domain:x.com
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1hr ago
To me, it’s the lack of understanding. I don’t think Transgender people in general get how dangerous it is to open the door to the idea that any man can put on a dress and walk into the women’s restroom anytime they want to. There are safety issues here. Men can so easily overpower women that it’s not even a contest. And without the very firm rule of “biological men are not allowed in women’s spaces, particularly where dressing and undressing are happening, it’s impossible to prevent a rape from happening. If you’ve ever wondered why women generally use the public restrooms in pairs, the reason is men who might enter the restroom and try to rape a woman. And the trans community hasn’t even glanced in the direction of understanding the issue or reassuring women that they too are opposed to men in the women’s restrooms and locker rooms being an issue. If anything, their attitude is “women, you aren’t allowed to object to this for any reason. The only reason you care is that you hate trans women.” Followed by using authority to force women to shut up about it. Not a thought about rape, secretly being photographed naked for porn, or being harassed, or worse these things happening to children. I feel like the entire rest of society, particularly the woke end has decided that the rape of women is a small price to pay for feeling progressive about letting transgender women into women’s spaces — without vetting at all.
5434a
2hr ago
Calipers?
I tried with a couple of beard hairs and they read around 0.10mm on 1/100mm range calipers so I expect you'd want a micron scale micrometer to get consistent readings of thinning head hair. That said I would have thought that number of hairs per cm^2 would be a more appropriate metric.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
2hr ago
You'd have to codify the actual-but-unspeakable moral intuition that most people have, which is something like: the only sacred/protected category is femininity, and once it has been tainted with masculinity it forfeits its protections. Gender segregation, discrimination and reservations all only serve the purpose of elevating "pure" females.
This is why the anti-trans faction is primarily concerned with MtF as an intrusion upon female privileges and FtM as a threat to impressionable girls, while the pro-trans faction (to a lesser degree) exhibits a preference for focussing on MtF rights as something that men must be compelled to grant and FtM rights as a freedom that women ought to have (and why radfems are a massive nuisance that they would rather forget about). Both sides understand that "protect women" is the only widely shared moral foundation.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2hr ago
To be honest I think it’s the way most social media is set up. Unless you set up pretty hard limits on minimal content quality, you’ll quickly find that everyone is going pretty low hanging fruit of one liners and hard core factionalism. Nuance just doesn’t work in an environment where the currency is engagements. Long from content is not viral in the same way that a one line dig at outside enemies can be. Memes, gross images, crass wording, and anger are the things that nature has somehow engineered our brains to notice and spread. A long form nuanced article that steel mans the other side and treats the issue fairly is only plausible in environments where such content is a minimal expectation.
I do go on Twitter for the lols, but not much else. It’s kinda funny to snark and mock the pious Palestine-free stuff simply because I find it naive and uncritical of its own side. People who under other circumstances would oppose rape, murder, and terrorism are taking the side of people who do exactly that and celebrate it happening. The Israelis, particularly the settlers, are not completely innocent here, but after months of hearing about how this is one sided and anyone who isn’t actively opposed is evil, some part of my brain gets excited about posting a guy eating a hamburger under a tweet about McDonald’s supporting Israel. Downside being that Twitter thinks I’m Jewish or something.
DirtyWaterHotDog
2hr ago
My eyes are burning. It's so graphic.
I can point you to the kind of abuses that take place when whites become an ethnic minority, such as the Pakistani child rape ring in Rotherham:
The abuse included gang rape, forcing children to watch rape, dousing them with petrol and threatening to set them on fire, threatening to rape their mothers and younger sisters, as well as trafficking them to other towns.[21] There were pregnancies (one at age 12), pregnancy terminations, miscarriages, babies raised by their mothers, in addition to babies removed, causing further trauma.[22][23][24][25]
A survivor of the Rotherham Grooming Gang Scandal, Ella Hill, described the serious racial abuse she faced by her attackers - “As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white c***” as they beat me.”[28]
Or the ethnic cleansing that befalls Christians in so many Muslim-dominated countries, or the unofficial anti-white quotas that are now present at every level in the UK and hold back many talented white men because they have the wrong skin colour (no, I can’t provide sources, obviously).
