4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
<3
User ID: 355
I'm not any more of a fan of him than you are, but it is an old rule of internet communities that singling out moderators to attack is the most surefire way to get more of whatever the moderator you singled out stands for. All you will get is wagon circling, because staff vs. the rabble is the most natural tribal division for a volunteer project. (See Wikipedia for the most famous example.)
The only productive way to effect change is to lay low until there is an opportunity to influence the selection of new staff, and then try to tip the scale towards people you find more agreeable.
I think banning "sky daddy" is fair, but I looked at the search results and I can see only one instance that is on the use side of the use-mention distinction (magicalkittycat from 5 months ago). The others - it seems like 75% of uses of "chud" at this point are by self-identified chuds (like the Asmongold fandom) though personally I would have also liked to see that one buried, and "blood libel" is in a different class as it evokes disagreement with its substance rather than its style. (Contrast "sky daddy": Christians would not disagree that God is a father figure, nor that He is at least metaphorically situated in the sky. The offense is caused by the baby talk formulation, implying that believers are stupid and emotionally immature)
"Tranny" is not a slur. I'm all for civility, but you'll never satisfy people who keep inventing things to be offended at.
Who is "inventing things to be offended at"? The term obviously was invented by people who are against "trannies" with the intent to offend, and to pretend otherwise is a level of gaslighting that would get you an A+ on your * Studies course paper if you deployed it for the other team.
If a hair trigger of this sensitivity was applied to left wingers, they'd be banned on sight.
What's a concrete example of that? I at least certainly can't think of any symmetrical slights (if I had to come up with a way, I'd suggest making your username "FetusSlushie" or "WhiteTears" or something).
I don't remember instances of leftists flinging childish slurs at the holy cows of rightists here at all; and if they did, I would likewise be in favour of the banhammer. What do you think tone policing is about? Why is it so hard for right-wingers to restrain themselves and not use slurs?
+1 for moderating more on tone again. I'm genuinely struggling to understand why the mods have abandoned that idea so completely, unless it is either inability to shoot their own tribal soldiers in the back, or unwillingness to stand up to a community majority that gets pissy when you do so with theirs. I guess maybe the seeds of this were there since the beginning, considering how the staff had to be dragged kicking and screaming into banning one TrannyPornO (who some, unbelievably, still reminisce about wistfully) even though any forum that wants to be welcoming to leftists should obviously have shown him the door based on his username alone before he made a single post.
(I guess the proposition is complicated to implement also because you see the detrimental effects of popular posters getting punished immediately, while the positive effects of better tone take a long time to manifest as new people trickle in.)
I don't think I got the vibe that the guys had to be walking on eggshells compared to that - in the same circle there are a bunch of very touchy-feely guys as well, including ones with sufficiently little social common sense that they do not desist when their target is evidently uncomfortable with it, and the worst that happens even to those is that people badmouth them behind their back (and some choose to individually avoid them).
I would be tempted to say that this is just because this is not the USA, but then I spent many years in US grad school covering the whole BLM/#metoo ground zero era and even there did not experience anywhere near the climate of fear that is being painted in these threads. Can we be sure that the situations discussed here are anywhere near representative, as opposed to yet another instance of the internet selectively boosting the most degenerate outliers from among hundreds of millions of anglophone users?
-
Flat white (I don't like the foam on cappuccinos, and often in Europe these have twice the espresso too). Some handbrew pourover if I want the caffeine but not the nutrition. Straight espressos only in Italy (I find that you get good-tasting ones maybe 90% of the time there, whereas elsewhere it's closer to 50%).
-
I generally avoid it if I can help it for the same reason of not wanting my coffee to be heavy/nutritious. I make an exception if I must go to a place where I know the coffee will be disgusting (Starb*cks and most other chains). In the UK, my go-to was the gingerbread flavouring at Costa.
I'm obviously talking about the sort of refugees that would significantly change the national character (though I gather that Poland actually got more friction between them and the native population than they at first expected, and soured on the whole thing a bit too). This is like gotchaing someone complaining about immigrants in the US with a statistic about immigrants from Scotland.
