Warl0k3

@Warl0k3@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Mysterious Noise, The Empty Bottle, The Asshole Labmate⁩ ⁨⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  Some bastard walked off with The Good Allen Wrenches again, and his corpse was found in a pile of unassembled IKEA.

  Everything is reading 50 microvolts higher on the left side of the room and nobody knows why.

  All my equipment was made in the 50s and its full of sand.

  Which shipping dock is our crate sitting on? No, not that one either! (Better hurry, it’s starting to rain.)

  They Turned The Overhead Lights On And All The Grad Students Shriveled Up And Died.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  Why not just use a gender-neutral word

  Because it’s not a gender-neutral problem. In a non-gendered language, an explicitly gendered term is generally used for strong emphasis. I’m sorry, I just don’t know why insights about semantics in a gendered language are relevant in a discussion of a non-gendered language. It’s not that it’s not interesting I just don’t know how to address this. Does german have the word “mansplaining” too…?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  I agree - the term has reached a point where at this point it’s become an alt-right dogwhistle. The phenomenon is real, and really extremely common, and a new term should absolutely be introduced so that discussion of the concept isn’t derailed by people constantly going “ugh it’s such an oppressive thing”.

  Side note:

  (I wouldn’t normally point this out, but it’s beside the point. That you’re making a (literal, not dismissing you) semantic argument and the first sentence has a semantic error was too amusing not to point out.)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Okay I generally hate point by point responses so I’m sorry in advance, and I’ve tried to format this in way that will make it less bad to read. Also this is very american-centric, though the trends to tend to carry over across western cultures because of that convenient hegemony:

  Family Court

  I’m sorry, this one is a common piece of misinformation. While on the surface the statistics are clear that yes men are seldom (~10% of cases) awarded full custody, 90%+ of child custody agreements (formal or informal - it’s actually quite uncommon for a formal custody agreement to exist) are decided completely independently of the courts, and those agreements are what this statistic is based off of. Men nearly always give up custody (and yes doubtlessly the impact of the perception of court bias doubtlessly plays into this, but not enough to shift the balance this severely). The reason this is misrepresented is that THERE IS NO REPORTING on child custody decisions from the courts - it’s straight up illegal to release that information in the US and is similarly restricted in pretty much every western country - and anyone who claims that these statistics are from court decisions are either wrong or lying to you. There is almost no data on this, and the oft-cited PEW study (which was taken down) that these numbers crome from is extremely explicit about the source of the data.

  Male Disposability

  Yeah, this one sucks (and has sucked for all of human civilization). However, not only have feminist groups in the US been suing for decades to allow women inclusion into selective service, they are also the ones trying to get women allowed into combat roles because they legally cannot be put into them. So, feminists are also aware and also would like this fixed, and have been fighting hard to get it changed. It’s awful, but it really should be equal-opportunity awful.

  Death Rate

  The male death rate by accident is extremely complicated, but broad strokes is down to both a culture of heavy drinking (which is vastly improving in Gen Z/Alpha!) and that men do nearly all manual labor (the most dangerous category of jobs). There is a push for more women to be included in manual labor jobs, but it isn’t overly vehement - both biological differences make this a difficult argument, and manual labor sucks. Why would anyone want to do that if they don’t have to (this excludes skilled trades, which are HEAVILY biased against women and do not require pure muscle density - I can elaborate on how vital female welders are, if you would like, but for the sake of brevity I will delete that three paragraph rant).

  Title IX

  Okay this one pisses me off: This is absolutely not how title nine works, and I say that as a university professor who has to do a yearly training on Title IX, who’s been subject to Title IX hearings for sexual misconduct (both dropped, suits were not brought by the victims but a male student “on their behalf” and without informing them so that was fun, they both found out and immediately protested on my behalf so fuck yea…) and has sat on the panel for Title IX misconduct cases (though in the past twenty years at my uni, there has never been a Title IX hearing for sexual misconduct brought against a male student. It’s almost impossible to get it to happen). This just isn’t at all accurate, and I do not know where you got this information from because it is just wrong. Also, Title IX investigations are subject at very least to reasonable doubt (and not not preponderance of evidence, because it is a civil issue not criminal). Title IX explicitly proscribes hearings and the conduct of those hearings is subject to legal oversight and public review as well, so… yeah, go find me some examples of this having happened please.

