Tiber727
4mo ago
Right, I get that, but that's not my point. I understand the fantasy. But trying to live the fantasy I don't think would bring them the things they want out of the fantasy. If it's something like "Women are hot and feminine. I want to be hot and feminine," well you're not going to be hot or feminine, you're going to be a dude in a dress. If you want to know what sex is like for a woman, surgery is not going to get you that.
I am saying that I would generally imagine that most with autogynephilia would desist with acting out their autogynephilia in public in disappointment. Not all, but a significant percentage.
Tiber727
4mo ago
I think there's some element of that, but I don't think that's entirely it. There are definitely people who have sexual thoughts about turning into the opposite sex, but as progressives say, sex is not gender. Reality does not offer anything close to what that experience would be like if it could actually happen, and I think that's pretty obvious to even a casual observer.
Tiber727
4mo ago
Depends on if you mean "sincere" or if you actually mean "consistent." In my experience progressives seem to genuinely believe what they are saying, but white men are at the top of the progressive stack and thus have no right to feel offended whereas women do.
Tiber727
4mo ago
IIRC, ROGD was coined as a sort of proposed explanation to the sudden massive increase to people claiming to be trans. With this, a study was conducted interviewing parents who believed their children had suddenly come out. Liberals proposed alternate explanations for the observations - the children may not have told their parents until recently, and the study may have recruited participants who were anti-trans to begin with. This, to progressives, means that the study has been "debunked." In addition, the study was pulled for not getting the correct disclosure - it asked if they were okay with publicly using their name, but not if they were okay with using their name in a study. This incredible distinction of course meant the study was completely unethical.
The study was never meant to conclusively prove ROGD was real, simply that it might be worth studying. Of course, no one really attempted to follow up.
Tiber727
4mo ago
They left the possibility of charges potentially open, but kneecapped the ability to actually exercise them. Discussions with his staff, a.k.a. the people he would likely confer with with regards to committing the crime, are largely off limits. You need to prove that they are not official acts to gather evidence, which to me seems to say that you need to prove the crime before you are allowed to gather the evidence to prove the crime. You're all but disallowed from questioning his motives, when motives are a massive part of what makes most things a crime.
Tiber727
4mo ago
McConnell seemed pretty pissed about J6, and didn't defend Trump at all. His stated argument was that Trump was already out of office, and therefore the judicial system was the correct forum. For all the talk about lawfare and political hitjobs, impeachment is also a highly political process, and Trump was likely protected from impeachment because McConnell didn't want to lose Trump voters.
Tiber727
4mo ago
Okay, but let's say there is a weak argument that the crime was necessary to his duties. How do you disprove it? You would want evidence, but the bad argument also makes it an official act until proven otherwise, meaning you can't effectively investigate it.
Tiber727
4mo ago
1 - 3 seem relatively reasonable (though 2 is more deferential than I think is necessary). However, 4 is the big "What the hell?!" to me. It strikes me as a poison pill meant to make the whole thing nearly impossible to prove.
Say you think a President took a bribe for an ambassador. They could theoretically be prosecuted for that. However, any communication he might have had is pretty much immune from evidence-gathering. The Supreme Court also said you cannot put him on the stand and ask him under oath if he hired the guy because of the bribe.
I'm legitimately curious at how this is supposed to work, outside of said President being so stupid as to broadcast his crime on prime-time TV.
Tiber727
5mo ago
Arguably sociopaths. My understanding of demons in Frieren is they evolved to lack empathy. They understand that humans will lower their guard if you tell them your parents or your children died, but they don't fully understand why because they can't feel familial love or sadness. There's even a demon who is portrayed slightly sympathetically as he alternates between helping and torturing humans because he's trying to see if he can experience emotions.
Tiber727
5mo ago
Does someone have to operate on the scale of Hitler to be be compared to Hitler?
More importantly, buried in that statement is the implication that you don't really care if Putin repeats his behavior so long as it's under a certain threshold. Do I have that right?