There might be something to that; at a very mixed-age-and-gender social function I was at a while ago, there was a zoomette who got drunk and flirtatiously handsy with the guys sitting around her, and then in her drunken disregulation started spiralling that surely all the people around her must hate her because she is like this. Reassurances that this is very unlikely were met with what seemed like genuine surprise and a measure of disbelief from her.
However, more often I suspect that people going on dates nowadays are so solipsistic that they scarcely get around to trying to model what would be attractive to the other person at all. Baseline Twitter-and-Instagram socialisation does not impart a great deal of theory of mind.
-
I guess with PiS it's quite conceivable that they could pull something like starting such a war, pulling the whole of EU into it, and then exiting and making ceasefire separately and leaning back and watching while the rest of Europe bleeds. They were very much the "our country über alles" but not above pretending to do international cooperation for more gibs party.
-
The more decisive question, of course, is not actually alignment on war with Russia but alignment on accepting refugees. Poland is one of the countries that has been refusing to share the load, is now starting to look conspicuously better for it and making it awkward for its Western neighbours. With sufficient cynicism you might compare the EU outlook on this with the theory on China/Taiwan and Russia/Ukraine where bad leadership can't suffer the existence of a living example of how good the same sort of people could have it under an alternative political system.
From my understanding, much like East Germany, Hungary started seeing substantial Vietnamese immigration during communist times (as part of the general cooperation of the ideologically lukewarm peripheral countries). Do you really figure there was meme flow from the (still mostly Southern refugee at that time) Vietnamese in the US to the (tending Northern) intra-communist transfers?
I haven't been to Vietnam, but are nail salons a big thing there, and if they are, are they considered an American thing?
The nail salon workers in Hungary are Vietnamese too, and I am honestly struggling to imagine how they would have been helped into the job by American relatives (and how heartless those American relatives would have to have been to shepherd them into being nail salon workers in a country where they will earn like a fifth of American minimum wage for it).
As my non-American $.02, I can see it as "pushing it" in the sense that I would probably not do it if I had kids that age (unless I found them unusually mature) and might advice likewise to people in my environment, but on the other hand it seems insane that this would result in police getting involved and the children being taken away. In that sense, I'm a bit taken aback by your comment on a meta level; it comes across to me like someone got arrested for their breakfast choice, and then you chime in that if they really did put honey on peanut butter then this does strike you as quite degenerate. The most important part of the argument, why your beliefs regarding what should be put on bread (or what kids may or may not be competent at) should have any bearing on whether police may use their mandate to punish unrelated people who act at odds with them, is conspicuously missing, as if if only enough representative salt-of-the-earth people thought likewise, jailing PB&J heretics would be the natural course of action. Is there no more liberal principle, that people may by default do whatever they want unless it impinges on one of a handful of predefined competing values like the integrity of the state or there is a compelling sense in which it conflicts with someone else's rights?
Nowhere near the extent they do in Belize (or the wilder and more Latin southern wastes of Europe). Said with some authority since I've driven in all of these.
Counter-counterpoint- those societies all suck (relative to the US) at enforcing a lot of other laws, so it is not surprising that they would suck at enforcing their gun laws. Everyone in Belize routinely speeding is not much of an argument against the viability of speed limits in the US.
From what it sounds like, the charge was that they selectively interfered with public transport in cities supporting one particular side, so unless the population is also perfectly geographically shuffled, everyone using public transport would not be sufficient protection.
That being said, I agree that if you already have the sort of corruption that allows selective interference with public transport, private vehicles are hardly safe. If anything, under Brazilian conditions, some tactical road closures that just so happen to result in the city being choked up in jams would be more deniable and even easier to get away with.
I'm not sure if "Problem: There is a clash between my ingroup and my outgroup. Proposed solution: Have you considered shifting the balance of power towards my ingroup?" is a take that needs to be introduced explicitly.
Not exactly a new insight that for many Westerners, science and social progressivism just wound up being used to haphazardly fill a Christianity-shaped hole.
