more statistics instead of complaining that a domestic policy movement doesn’t have a statement about Ukraine?

Seconding @daezor.

Democracy is most useful as a safety valve for unrest. Removing an executive peacefully is much more efficient than burning down the Reichstag to gain power. We get to funnel our tribal lizard brains into flag waving and campaigning rather than murdering our neighbors and taking their stuff. The longer we hold on to the rule of law the better.

Using the “wisdom” of the crowds as a hedge against certain sorts of bullshit...it’s a distant second.

It is pretty rant-y. Speak plainly, and maybe don't try to sneak assertions that Democrats are into child abuse.

I think all of the following are more or less true:

  • "Grooming" is a real, terrible thing that should be prevented

  • Any event which gets children dressing provocatively on stage is going to appeal to actual pedophiles

  • QAnon does not have a monopoly on the term "groomer," and it's irresponsible for the news to imply they do

  • QAnon is correlated with using "groomer" as a general-LGBT slur

So the FUD about "groomer" is part of a battle over one of those strategic abuses of language. Q et al. would like to apply it to things which are definitely not child abuse, like telling students that homosexuality exists. LGBT supporters would like it to remain very selective. Yes, this does involve a false alarm/sensitivity tradeoff. No, I'm not convinced that Q is rationally setting the threshold--not when the rhetoric is so useful.

I don't know where you're getting news of "leather thongs," and I don't really want to go looking. I could imagine a perfectly chaste drag show which is purely about affirming the participants, about announcing pride rather than erasing it. Of course, that's not in line with historical use of drag, and I would expect provocative content from Boise's performance. That's a pretty damn good reason to keep kids out of it. Are supporters secret MAPs trying to get their rocks off? Or are they mistaken, and genuinely have a horrible blindspot for how pedophiles would get value out of their show?

The mistake-theory approach is not to wage war over the term "groomer." It's to convince supporters that their action is wrong and dangerous. You should be able to do this without relying on a single rhetorical flourish.

Amen.

Like most every superweapon, it looks plausible from the outside. I guarantee the LGBT community can give you a laundry list of reasons why it shouldn't apply in a given case. Drag shows are definitely one of the harder ones to defend, though.

I think the Florida bill is the most salient example, and it's also one of the worst-targeted.

Uh, what term are they supposed to use instead? Specifically serving a disfavored group, or writing letters about how dumb racists are, seems pretty anti-racist to me.

Your proposed "political and ideological ends" don't make a lot of sense, either.

1.Use "anti-racist" in the Tolkien article

2.Poor shmucks think that he's just neutral on racism

3.But those In The Know can tell he was actually supporting racial equity!

4.???

5.New era of racial equity

Not really seeing the payoff for them. Likewise for DEI--cui bono? What are those nasty CRT partisans getting from promoting a second meaning?

  • -10

The Tolkien and Race page cites this article which in turn is responding to a Wired podcast. The guy was talking about his 2002 book, so no, Amazon doesn't seem to be responsible.

Though the term "anti-racist" doesn't come from either of those sources. I guess it's possible that the article was revisited in prep for Rings of Power.

Not being cute.

I know what anti-racism is, and Tolkien saying “I have the hatred of Apartheid in my bones” fits. Do you have an alternative?

This is a plausible mechanism of action.

It’s just one that I find underwhelming. I suppose that would be the point.

No idea who Chris Rufo is, but I actually did think LoTT was explicitly pro-Q. Outgroup homogeneity bias in action, perhaps.

I don’t like being in a position where I’m perceived as defending actual groomers either. That’s the whole point of using the term as a portable motte and bailey, and it’s why LGBT advocates are so against it. If nara is serious about looking for the mistake-theory response, it’s to avoid the name-calling and make outcome-specific criticisms like “this will enable pedophiles.” I’d like to think that would be better received than proclaiming defenders want to abuse children.

See also: Rudy Giuliani and Trump.

Culture is weird.

Glad I searched before making my own.


I’m in love with the 1911. Maybe this is because most of my prior experience was shooting Glocks, but it feels so luxurious by comparison. Good heft, smooth controls. I don’t care if the magazine is single-stack; this thing is great.

Anyone else care to share your personal taste in handguns?

Then I guess I’ve fallen for the CRT strategy. I don’t believe you have to subscribe to a particular structural theory to be anti-racist. Maybe Kendi wants to redefine it so that’s true; we aren’t obligated to go along.

I’ve definitely spent more time in the ship editor than in matches. Honestly, now that modular missiles are available I’ve been pretty overwhelmed and haven’t played a real match. There’s just so much to fix on my shitty fleets.

Historical guns are the best.

I should really apply for a curio license.

I'm inclined to agree...but I'm not sure I'd have done so if you hadn't said it first.

What gives you the impression? Something about the...mixing? The more I listen, the less sure I am I can describe production in any meaningful way.

I shot a CZ 9mm a few years back, not long after I got my first gun, and I wonder if it was a 75. The owner had added a red dot and a side charging handle; he clearly wasn't trying to fit it in a back holster. But it was incredibly comfortable to shoot.

Speaking of single/double action, I didn't learn about the "Glock reset" until last week. The first pull is heavy, but if you don't fully release the trigger, follow up pulls are pretty light. I had no idea.

I don't have nearly as much revolver experience as I'd like.