MountingSuspicion
@MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
- Comment on Anon's best friend is a repper 2 hours ago:
Your comment shows either a very limited knowledge of queer identities or potentially large regional differences in the younger gens, because agender, bigender, and gender nonconforming people make up more of younger gens than they do older gens. So many young men are getting into makeup, nail polish, and wearing dresses and skirts. Way more than the older gens.
I’m a gender abolitionist, but your comment is either misguided or outright false.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9380989/
“Boomers+ and Generation X groups were more likely to identify as trans women compared to the younger generational cohorts, who were more varied in their identities.”
- Comment on Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod 1 week ago:
I guess this section seems to indicate otherwise: “Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain.”
But I will take you at your word that you were more commiserating than directly agreeing. The internet in general is leading to more tribalism, sure, but I’m not seeing it any more on Lemmy than I am elsewhere. Mostly seeing it as it relates to politics. Would you mind sharing where you’re seeing that? Have you noticed specific communities or instances or topics? I follow a variety of content and it’s mostly pretty chill people with some political vitriol sprinkled in for novelty sake.
- Comment on Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod 1 week ago:
I don’t know if you’re a guy, but honestly really amazing display of allyship right here. Regardless, congrats on explaining things so succinctly. This is exactly correct.
- Comment on Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod 1 week ago:
But their comment objectively is less productive than the “angry posts”, because their comment was against the rules and deleted and not engaged with, whereas the “angry posts” are there for the community to engage with and offer sympathy and understanding and a place to vent. It’s a kind of weird martyr complex that nobody asked for. Oh, woe is me, I got banned for breaking the rules! Why even comment in the first place if you knew it was going to be deleted? Elsewhere someone provided context that they did not comment on a “Meta” post. It was just a post complaining about how people treat the community. It was not at all soliciting advice or external opinions. They then went out of their way to break the rules and essentially prove the post right. Essentially showing that they think they are above the rules and that their opinion deserves to be heard regardless of what the user or the mods or the community has already expressed. Saying he was somehow “starting a discussion” makes no sense considering he knew that he would get banned and his comment removed. That was neither the time nor place to start any kind of discussion, and quite frankly I don’t think somebody attempting to have a good faith discussion would have it in that manner. If a transphobe went into a trans space that explicitly did not allow transphobes, and made a comment lamenting that they can’t ask questions in that community, would you still feel similarly? They just “see a wrong” in the world and are trying to start a discussion about it. Or would you think that it is OK for some spaces to have rules that are not up for discussion, especially within that space?
He might not have known that he would be getting banned from other subs, but as a user of several subs, I fully support admins taking steps to block people who willingly break rules of other marginalized communities. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this last point, but blahaj is pretty famous for being strict with bans even if not on the community/instance in question and the users of that instance actually really like that. I don’t know if this will be escalated, or if the ban will even stay in place, but my understanding is that people like that instance specifically because the mods there are so vigilant.
- Comment on Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod 1 week ago:
I’m not trying to get into an argument here, and based on your one sentence response, it seems like you’re not either, but angry posts in general don’t mean anything. I see a lot of angry posts about healthcare or the government or the increasing descent into fascism, and if somebody commented on any of those that they didn’t like seeing it, I wouldn’t necessarily think that comment was productive. Posts are allowed to be angry because people are allowed to be angry. Especially about injustice and oppression, which I imagine a lot of the “angry posts” are actually about, considering it’s a community of marginalized people for marginalized people. Just something to think about.
- Comment on Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod 1 week ago:
Thank you so much for providing that context. It is so funny that they said that their original post is in good faith, when even this post describing the situation isn’t in good faith.
- Comment on Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod 1 week ago:
I posted elsewhere in this thread, but I don’t see how actively and knowingly posting while breaking the rules of a community is seen as posting in good faith. If they are soliciting opinions from their community, and you were not part of their community, then your opinion is not one they are looking for.
The people who made a woman only community are doing exactly what you think they should do. They are seeing the overwhelming hate being directed towards women in online spaces, and trying to create a space exclusively for women. You might not like that, but that is what they have chosen to do to fix what they see as an issue. I don’t see how you think OP is being the change he wants to see and that the mods are in the wrong. OP is not a woman and cannot speak to the female experience. Even within the female experience, plenty of people disagree. That’s why it’s great that there is plenty of space for other people to make their own communities. Going into a community that has made their stance clear, and is for people that regularly face hate and oppression, especially online, and deciding that is the big injustice you see in the world is certainly a choice. There are plenty of places and communities that openly spread hate not just for women, but for LGBT people of which OP says they are. Maybe they should spend time criticizing those spaces instead of picking on a group of already marginalized people who happen to have a single point of disagreement on how to run their space.
- Comment on Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod 1 week ago:
So you broke rules on purpose in a community for people who experience oppression and are upset when other communities have solidarity with that community and don’t want people who break rules on purpose in their space. Just because other people break rules doesn’t mean you should. Posting while knowingly breaking rules is not actually posting in good faith.
The rules aren’t fuzzy. These mods are trying to protect spaces for vulnerable people and see that you don’t respect those spaces. Seems pretty cut and dry. If you don’t like the way those communities are run, make your own.
- Comment on That's a good question 1 week ago:
Yeah, that makes sense. Do you mind me asking what kind of church you went to? Was it nondenominational or did it have a denomination?
- Comment on That's a good question 1 week ago:
Not hating on your church or anything, but isn’t his death the whole point? Like if he didn’t die in that manner and then theoretically come back, he’d just be some guy. There’d be no need for the religion. I feel like his death makes the whole thing come full circle. It’s not just about being good, it’s about then being willing to sacrifice for the good of everyone.