How about the part where the ostensible reason to surrender is to cut losses and return to peace. If Putin reneges on that and attacks again then there was no reason to surrender in the first place. Ukraine is back in the exact same position but worse since Russia will have rebuilt and put in terms of surrender conditions that would prevent them from doing the same. The U.S. is in the same position where their goal of nuclear de-escalation is threatened because a dictator has proven that if you have nukes you can do whatever you want, and the only defense is having your own nukes. Putin would have every incentive to repeat this, since he was already inclined to so and previously rewarded for it.
Tiber727
5mo ago
Let's expand on the surrender outcome. Putin is already pushing that Ukraine's surrender should include a promise to demilitarize.
3.1: Ukraine reluctantly agrees to this demand. What happens? The way I see it, in ~5 years, Russia invents a narrative the Ukraine broke the agreement, rolls right in and takes over Ukraine who lacks the ability to stop them.
3.2: Ukraine surrenders, but not from such an unfavorable position that they are forced to demilitarize, just forced to give up the territory they've currently lost. What happens? In this scenario Ukraine obviously has to up their military because there's no way they trust Russia not to do it again. Ukraine and Russia both use the time to rebuild their military. I strongly suspect Russia comes back to finish the job, using Ukraine's military buildup as justification.
Tiber727
5mo ago
We should fight this war because this is at least the third time Russia has annexed or "made independent" territory from another nation under Putin. If something works, why would you not do it again?
The fallacy I keep seeing in this and other similar conversations is the assumption that if Ukraine surrenders everything stops. I don't believe that option is even on the table unless Putin is made to regret committing to this. Hell, Putin's terms for Ukraine's surrender is to pretty much dismantle their military.
Tiber727
8mo ago
Not quite. They said the state can declare people insurrectionists and bar them from office, but only for state positions. The court agreed 9-0 on this point.
The split came down to the liberal justices arguing that the more conservative justices are exceeding their power in trying to determine how the federal system can declare someone insurrectionists, implying that only Congress can make this declaration rather the the federal judicial system. Barrett kind of hints at agreeing with this argument, but tries to smooth things over.
Tiber727
1yr ago
What ads are:
-Ads are a tool to increase revenue by a company.
Ads can serve one or more purposes:
-
Informing you that a product exists.
-
Informing you of changes in value or quality that may be desirable.
-
Reminding you that a product exists.
-
Making you view a product more favorably.
-
Encouraging you to make impulse buys.
-
Putting a tracker in the ads for data collection.
-
Deceiving you (for example those ads on software download sites that look like download buttons).
-
As a vector for malware.
1-3 can be considered benevolent. 7-8 are always malevolent, and 6 is arguably malevolent because it's one thing collecting data for a site/product people are using, but the person collecting data may well be a company you want nothing to do with. 4 depends on if the company is trying to make their reputation better than it should be, or if the ad viewer has an unreasonably low opinion of the company. 5 might increase short term happiness but is probably unwise in the long term.
I block ads because the negatives outweigh the positives. I don't care if I am not aware of a product that could benefit me. If I wasn't motivated enough to look for it it probably wasn't important. By blocking ads I protect myself from 7-8. I hate data collection because companies are always dodgy about what exact data they collect, they rarely let you curate it, and you have no control over what they do with it or who they sell it to. The more data a company collects, the more effective it can potentially be at encouraging me to make poor purchasing decisions. Also ads are more effective when they are distracting.
So no, I do not want ads. If I must have ads, I want them to know as little about me as possible because I see ads on the whole as oppositional to my interests (exercising good financial judgment) rather than aligned.
Not a Trump fan by any means, but my feeling is that because Trump operates on perception and vibes, he has no goal for being President beyond status. Which means that beyond a few personal crusades, he simply lets the Uniparty in Congress do whatever they want. Beyond the media circus surrounding Trump in everything he does, was his first term substantially different from a hypothetical generic Republican President? I don't think it was and I don't think a 2nd term would be, because if it doesn't interest him he doesn't care.
More options
Context Copy link