@thrownaway24e89172's banner p

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

				

User ID: 1081

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1081

Did you know that most non-Japanese men speak Japanese like a woman? According to the book it's because most Japanese language teachers are women.

This does not line up with my experience at all, unless the meaning here is just "more like Japanese women speak than like Japanese men speak". I believe most Japanese language programs start out teaching a polite, gender-neutral form of Japanese, later moving on to other forms as the student becomes more and more fluent. This has the effect of causing non-native speakers to "default" to this particular form since, being the form they learned first, it is the form they are usually the most comfortable with. Japanese women tend to use this form more often than Japanese men and thus non-Japanese men speak Japanese like women in this sense, and I could see an argument that this form being the default starting form is a result of most Japanese language teachers being women. However, there are also many grammatical constructs and vocabulary that are nearly exclusively used by (EDIT: men or women) one gender or the other. You won't typically see non-Japanese men using the ones used by Japanese women unless they are intentionally trying to sound like a woman.

Pixiv's Pawoo and Baraag, which I think are by far the largest, are totally isolated from the wokiesphere.

The reasons for which being absolutely hilarious given the groomer thread.

I was referring to watching the drama unfold between people arguing democrats/leftists/"the woke" are groomers and people who identify with those labels taking offense to the label while thinking to myself how ridiculous the arguments of both sides are given how "the wokiesphere" responded in that case. Or how Reddit responded to similar concerns. Or how Facebook did.

EDIT: Grammar.

Though for all the abortion focused ads, I did notice none of them actually say the word "abortion": it's always "reproductive rights" or "women's health." The most notable euphemism I heard also happened to be the only time I think I've seen genuine "dog whistle" in the wild: a candidate declared (along a list of other issues) that they would preserve our "constitutional privacy rights". Excellently manufactured so that anyone who cares about the abortion debate will hear "I am pro-choice" while the average voter who doesn't care about abortion doesn't hear it at all. So, ads are big on abortion but mostly wants to talk to the base.

Really? I've been seeing tasteless crap like this. Nothing says pro-choice quite like "As men, it is our duty to protect women."

Any thoughts on the really nice Japanese bidets? I miss them after having a taste of absolute asshole luxury.

I'll never forget the first time I went to the restroom at the University in Japan. The first stall had the fanciest toilet I'd ever encountered, with a wall of buttons controlling among other things the bidet settings. The second stall was just a trench in the floor.

A quick Google search for "code of conduct" reverse turns up a few:

GNOME Foundation:

Safety versus Comfort

The GNOME community prioritizes marginalized people's safety over privileged people's comfort, for example in situations involving:

  • "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia"
  • Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as "leave me alone," "go away," or "I'm not discussing this with you."
  • Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
  • Communicating boundaries or criticizing oppressive behavior in a "tone" you don't find congenial

GeekFeminism's Recommended Community Anti-harassment/Policy:

COMMUNITY NAME prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. RESPONSE TEAM reserves the right not to act on complaints regarding:

  • ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
  • Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you.”
  • Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
  • Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions

IIRC, the GeekFeminism policy recommendation in particular came out right when these started showing up in a lot of open source projects and is probably responsible for a lot of the culture war surrounding this due to being widely cited.

EDIT: The links at the end of the GNOME Foundation's code of conduct include more examples, eg this template has an example section on reversisms.

If you get drunk and repeatedly call a man a "dick" we don't generally run a story about a "sexist outburst."

I expect that if you got drunk and repeatedly called a woman a "cunt" it would be considered a "sexist outburst" however.

I'm not sure how this relates to my comment, which was just pointing out that calling a woman a "cunt" is more likely to be seen as sexist than calling a man a "dick".

As probably the only person who will be bold enough to openly identify as an avowed pedophile

You're certainly not the only person, but it's not a particularly common perspective around here.

See my second link. Even if OP is FPHthrowawayB under a different name, there is at least one other person who has openly identified as a pedophile here (ie, me).

Yes, but better substitutes prevent such women from exploiting the sexual desires of 'unsuccessful/deeply unattractive ones' to their own benefit.

EDIT: Grammar.

You're more than welcome to that claim. I'm also glad you found the stories "cute", even if you don't seem to appreciate cuteness.

Not sure about that, because the men those women want don't masturbate, watch porn, or think sexually about other women. Hence, if a guy would use a sex toy, he's not desirable anyway.

They may not want companionship or sex with those men, but they do desire things from them--notably "pro-social" behaviors that maintain those women's privileges. They want those men to be starving for sexual attention so they can exploit that starvation. It's nothing more than the conservative argument against welfare applied to sexuality.

