jkf
21hr ago
Well I wouldn't say that it's 'just' a fetish -- it's a fetish in addition to a bunch of social confusion and weird medical enablement.
What were all these people tormented to the point of suicide by their birth-bodies doing about it prior to the invention of current-day medical/hormonal interventions?
jkf
1d ago
communal showers i’m pretty sure went out of style due to increasing wealth making individual stalls more affordable.
Don't think so Tim -- at my high school the girls changeroom had separate stalls, while the boys' was prison-style. (but with nicer tile-work)
Fairly sure it wouldn't have killed the school budget to build the male changeroom to the same specs -- this is just what locker rooms were supposed to be like. (for bonding or something? IDK)
jkf
1d ago
It certainly dropped an impressive array of fireworks, with no apparent defensive response...
jkf
1d ago
Maybe -- but this is the same thing as saying 'men who commit to physical transition don't do so for AGP reasons'. Which I'm pretty skeptical of, given the prominent examples. I'd be surprised if Bruce Jenner didn't have at least aspects of this for instance.
the ones who do are generally disturbed and disregulated enough that they'll get themselves into trouble with undeniably inappropriate behavior pretty quickly.
Either that or they reshape society such that people who complain about their inappropriate behaviour are the ones who get into trouble!
jkf
1d ago
if he's actually on hormones for 10 years, and made permanent changes to his body, I don't think that's very likely.
What's so unlikely about it? Implants are usually... pretty permanent as well, it's not like he's swapping them in and out.
I agree that the 'wearing' addition is an odd turn of phrase, but 'fake breasts' to me applies equally well to ones produced by hormonal as surgical intervention.
jkf
1d ago
Putin apparently now says it was an IRBM, aimed at some kind of missile factory in retaliation for Biden's long-range weapon approval:
https://weapons.substack.com/p/the-fake-icbm-ukrainian-propaganda
jkf
6d ago
Because, y'know, he might defund or ban them, which would very directly suck.
Defund I guess maybe -- but most vaccines were invented 50 like years ago and are kinda cheap?
By what mechanism do you think RFK would ban vaccines though?
jkf
6d ago
Do you have an example conversation here? If the women are literally saying "men amirite" in response to any kinda normal conversation starter, it does seem like a weird crowd.
jkf
6d ago
it was common to object to the HPV vaccine.
Isn't this more of a 'why should my son take a shot so your daughter can (slightly) lessen the risk of her slutting around' thing than a true concern about vax safety?
jkf
7d ago
Truckers (very memorably) were (newly!) banned from crossing the Canada-US border in early 2022 without proof of vaccination -- whether this was hysterical or not is I suppose something we could discuss, but I don't see how it could be because of a thing that was not 'a going concern'?
jkf
7d ago
Maybe -- but the pandemic was still very much a 'going concern' in that period?
jkf
7d ago
Yes, and those options are equally available to good and bad people alike -- indeed I suspect that Bad People are usually a little better at them.
jkf
8d ago
I believe the accepted phrase is "Women! Can't live with em..."
<awkward silence>
jkf
8d ago
You are confusing 'liberalist state with robust rule of law' with 'democracy' -- the two are pretty orthogonal, although in practice they are often seen together these days due to accidents of history.
jkf
9d ago
If you find yourself talking with real salt of the earth rednecks, then I'll recommend you moderate your y'alling so you don't appear like or feel like a phony. They generally won't find "you guys" problematic in the ways urbane, middle class professionals might."
Now I'm picturing a bunch of farmers sitting on a tailgate, chewing straw and scolding me about gender inclusivity -- thanks.
Seems like the only time I might need y'all is if I'm surrounded by a people who are themselves phony y'all'ers -- I do use 'folks' sometimes but have a similar problem in which I feel like I'm impersonating a beardy Berkeley hippie. So many problems...
jkf
10d ago
So what's the problem? The mugshot would be "copyright Waukesha Sheriff's dept" (assuming that it's copyrightable, as you suggest) and the rationale some variation on 'fair use'.
jkf
10d ago
The equivalent article for Charlottesville uses a the work of a newspaper photographer who literally won a Pulitzer for it -- reduced in resolution, relying on fair use I presume. Does WM really think that the Waukesha Sheriff's department is more likely to sue for infringement than an actual news photographer?
jkf
10d ago
I didn't follow the trial livestream, but seem to recall testimony indicating that he was deliberately swerving at people trying to get out of his way (also IIRC there was no police pursuit until after he drove through the parade?) -- seems more like 'going postal' than terrorism to me, but well beyond reckless disregard.
(with the additional spice that the Waukesha Christmas Parade is probably the whitest thing ever, so if one decided to go postal on white people specifically it would be a sensible target -- I don't think 'hate crime' enhancements were pursued though?)
jkf
10d ago
Yes, police departments do not typically license their mugshots -- this does not mean that they aren't in the public domain.
jkf
10d ago
That seems extremely unlikely -- there are numerous mug-shots, as seen on many news sites (including one linked in this very thread).
What is the licensing issue with a mug-shot?
"Wikipedia editors make up excuses to justify ideological narrative shaping on hot-CW related topics" on the other hand... would not be a big surprise to me.
jkf
10d ago
You might be thinking of Darrell Edward Brooks Jr -- you will note that there is not a picture of him in the Wikipedia article, and For Some Reason nobody has heard nearly as much about him deliberately driving his own SUV into a Christmas parade and killing several as they have about the Charlottesville guy. (who killed one person in a hostile crowd of counterprotestors, arguably semi-accidentally)
I've got a framework that has served me well in which:
- cultural generations are 20 years
- the first and last 5 years of these generations exhibit notable similarities with the adjacent generation, but not quite to the point where they may be usefully considered a separate identity (Xennials = not a thing)
So:
- people born from 1940-1945 are most like standard boomers, but depending on their specific peer group may have more of a pre-war outlook
- people born from 1955-1965 are on a spectrum from boomer --> X outlook (basically optimism --> feeling shafted); 1960 is a good inflection point
- similarly, 1975-1980 exhibits a clear X outlook, and as you move past 1980 people become much more earnest and hipsterish -- by 1985 you are into core timid millenials by and large.
My test for this hypothesis will be "is 2005-2015 core Zoomer, and what are these people like" -- I've got one in the house, and he & his peers do seem to have a different outlook from his older cousins so far -- COVID will clearly be a defining event for these guys, but it remains to be seen exactly how.
Donno man, there are a million 'bad decisions' a guy can make in a bar that will 100% get him beat up -- wearing a dress probably isn't even top 50.
And yet somehow society, while it will sometimes intervene if the aggressor is too hard to ignore -- mostly treats barfights over dumb shit as plus-or-minus consentual, and the response trends in the direction of 'even less than if you report your bike stolen'.
That seems incompatible with 'fundamental function of society' -- maybe you meant to say 'protecting women from extralegal violence?'
More options
Context Copy link