I doubt that any of this will cut any ice with you whatsoever. You’ve come to the table with the extreme-until-yesterday proposal that absolutely everyone gets to go absolutely everywhere, and people objecting to being made minorities in their own homelands are racist because they lose fewer utilons than, say, Indian people gain. I’m sorry, I’m not interested in earning persecution points until you decide I get to have my country back.
From now on, anyone who wants my support for anything has to earn it. You want my support for a feminist initiative? Great, let’s talk about what you can do to solve the problems I think men have. You want my support for an ethnostate for Jews? Fair, let’s talk about what you’re going to do for the native British. And I’m far from alone in this.
The first is if one values 'costs and benefits to someone of the same ethnicity as me' more highly than 'costs and benefits to someone of a different ethnic group'. This covers pretty much all of what 'racism' meant before the 'prejudice-plus-power' gerrymandering.
This is not what racism means, and not what it has ever meant. Otherwise every man who ever bought his child an ice cream instead of buying mosquito nets is racist. Racism, in the only sense I’ve ever heard the word, is hatred/contempt/loathing for a different race. Like calling Russians ‘orks’.
zeke5123a
2hr ago
You asserted that X is an echo chamber. What is your evidence for that?
Also why would you assume blue sky wouldn’t be an echo chamber given that the media types specifically left X in reaction to losing an election.
arsv
2hr ago
Think again, motherfucker! For, immediately, on the front page (no account)
How does that actually compare to Twitter at this point in time? There's no "front page (no account)" on Twitter anymore, you have to log in to do just about anything and once you're logged in, it's your personalized feed.
And I think this question goes a bit deeper than it might look. Bluesky does try to show you a representative slice of the overall community there. Sure it's probably tuned or curated or whatever, but it's clearly designed to look like it's representative. Twitter, on the other hand, takes effort to not let you know what the userbase in general is like. And it was one of the first things implemented after Elon took over.
and wondering if perhaps Bluesky would be better?
It sure can be different. My feed is something like 90% German right now /s
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
3hr ago
Why is this such an issue? Restrooms have stalls.
If I’m allowed into the women’s bathroom, I’m 100% going to listen to women pee and it’s going in my spank bank for later. So if women don’t want that, they should keep men out of their bathrooms!
JTarrou
3hr ago
Now that Twitter is 50/50 left and right, and the left isn't allowed free hand to censor, it's an "echo chamber".
Seems like there's something being missed.
To what extent does whether or not the deal was good for the US depend on political positioning
The fullest extent possible.
A person's support for JCPOA depends on how they reason about America's unipolar superpower status. Ie. Is Pax Americana enforced primarily by carrot or stick ?
Stick Believer:
- America became an economic behemoth through incomparable labor productivity.
- Its commensurate military spend keeps every nation scared. So no sane country dares stir up the hornets nest.
- Any country insane enough to believe otherwise faces the full might of American economic sanctions and military intervention.
- The US beats these enemies down into submission, until they pick a subservient leader that bends the knee.
- The US doesn't need anyone. As long as every other country is isolationist too, the US will win in a straight battle of brain or brawn.
Carrot Believer:
- America was best positioned to leap-frog every nation post-WW2. It made good decisions, and ended up far ahead of everyone else
- America maintains a moderate lead, but the conditions aren't as favorable as post-WW2
- The free-market capitalist world created by the US is the most benevolent arrangement offered by any global superpower.
- Join us and you will flourish. Hell, America may give you a little push to bring you up to speed.
- America is confident in its own labor productivity. Pair that with consistent import of top talent & reserve currency status. The 3 will keep US rich forever.
Ideally, the carrot and the stick work together. But, they've increasingly divorced themselves from the other.
JCPOA was a carrot solution for a country that hadn't given into the stick since the 1990s. By 2016, the US had tried the stick with the whole middle east. Initial successes turned into embarrassing failures as these forever wars dragged on. At face value, JCPOA sounds like a good idea. But, the aforementioned divorce meant that America implements both the carrot and stick with a degree of naive optimism.
was it bad enough that withdrawing from it was a net positive for the US?
Yes, withdrawing was the correct solution.