  Rape

  yeah, our laws about rape are terrible. Hell, there are a number of states that still differentiate between marital and non-marital rape, and explicitly state that it’s only male-on-female assault that qualifies. Here is an amazing article on how fucked up rape laws, and cultural attitudes surrounding rape, are and what feminists are doing to change the laws for both genders

  Female Rapists

  No argument, this one is terrible. Women also want this fixed, see above for how fucked up our rape laws are (and then just start drinking because it’s not getting better any time soon, thanks alt-right).

  Male Acceptance Rates

  Again a real fucker of a pet peeve: Men are being accepted less on the whole because we are getting fewer male applicants. There are doubtlessly cultural baises behind this, but it’s not the unis choosing more women over men - we’re choosing proportionally the same number from our applicants, but there are just not as many men as there were previously (also, application rates for women have also decreased, though markedly less. Application volumes are down across the whole of the educational system!)

  Demonization of Fathers

  This one, man, yeah this one is a real fucker. I won’t expound too much, but the cultural shift towards the fear of pedophilia and kidnapping is a fascinating subject to get into (while you drink. Or smoke. Or do whatever escapist activity gets you through the day).

  Male Loneliness Epidemic

  Man, yeah, I don’t know about this one. The death of 3rd spaces has been horrible for society, and covid just exacerbated that. It’s just hard to make new friends anymore, boy do I know that pain. Just sucks.

  Feminism’s conceptualization of how to achieve equality is essentially limited to, “women should be given more supports”

  I’m… look, I’m really trying so hard not to just go “no you’re wrong” in this whole conversation, and except for a couple points above (which are, sadly, just wrong) I’ve been pretty good about refraining… but this is just wrong? I’m truly curious where you got this from, especially since you say you’ve both read Brotopia and SMNTY and that’s completely antithetical to the core message of both. No seriously, who’s saying this? You see it presented in rage bait subreddits like r/TumblrInAction or r/TheRedPill, but I genuinely doubt you browse those cesspits so… I’m just not sure where you’re getting this. This has never been the messaging of feminism. Please, why do you think this is what’s happening?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m sure I’ll get into the rest in a moment, but for the sake of “I’m cooking dinner”: to your mind, what are men’s grievances?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  all perfectly reasonable outcomes.

  Alright.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Punching up again. You keep using that word, and I don’t think it means what I think it means. You’re using it as a stand-in for asserting inherent superiority over another person, but correcting someone on the internet does not actually imply that.

  But the only real requirement is #1

  Why? No, seriously, who says? You’re the one making that claim here, and you appear to be the only one doing that. Why is that the only real requirement, and why does it conflict with all the broadly accepted definitions (including the one you just provided)?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  And gays are literally crucified in the middle east, and yet the fight to be allowed to change one tiny letter on your driver’s license is important. Why does the first one negate the second one?

  Sorry, that was snarky. But seriously, where are you getting this? No not in a dismissive way, I think there’s commentary to be found here - but I’m incredibly curious what actual interaction with the subject you’ve had. The opinons you’re presenting here are almost identical to the fundamentally misinformed ones presented by commentators like ThunderF00T, Sargon of Akkad, Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan and Charlie Kirk (I can find examples of all of them repeating this stuff…) and I’m pretty sure you’re smarter than this. I don’t see that you’ve been confronted about these ideas in the last two months on lemmy (and that’s clearly all I can draw on), but have you ever confronted these ideas?

