domain:x.com
You're entirely correct but ... aren't large expenditures of your personal physical energy half the point of biking?
The other half is going places, the joy of the ride, etc.
Also, a cyclist tends to plan to use a certain amount of energy by picking a certain route. Going over budget is not necessarily preferred.
I actually think a reasonable framing of this question is: "can men with a cross dressing fetish involve non-consenting women in their crossdress-play?"
I think a better formulation of the question is: Can men who pretend to be women justifiably expect identical treatment as women? I'd say the answer is no, they can't expect it, they can attempt it and expect push back if/when their pretence is revealed.
Can men walk around dressed in women's clothes? Yes, I don't think a person's outfit requires the consent of other people assuming it adheres to basic modesty. That doesn't mean other people have to approve of it though, they just can't formally prevent it.
Can men wearing women's outfits walk into a women's toilet and expect to be treated as if they belong there? No.
Can men become so skilled at pretending to be women that they successfully deceive people into thinking they belong there? Yes, some of them can.
Does that mean they really do belong there? No, they're men.
And finally, some men and women are not accepted in their own toilets. You should't start masturbating at the sink or shitting on the floor, grabbing people to dance with them, asking them to show you their dick, tipping the bin over, smashing the fixtures or offering around a plate of finger foods. Being the correct sex is not an unrestricted licence to misbehave in a single sex area. Pretending to be the opposite sex is one of those unacceptable behaviours.
(1) A speed limit is not a minimum. (2) You are supposed to be able to stop even for stopped traffic, not depend on magic escape routes to get you out of trouble. (3) You are supposed to drive in a way that is suitable for the circumstances.
And bike trails can be quite short, unsuitable for a racing bike, not linked to other nice roads that one might use, etc.
After carefully curating my feed and lists I pretty much never see any content I find completely distasteful and I also get a smattering of opposing views that aren't stark raving mad.
I kind of hate the site as a general rule, but it's less bad than virtually all the competing options. Facebook is boomers and slop, LinkedIn is strivers, grifters, and awkward corporate copy, Instagram is distilled narcissism. Reddit is... reddit. Twitter is, I think, the closest to the ideal of the public square where large scale discourse actually happens.
Pick your poison.
As for people being naked in locker rooms, I'd be happy to see the practice die out.
Then how the fuck are you supposed to change out of your wet/sweaty/dirty clothes?
If NATO directly entered the war with large numbers of its own combat forces, it would defeat Russia's military and drive it out of Ukraine.
Assuming it's actually prepared for war - which a peacetime army never is - if it paid the prices of thousands of dead and adapted and the public endured the thousands of KIAs etc and started winning before running out of expensive ammo ..it'd just get tactically nuclearly striked after getting onto rightful Russian clay and then run away, wisely, because a blood soaked piece of mostly useless land is not worth ending the world over.
In conclusion, for the moderates and centrists: Your signal is jammed, and only extremism will be boosted on either twitter or bluesky.
Musk is pretty much the platonic idea of a centrist, no ?
Sick of the bots and echo chamber that X has become
The Indians are annoying, but to me the bots are just noise. I tune it out. Big accounts are pointless, but .. echo chamber? Go somewhere outside of your immediate circle and you find entirely different people.
Seems like a small matter.
Honestly with how generous the game is and the benefits to scaling, this doesn't seem like a big deal. If you're exporting stuff, it's single commodities. If you're exporting components for ship, you're probably wanting to get enough for spares and all that so..
Sweet! Shame they ban / remove content they don't like. It's even harder to justify all the censorship if you can make your own feed algorithm.
I think the idea of political ideology being at least somewhat protected (in my view, muc( like religion) simply because it’s easy and therefore tempting to use the threat of unemployment as a cudgel to prevent public expressions of non-mainstream politics. The temptation to use this, and thus use social media “job-swatting” (gee wouldn’t it be terrible if this crime-thinker’s name and photo and screenshots went to the HR office of his company X) to either threaten or punish public expressions of political opinions. And depending on where you happen to live, even relatively sane and even centrist opinions might well offend someone who can get you fired and thus potentially unemployable depending on industry. This creates a situation where people learn to self censor and be very careful about what they say in public. It would be highly irresponsible if you live in a blue city and work in a blue coded industry to openly express support for Israel, or to openly express opposition to abortion. And so it’s creating “the closet” for politics and somewhat religion if the religion is too strongly coded for a political outlook. People have talked about it here before, they don’t tell anyone they work with that they’re conservative, often trying to figure out how they can quietly signal opposition to things like pronouns in their email taglines without attracting the attention of HR.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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
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!
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 ?
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.
The danger is stupid drivers who think that there is room when there isn't, and when they have a choice between hitting a car (low chance of injury) or the cyclist, they plow into the cyclist.
More options
Context Copy link