Naive pro-stick optimism leads to forever wars, a drain on the economy, thorough destruction of the victim and development of perpetual hatred towards America. It's squalor but never a threat. On the other hand, Naive pro-carrot optimism is exploited by bad actors to turn themselves into credible threats towards the US. Pakistan exploited America's (and IMF's) naivety for decades, only to become the home for every one of America's most wanted. Obama was smart enough to withdraw support for Pakistan in his time, but chose wrong on Iran.
Now here's the thing. Iranians are scary smart. Iran is a civilizational state with real history. Its diplomats are among the world's best wordcels socialized to western-elite culture. This coaxes democrats into a false sense of security. Surely, these people (white & cultured) can be brought into Pax America without much friction.
Dead wrong ! The clergy hold a strong grip on Iran's power structures. Leadership of the global shia-aligned militia & (credible threat to) Israel are fundamental to maintaining that control. Against an increasingly militarized Israel, having nuclear weapons would've been an essential component of the clergy's politics.
Also, unlike Pakistan or Myanmar, Iran isn't a failed state. The lives of citizens aren't bad enough to trigger internal revolution or military coups. This means that a stick wasn't yet a 'last nail in the coffin'. On the other hand, unlike North Korea or Venezuela, this is a well-fed civilized society. So, if culture itself shifts then a peaceful transfer of power is a possible outcome. What does opening up to the US get you ? Liberalization and further power transfer to Tehran liberals ? Why would the clergy want that ?
The stick (withdrawing JCPOA and replacing it with crippling sanctions) was the right solution. You do not negotiate with a natural adversary. Especially when they're better talkers (liars) than you.
Post-2016, a bunch of (unforeseen?) geopolitical changes have vindicated the pro-stick faction. In 2016, Iran looked like a stable and non-radical middle-eastern Muslim nation. The rest of the middle east was rubble, mid-arab-spring or chain sawing journalists for sport. Yeah they hated Israel, but who in the middle east didn't. If anything, the shias were moderate.
Since then, 3 big changes happened:
- Saudi Arabia's radical liberal shift has given the US the stable liberalization Islamic (not Islamist) nation it was looking for. So, Iran matters less.
- Sunni Govt. hostility towards the West & Israel died down (Egypt, Saudi, Turkey), and Shia hostility picked up. The clergy are now further shoehorned into anti anti-America, anti-Israel position. There is no way Iran could've honestly engaged with JCPOA.
- Post Oct 8th, Israel thoroughly dismantled Iran's Shia militia network. For Iran today, there isn't much global Shia leadership left to perform. This further weakens the Clergy's hold. It won't break the camel's back just yet. But, Khomeini could drop dead any day now, and that might just do it.
JCPOA withdrawl would have been a slam dunk, but geopolitical changes outside the middle east ruined it.
IMO, all American international policy should be structured towards counter balancing China. America has utterly failed here. The whiplash between Trump & Biden has given China space to plant its flag as an equal alternative to the US rather than a #2.
Trump alienated Europe, driving it away from the US. Then Biden kicked Russia out of all global markets. America's allies supposedly change based on who is elected. America's international policy uncertainty has allowed China to start filling in where the US has appeared flaky.
The Iran-Russia-China nexus has materialized outside America's sanctionable world. Europe, India and Africa have settled into neutral/opportunist policies instead of strongly aligning themselves to a temperamental USA. This means Chinese products (electronics, cars, software) are now competing directly with western offerings. Guess what, China's winning.
The US is still substantially ahead at #1, but their lead is fast crumbling. For now, USD as reserve currency is safe, as China failed to make Yuan happen. China's population bomb is about to explode and they fumbled their leading position in AI due to intense anti-Taiwan antagonism. See how these are all Chinese mistakes, not US wins.
That's the big question. How long can the USA keep banking on their enemies making unforced errors ?
ToZanarkand
Some day the dream will end
3hr ago
This is an old argument that we've seen a lot of times before. "I suspect the majority of these people are only Scottish by parentage, and don't actually live their lives in any way that's discernibly and truly Scottish".
That doesn't make it any less valid. Biden got a lot of flak for his whole "I'm Irish" shtick. But at least he invoked his heritage fairly frequently and in a variety of situations. It's clear it meant something to him. I strongly suspect that for the majority of these "I'm Jewish and I don't like Israel" types their Judaism means nothing to them in any other context.