Neither of those is offered by a fleshlight, but neither of them are necessarily offered by those women either. Sex toys (and porn and non-pornographic sexualized media more generally) raise the bar for the amount of effort those women have to put in to exploit the desires of those men. It doesn't raise it very high, but high enough I think to have an impact.

I don't see it as being the opposite at all--I predict that men having more options for dealing with their sexual desires that aren't gated by women makes them "less of a simp in attitude", whether that is indulging in masturbation or making a conscious effort to focus on other things instead.

Or it could just be that women aren't trustworthy judges of creepiness, prone to interpreting men's (particularly certain kinds of men's) behavior in the worst possible way because they are incentivized to do so.

Especially to a link which is not very honest; you say "It doesn't help that mainstream publications were using "grooming" to describe consensual relations between adults." and link to an article in which the only use of the term is: " “He started grooming me when I was a teenager"

If you are going to moan about improper usage of the term groomer, I think it behooves you to use other terms properly as well. Pedophilia refers to attraction to prepubescent children, which mostly excludes teenagers since it is very rare for a teenager to have not yet started puberty. You want to use it to cover attraction to anyone who's not an adult so you can use that taboo to shame a wider group of people for their attractions? Gee, sounds a lot like your groomer complaint, doesn't it?

Yes, I am aware of the technical definition. Do you think that those who bandy about the term "groomer" know or care? Or is it more likely that they are using it in the popular sense, in which "the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, including any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development"?

Of course they don't, which was exactly my point! The popular definition gets expanded to cover a wider group because people want to exploit the taboo for social power. If you are going to argue it is wrong to expand the definition of groomers, then it was wrong to have expanded the definition of pedophile to the point that "groomer" became synonymous with it.

As for "moaning," are you saying it is OK to make baseless charges of sexual impropriety or base motives? I don't, whether that be the left calling everything "racism" or the right calling everything "grooming."

No, I'm just frustrated that progressive arguments, arguments that the "groomer" narrative targets, used to excuse sexual harassment and abuse I endured growing up are being defended. I'm frustrated that I grew up to find out I'm attracted to kids, but not exclusively, and that those experiences make it extremely difficult to have relationships with the adults I am attracted to. I'm frustrated that rather than asking themselves what they can do to prevent abuse like I experienced, people would rather deflect to the boogieman of pedophilia without concern for what impact that would have on people like me. In short, I see your protestations as nothing more than one last "fuck you" from the people who abused me.

nothing I have said was meant to be a statement about you, about victims of abuse in general, or about sexual offenders.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear what I meant by that. My frustration is that I take it that way, regardless of your intent, because of those experiences. It's not your fault that I take it that way, which is why I said it was 'one last "fuck you" from the people who abused me'.

EDIT: Fixed quote and grammar.

Western conservatives are absolutely failing to satisfy this basic need and all they can do is to point fingers at some exploitative actors of the opposing side and call them names. It’s pathetic.

Is it any wonder that they are when western progressives actively tore down all the institutions that traditionally satisfied them?

Mostly perl...

My understanding of the social norm is that people would be unhappy if someone who appeared to be a woman entered the men's bathroom

This strongly contradicts my experiences in men's restrooms. Women seem rather entitled to using the men's room when theirs is occupied, with the concern being for their privacy and safety rather than the men's even when arguments against it are made.

The idea that someone concludes that the Holocaust is vastly exaggerated, and doesn't go on to conclude that we are ruled by a Zionist conspiracy, is a catch-22, you can't get the first without concluding the last.

Why can't you? Humans are notorious for exaggeration of stories over time (eg, the fish keeps getting bigger), and don't have the best memory to begin with, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe significant exaggeration could have occurred over the last 80 years without any shady conspiracies. This kind of bland compounding exaggeration over time seems a far more likely presumptive explanation to me than a "Zionist conspiracy".

My comment doesn't address whether it is actually exaggerated or not, merely your assertion that it being exaggerated necessarily implies a Zionist conspiracy. I'm simply arguing that IF the Holocaust were exaggerated, it doesn't imply a Zionist conspiracy as there are more likely explanations in my mind. Trauma is just as capable of causing people to remember things differently than they actually happened as time, so the fact that survivors told their story "almost immediately" doesn't affect my argument.

That's ridiculous overcompensation. For comparison, that's equivalent to the maximum compensation for spending 100 years imprisoned on false charges in some states. Getting slandered on the internet by someone with no institutional power and dealing with petty harassment by people who see it is in no way comparable to being falsely declared a criminal and locked up by the state. It is absurd to argue that the former should payout more than the latter.