  You’ve presented an idea of the world that’s quite optimistic, except on this one point that you hold an inherently contradictory position on. You’re reacting with habitual hostility, not reasoned consideration. Please, please, think about this. Have you ever actually gone and listened to, say, any video essays from feminist figures? Have you ever engaged with feminism at all outside of internet commenting? Or are you being told that this is what feminism is.

  Feminism is necessary. It’s not delusional, it’s not dishonest, and women’s and men’s rights are being eroded every day in the western wold because of the current far-right administrations. When does it start being acceptable for women to fight back again, when every victory the second-wave feminists won have been reverted (instead of just half of them)? No, really, that’s a good question.

  (And… what? What’s wrong with intersectionality? It’s literally just the study of biases in culture, it’s a core branch of sociology, and the first tenet of anti-racism is education about the historical realities of racism. There’s nothing more to it than that.)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m sorry it’s gotten late here, is your basis for claiming it as an anti-intellectual term really just that the word is a malformed portmanteau?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Like all things biological, some people are just fuckin’ weirdos do not follow the standard developmental cycles. Your tastes may start changing, or may never change, and those are all perfectly reasonable outcomes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I didn’t liken the two though, because that’s not the representation of your perspective I was interested in. I’m curious in the meta-analytical nature of why you hold this position - as an example, where is the line drawn between “being threatened with death” and “punching up”. I assume we agree on the idea that objecting to calls to gas all the queers isn’t problematic - but is calling someone a bigot for expressing the (deeply homophobic) view that femboys are constantly horny “punching up”? Or, if not there, calling out the ‘did you just assume my gender’ joke?

  I’m really curious where you draw the line here. We sincerely appear to agree on damn near every issue except the one of feminism. Why is that? Where do our opinions diverge? Do we disagree on other things that, given our respective positions on so many other topics, one could be forgiven for assuming we’d share?

  (And yes, I am claiming that the internet dipshit is an authority. I don’t think they are, I think they’re a dipshit - but my opinion isn’t the only opinion that exists, and the undeniable existence of the anti-vax movement has clearly elevated those self-same uninformed internet commenters to positions of trust and authority. They even put one in charge of HHS.)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  So if I understand you correctly, your position is that there are two distinct facets to ‘arranging’ society — Order (that one person is inherently above or below another, a concept I agree is wrong) and Authority (that being the broad agreement to respect one person’s limited and highly contextual “superiority” within a specific area of knowledge).

  Extrapolating an example to ensure I understand: this would mean that the legal system is granted the authority to enforce those rules society has agreed on, onto those people we’ve agreed are subject to it’s authority (which is a good way to think about it). And conflicting authorities can be handled in the same conceptual ‘framework’, like how people that respect Anthony Fauci exist at the same time as people who think Anthony Fauci is trying to inject us with ground up infants. Or how there are both authorities that respect LGBTQ+ people’s right to exist, and those that want us all rounded up and gassed.

  But where I’m stumbling is that you’re considering “punching up” or “punching down” as something that can only be done against the Order of society (thus trying to elevate or denegrate someone as inherently above or below another person) and not something that is done against the Authorities in a society.

  To my interpretation this fairly explicitly reads as you saying that when (ex:) LGBTQ+ people attempt to “punch up” against the authority figures who want them all gassed, that action is inherently implying that they are attempting to establish themselves as inherently superior to that other person in the Order of all humanity.

  Is that misrepresenting your position?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Okay, I can work with this!

  So to my eye, a lack of social hierarchy seems like a pretty ideal view of the world. How do you reconcile that outlook with the existence of things like governments or a legal system? Those would be what I consider an ordering of humans, and in that light it sounds like you’re saying “punching back” (as it were) against those social structures would be reinforcing those potentially oppressive structures (‘the patriarchy’) - have I got that right?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m circumspectly asking what you believe are the driving forces behind feminism’s popularity, absolutely. To carry your allusion, the first step in understanding any software is to check it’s dependencies; as natural languages just really messy formal languages, and by the transitive property of “I just made this up but it sounds good”, it holds that the first step to understanding someone’s statements is to examine the fundamental concepts they used to construct that statement.