But either way there's a decently sized population of orthodox jews who reject Israel for scriptural reasons as well.
Sure, but I don't know what relation that bears to non-orthodox Jews who are anti-Israel.
This is the number of dead that they're able to verify, which is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons. There's another 10000 that are missing and can safely be presumed dead as well, and I believe about 90000 with severe injuries. I don't think we're going to get true or accurate casualty numbers until after the war ends, and even then I have my doubts.
It makes very little sense to accuse Israel of genocide/ethnic cleansing if you claim that you we don't have a reasonable sense of the numbers of civilians killed. What are you even basing the accusation on then?
I have seen too many photos of dead Palestinian children to give the story that little credibility. On top of that, Israeli murder of children is common enough even outside the conflict that there are a lot of reports of it from the west bank as well. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/19/west-bank-children-killed-unprecedented-rate
The article doesn't give any evidence. I'm not saying none of this happened, but I think it's very likely the Guardian would simply reprint potentially made-up stories without any due-diligence, so long as they paint Israel in a negative light.
If you've got a comprehensive debunking of the x-ray claims I'd like to see it, but I've seen enough direct video footage of these kinds of attacks that I can't just brush the claim off wholesale,
I'll have a look. I'm also interested in direct video evidence of Israelis shooting infants in the head.
https://x.com/FranceskAlbs/status/1858304872963010840 Franceska Albanese makes the claim here.
Albanese's whole thing is being cartoonishly anti-Israeli. If she was at least providing evidence that might mean something, but her simply repeating the claim means very little.
There are countless claims from released Palestinian prisoners that rape and sexual abuse was endemic in Israeli prisons - and Israelis themselves (including high ranking government officials!) have protested any attempt to hold the perpetrators accountable.
I wouldn't remotely put it past Palestinian prisoners (who are mostly terrorists) to simply make things up to try and make Israel look bad. Such propaganda is a core pillar of their strategy. But sure, every accuser has a right to be heard. Perhaps Israel really does treat prisoners that badly. This really doesn't add much to the argument that Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing/genocide.
So that this debate doesn't get derailed into a series of speculations about the veracity of individual accusations against Israel, it's worth reflecting on the path of this discussion, which seems to be following the typical route with anti-Israel individuals, which is to accuse them of genocide, and when challenged to defend that position on the basis of the numbers, pivot to a mass of unsubstantiated claims of supposed Israeli atrocities. All those atrocities could have actually happened, and they still wouldn't support the ethnic-cleansing argument.
ETA: Some links RE the x-rays:
ControlsFreak
3hr ago
Now what part of that changes by forcing a doctor into the process? Does the doctor come to your house and give you your pill, so you don't take the wrong dose? Does he monitor you 24/7 so that you don't take specific different medications at the same time? That might seem wild, but does he at least come twice a day to make sure you are taking it correctly so that it will treat your underlying disease?
Southkraut
A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
4hr ago
This. Discord is their domain.
sun_the_second
4hr ago
They're on discord, if my hobby servers are anything to go by.
WhateverHappenedToNorman
4hr ago
I presume that's oral finasterise
Yes.
and the topical version is less effective?
No idea.
And doesn't the impotency go away if you stop talking it?
Supposedly, yes. There are accounts of people who claim it remained after suspending treatment, but eh, who knows.
Cook
4hr ago
Thanks! I presume that's oral finasterise, and the topical version is less effective? And doesn't the impotency go away if you stop talking it?
Folamh3
4hr ago
That's just kicking the can down the road. No bathroom has a bouncer stationed outside checking people's IDs to ensure that their legal sex matches that of the bathroom they wish to use (and if such a policy was proposed, you and I both know that trans activists would be the most fervently opposed to it). Once you've established that at least some obviously male people are permitted to use the ladies' room (because they've legally transitioned), inevitably perverts will take advantage of this by trying to pass themselves off as people who've legally transitioned when they haven't.