Isn't cunt Latinate too? I think it's really more about the the sound itself; out of my quick-and-dirty list of similar slurs, few are actually Germanic (what words with that pattern even are, apart from moon?).
I don't think you need a complete theory to recognise patterns and the effect they have on listeners. Troon works as a slur for the same reasons coon, goon and loon do, octoroon got its ending, and why the boon part of baboon is such a staple in racist terminology (the only other one that probably comes close is "chimp", with gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, gibbons and all the other well-known primates basically being unheard of), and the long tubular-mouth oo in the middle might well be a human universal gesture of mockery.
(Even the memey zoomer-coomer-doomer series of neologisms is generally at least somewhat mocking. Noob also established itself globally with that particular pronunciation, in defiance of the normal English -oo-/-yoo- distribution.)
Personally, though, I see no real reason why tits should be considered crass, but boobs should be considered the correct casual language.
Bouba(booba?)/kiki effect. "Tits" sounds harsh and therefore rude in a way that "boobs" does not.
(Generally, euphonics seems to be one of those elements of language taboos that divide people harshly: some find it obvious that some words are intrinsically offensive due to how they sound, while some find the idea to be insane and suspect the former must be arguing in bad faith. I remember having an argument here long ago about whether "troon" should be considered a neutral term for the trans, with my interlocutor insisting that the it's only disapproved because leftists don't want to let their enemies have words for things.)
There are plenty of works in which the male characters could not plausibly talk about taking a shit. Can you imagine LotR with an aside about the logistics of Gandalf having to go Number 2 while fighting the Balrog?
Ultimately, fiction more often than not wants to show humans as they would like to be, not as they are. If humanity could reinvent itself according to its ideals, it would probably not poop.
(It's often downright jarring when fiction that otherwise has no pretense to cynical realism does involve defecation. I remember being jarred when Soukou Akki Muramasa's protagonist made sure to take a dump before getting in his robot armour.)
No, but (from what I saw, since I have only watched the first two) significantly less unsympathetic.
Funny that you go for the anime examples, because Japanese media (for what I figure are deeper cultural reasons than one might naively assume) is actually fairly liberal with flawed or outright despicable female characters. The same Evangelion (original, not rebuild!) has Asuka, who is essentially a prideful narcissist driven by unresolved mommy issues and still considered one of the protagonists. The whole point of Suzumiya Haruhi is that the titular character is a morally solipsistic obnoxious teenager with main character syndrome who by cosmic irony may actually be the main character/Dread Solipsist of the universe, and it is not suggested that she has any sort of valid excuse for this (even as her backstory of "just wanting to be different" is fleshed out to a fair degree). Girlfailure comedy like Bocchi the Rock is popular with both genders. I mentioned Girls' Last Tour just recently in the context of melancholic slice-of-life, but one of its two protagonists is also implied to be so amoral as to be the human equivalent of a cat that would eat its owner's corpse if he/she died first.
(To the point of "deeper cultural reasons", it's actually quite jarring to the Western eye how often in serious Japanese literature, the female characters are morally deficient and the male characters are openly misogynistic. At times it very nearly feels like the familiar women-are-wonderful moral compass is upside down.)
- Prev
- Next

By whom?
It is a diminutive, which contributes to its usability as a slur, just like "sky daddy" (your example!) is insulting in a way "sky dad" or "sky father" would not be.
Good for them, I guess (not that they have a choice most of the time), but that doesn't matter. The goal ostensibly was to have a diversity of opinions on this forum, not to settle scores or enact justice for the right wing. There is a perfectly usable neutral word ("transsexual") which is less offputting to a demographic we need more of, because it is barely represented on this political discussion forum even though it is politically dominant in most relevant countries. On the other hand, the only advantages of allowing "tranny" are saving 5 bytes of space per use and letting some right-wingers feel good (and I doubt they would even quit if they were denied this little pleasure).
Also, in case that was not clear the first time around, I'd be very happy with a policy that bans all uses (as opposed to mentions) of "tranny", "sky daddy" and "chud".
More options
Context Copy link