  To that end then, lets look at you holding some contempt for the idea of “punching up”. I doubt you intended that to be the takeaway, but it’s presented as the justification for an idea you have expressed strong disagreement to. If you held it was totally valid, there wouldn’t be much a conflict. So: why is it wrong to do in this case?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  You seem to have a preconceived idea of what ‘mansplaining’ is and, in an effort to examine that, could you tell me why you think the term has achieved such widespread cultural use?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  And there’s the issue with it being treated as a criticism of an entire group, and not as a comment on a single person’s behavior. There are obviously exceptions and any interaction between humans is going to be uniquely contextual. But presenting it as anti-intellectual, or some kind of attack on the ability for an enthusiastic person to explain something they are passionate about, fundamentally mischaracterizes the concept.

  To explain something needlessly, pedantically or condescendingly and to someone (usually female) that is already versed or even an authority on the topic are the traits of ‘mansplaining’. What is happening in the OP, where someone is condescendingly and needlessly correcting a woman (who can be assumed to be aware of 3rd-grade level science like phase transitions) on her use of a term (that was already a correct explanation) is the issue that makes it mansplaining.

  You can be enthusiastic about a topic and share that knowledge all you want, nobody is saying “no don’t explain things to girls”. They’re saying “don’t be rude to other people while explaining things”.

  (This always comes up in this discussion: being autistic is not an excuse for being rude. It’s an explanation for non-typical behavior, and does merit and nearly always garner forgiveness for infractions of social norms, but you can still be a rude jerk even if you are autistic. You can also be a great person if you are autistic. Autistic people are, fundamentally, people. People are a diverse group.)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2hot2handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, Men do it to each other all the time too. Though the sociological context makes it much less difficult to manage, as there isn’t the cultural tendency to dismiss other men when they imply they have an understanding of a field that is perceived as typically male-exclusive (hard sciences, mechanics, etc.). It’s a term to describe a complicated and fairly important topic that has unfortunately become a buzzword for people to reject because it’s been characterized as criticism based on a fundamental aspect of a group (being male) and not as it’s intended, as a comment on a specific person’s behavior.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  They taste quite sweet and oaky, without being overpowering. I’ve heard them compared to sweet fir tips too. Joking aside they’re pretty damn tasty but they aren’t really worth the risk of eating a seed. While just one won’t kill an adult they will make you super sick, and can really mess up a kid.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I was being hyperbolic. Bread is fine if high in carbs, and sugary peanut butter is gross but not a mortal sin.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  … Your cake must be incredibly depressing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  No but really don’t do it, you’ll shit and vomit yourself into a coma (literally) and that is just no fun for anyone. Almost worth it though, god they’re tasty. But not quite worth it. Barely.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Glad I’m not forgetting things in my dotteringly old age!