Addendum to my "genderfluidity" hypothetical: an obviously male person walks into the ladies' room, gets some funny looks, and falsely asserts "don't worry, I've got a gender recognition certificate". The women in the bathroom aren't entirely satisfied by this, but what can they do? It's not like they can demand that he produce his gender recognition certificate on the spot. Shortly afterwards, the obviously male person sexually assaults someone/spies on someone without their knowledge etc., then walks out of the ladies' room and goes about his day.
And besides, the object level question in this case is "should congresswoman Sarah McBride be allowed to use the women's restroom?", and I think it is reasonable to answer, "She should have the same right that an XY androgen-insensitve cis woman should have to use the restroom, based on the government's tracking of her as a woman." Certainly, I don't think anyone's fears that Sarah McBride would sexually assault someone in the bathroom are super justified.
That's not how rules or heuristics work. If a person is volunteering at an event and there's a possibility that they may have to supervise children, the person is generally required to undergo police vetting to ensure that they can be trusted to supervise children. It's irrelevant if the person truthfull says "I shouldn't need to go through the police vetting, I'm not a child molester" - an actual child molester would say the same thing. That's what the police vetting is for: to determine who is a bad actor and who isn't.
Likewise if a woman is walking home alone at night and notices a lone male person walking some distance behind her, and begins to form a suspicion that said person may be following her. I doubt very much that she would be consoled if said male person yelled out "don't worry, I'm not a rapist!" And even if the male person yelled out "don't worry, I'm a trans woman!", I don't think she should be consoled by this either - trans women commit violent crimes at the same rates as cis men, so this male person revealing how he "identifies" has provided the woman with zero additional actionable information.
And you might scoff "maybe some trans people are creepy perverts, but surely a high-ranking politician would know better". Think again.
vorpa-glavo
4hr ago
My preferred standard is based on legal status, not mere identification. That's what stops your "just long enough self-ID" hypothetical scenario.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
The idea for letting individual users customize their algorithms? It was ages ago. Early 2010's, or even late aughties. I read it on some blog. I can try to look for traces of it, but the blog might be long gone, and search engines have gotten terrible so I hope you understand this is a tall order.
On the flip side, are you actually saying this is something strange for blue-tribers of that era to recommend? What are you basing your opinion on? This was standard politics of the Stallman-Torvalds techie faction.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
think we do it for similar reasons to why we track whether people are married, whether they've adopted a child, etc. Because it gives the otherwise blind goverment a way to see what's happening with its citizens.
I don't think this answers my question. When they keep track of marriage, they're keeping track of which couples have entered a specific relationship with sweeping implications on rights to each others' property, and duties to one another. When someone adopts a child they're declaring they're assuming responsibility for them until they come of age, which grants them power to make decisions for that child until they grow up. What are they keeping track of when they designate someone a "man" or a "woman", and why is it important to not remain blind about it?
I also just don't take the bathroom argument too seriously.
Alright, then why are you arguing for letting men-documented-as-women into women's bathrooms instead of just abolishing sex segregated facilities?
Certainly, I don't think anyone's fears that Sarah McBride would sexually assault someone in the bathroom are super justified.
These kinds of laws aren't about specific people, they're broad rules.
We're talking about the kind of hysterical women who would answer "bear" to the infamous "Would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods?"
I can only pity the fool that took that meme literally (as opposed to seriously).
I think even a manlet would trigger such women. Or do you think their answers would change if the questions was changed to, "Would you rather meet a 5' 4'' man or a bear in the woods?
I'm saying most of them could tell a difference between a trans man, and a 5'4" male, and the event where they couldn't would be less frequent than the event where they clock a trans woman.
I'm not sure how policing bathrooms in this way doesn't end up harming "ugly" women and non-gender conforming women, which seems to go against the stated goal of helping women.
Personally I'm pretty sure it's a temporary state resulting from the ambiguities that come from blurring the category of "man" and "woman" to begin with. Once it becomes clear that men entering women's bathrooms are penalized, people will be more likely to trust that whoever entered a woman's bathroom is a woman.
One more thing: A generally accepted good way to measure your hair loss is using a hair catcher your shower drain, this gives you a good idea of how much hair you are losing (compared to baseline shedding).
I have never done this, so I don't know what the proper metrics are, but you can probably google it.
More options
Context Copy link