  The reasoning for why this is, as I remember it, is that most poisons found in flora are deterrents, “designed” to dissuade mammals from consuming whichever part is poisonous, and not outright deadly. That’s why many fruits are perfectly edible even when the rest of the plant is toxic (yew berries, for example); it’s beneficial for the plant to have it’s seeds spread, but eating the stems / leaves / roots are all extremely harmful to the plant. Children, with their much lower body mass and tendency to stick everything into their mouths as a first reaction, are much more likely to be killed by a small amount of a poisonous plant and as a result need to be far more sensitive to trace amounts of a toxic substance in order to survive. Sweet poisons tend to be manufactured rather than naturally occurring, so wouldn’t have had an impact on the evolution of this trait.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I was curious and looked up the nutrition info - weirdly a lot healthier than I expected. No HFCS, the bread appears to be absolutely normal bread, the fillings are sugary but in small enough quantities to not be particularly egregious. Still not great for you in that bread is terrible for you and sugar enriched peanut butter is a moral sin, but really theyre no worse than just making a sandwich from components.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's still a crust, mom⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not as bad as all that, kinda. The soft-style breads you get in US supermarkets often have crusts that are very bitter to the highly sensitive bitter receptors children have, and which die off as you finish adolescence. It’s the basis for the idea of foods being an “acquired taste” and why children are so often portrayed as hating vegetables, to the perplexity of adults. The adult palate shifts sensitivity away from sweet and bitter flavours to umami and saltiness, and no longer finds things like kale or coffee or beer or brussel sprouts (yes I know about the new species no they aren’t less bitter) to be offensively flavoured. These things exist (intentionally or not) as a result of that largely culturally unknown shift and are an alright compromise for children particularly sensitive to their regional breads.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not actually judging what you’re into, I was mainly just engaging in tongue-in-cheek hypocrisy for an attempt at comedy’s sake. Boobs are awesome.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  People that like things you dont understand aren’t inherently monsters, wtf. She’s clearly got her own issues, but fuck sake some people just like boobs dude they’re not seeking out large boobs because they ‘want a victim’ or whatever, they just have really bad taste.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨🤡 We've all been played for fools. 🤡⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, I got my current teaching position by essentially volunteer professoring while doing some grad work. Super exploitative on paper, though that wasn’t the intention of anyone involved (tiny college hated by the conservatives so they kinda had to wing it every time legislative fuckery happened). But it’s rough, I don’t make enough to pay my (incredibly cheap) mortgage so I’m in the awkward position of having been financially unemployed for a year while still working full time. Not to sound too whiny but man, the culture of “Guess I’ll starve because I just love my students so much” is absurdly toxic. And that’s coming from someone firmly part of that culture.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Big Balls Clapped⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Just so long as it’s stopped on your terms, though, right?

  I keep listing off the reasons for content like this, and you keep projecting your own perceptions onto how other people are reacting to it. Presenting it as “humiliating the beaten up enemy” is dishonest. “Publicizing that allegiance to fascist ideals isn’t tolerated” is an accurate summary of what’s happening here. Sure there’s an undeniable aspect of dunking on the smug little shithead, seeing him like this fills me with a primal pleasure (and I’m just sad those girls didn’t have a knife), but you’re presenting that the ideal world is one where where publicizing the defeat of actual fascists is a uniformly unjustifiable. It’s liberal evangelism, with a less cringy name - you just pushing your idea on what the “correct” way to behave is on everyone else and refusing to acknowledge that everyone else has just as much right to their opinion as you do. That’s why we have to punch fascists, actually! Because if we just accept their right to hold their (monstrous) opinions, those opinions will never die. It’s the classic paradox of tolerance,

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Big Balls Clapped⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  A preachy and moralizing one where we protect the feelings of fascists from being hurt, where preserving “dignity” is more important than fighting back against the people literally killing us, one where legal adults are to be given leniency on their crimes (which again, include enabling countless deaths) due to their youth and status?

  Yeah, I think I’m gonna give that society a pass. But feel free to go found the promised nation of Apologia-Land, I’m not about to be so crass as to force my own morality on you. You seem unpleasant enough I wouldn’t take a baton round for you (go learn about how your really vague concept of “dignity” works in the real world) but man, I’m not above pointing out what a bootlickin’ line of thinking you’ve go going on here. War is hell, dude, even culture ones. War reporting is the only way to actually confront people with that reality.

  Nobody in this here thread thinks that it’s good we got to this point, but this kind of thing is what’s required to start getting us the hell out of here. It’s deeply, deeply depressing your head is so far up your own morals that you can’t even consider your position.

  I know negative reactions make us entrench, but come on. How much of a stretch would it be, say, to push the narrative that you’re just a fascist that’s worried their clapped picture is gonna show up on here, being celebrated? I don’t think that’s what’s happening, but it sure isn’t a hard line to sell given how beautifully your zealously unyielding defense of the fascists lines up with fascists defending themselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Big Balls Clapped⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  And… that’s… a problem?