- Comment on Tinder tests letting users set a 'height preference' 2 weeks ago:
I’m a woman and not on tinder, but I don’t know why people don’t like this. Anyone listing a height preference is not the kind of person you should be looking for, especially if you don’t fit their preference imho. It’s literally self filtering, though it did say it’s not fully blocking or anything.
I know women who would’ve loved that feature and I would never suggest any of my friends date them. Even after they dated guys that didn’t fit the criteria and amicably split, they still held firm to the idea. I think it’s ok to have preferences, but this is dumb to filter for and people are dumb to want to match with these people.
- Comment on want to be a woman 2 weeks ago:
Yea, that’s basically my point. I don’t know why the desire is to be an attractive woman. Why not wish to be attractive man? Attractive men get plenty of action. What is it about being a woman specifically? I’m not saying they’re trans, I just think it’s worth some self reflection.
- Comment on want to be a woman 2 weeks ago:
Are you gay? Your comment lower in this thread seem to indicate you are attracted to women. An attractive woman might be able to fuck a lot of men, but if you’re not gay I don’t know why you’d deem that outcome as desirable.
- Comment on Anon plays vidya with the bros 3 weeks ago:
Extremely sorry to hear you’re having a tough time. I’m not a guy, so I cannot speak from direct experience, but just judging from my male friends it seems like the “find a social hobby” advice really works. I know you didn’t ask for advice, but I really don’t have much else to offer other than my sympathy. I hope things get better for you (and everyone tbh).
- Comment on Anon plays vidya with the bros 3 weeks ago:
It is such a clear sign of differences in socialization, because you will never find a more supportive group than a bunch of drunk female friends (in my experience). Really sad to see the lack of men supporting men, but hopefully it’s getting better as the years go on.
- Comment on Google’s New AI Puts Breasts on Minors—And J. D. Vance 3 weeks ago:
Part of it is likely that she is a famous woman who is not known for being sexualized and is considered a public figure. No one wants to have the scientific standard be “I used pics of this girl I had a crush on” so I imagine famous people are good to pick from. I imagine Merkel also doesn’t have a lot of bikini pics AI can draw from (some amount of swimming pics are unfortunately always available for public figures for some reason) so you can be sure it’s generated them from nothing. If you used a famous model, there may be a possibility it is using pics of them to model their chest. If you’re testing what it does with random inputs, using Merkel is probably a good option.
As far as the output being what was requested, I think the issue can vary depending on your view of AI so I am just going to leave that part unanswered because if it’s a problem or not relies so much on your priors.
- Comment on Anon is not a merciful cod 3 weeks ago:
That potentially just gives GameStop more money and unnecessarily adds tension to a holiday where a parent is just trying to make their kid happy. Fuck GameStop and all, but this parent was put in a bad position on purpose by someone who knew better and who ostensibly was being paid to help people like them out (post is fake obviously though). It’s not their fault GameStop sucks, and it’s not the kids fault either.
- Comment on AMC Theatres Quarterly Losses Hit $202.1 Million After Box Office Got Off to Rocky Start 5 weeks ago:
I’m not complaining about the price, but you can definitely complain about the price regardless of how often you go. I don’t go to Disney every year but I can still say it’s overpriced.
I was just saying that if theaters are hurting for customers I understand why. If people are spending $60 just on tickets for a family of four they are probably not going to be going very often. We don’t go very often and we make a whole event out of it and don’t spend much more than the $60. People that buy popcorn and snacks for everyone at their local theater end up spending as much as we do and we get dinner and drinks out of it. Unless there’s a discount running or the theater is a specialty theater like the one I go to they don’t really offer a better experience than you can get at home for the price. The only draw imho is that the movie is new and nowadays things hit streaming pretty shortly after release. Generic theaters just don’t offer enough for the price and the evidence is that they are failing. People loved having movie pass so it seems like there’s still a desire to go, just not at current prices.
- Comment on AMC Theatres Quarterly Losses Hit $202.1 Million After Box Office Got Off to Rocky Start 5 weeks ago:
As someone who also didn’t have movie snacks until I could pay for them myself, I think part of it is that snacks add to the experience. If I’m paying for my family to go to the movies it’s supposed to be something nice. We have movie nights at home and buy popcorn in bulk so we can all cuddle up on the couch and snack to our hearts content or pause if someone spills or needs the restroom.
I go to the movies once every few years now and it’s always for a big blowout movie where we can dress up and we go to a fancy theater that does food service and has dedicated layzboy style seats. We went and saw Barbie and all wore pink and got themed food/drinks at the theater (pink lemonade and Barbie-q-something). It was fun and imho that’s the kind of theater experience worth having. I don’t really remember seeing movies as a kid with my family but I’m sure we’ll all remember this.
I think the idea of spending $60 for a family of four to sit in silence together and then leave is just not as appealing unless they get the “theater experience” of the addons. I’m also not one complaining though because I generally don’t care about seeing things in the theater and I don’t really know what it’s worth to people who would enjoy it. I do understand that it doesn’t feel worth $60 though.
- Comment on Jeremy Renner Turned Down ‘Hawkeye’ Season 2 Because He Was Offered ‘Half’ His Season 1 Salary: ‘Did You Think I’m Only Half the Jeremy Because I Got Ran Over?’ 1 month ago:
How/when did they get in trouble? I didn’t hear anything about it and nothing came up immediately after a search. It seems like a huge jump to say that they are going to be forced out of the industry. Additionally, he was still offered millions of dollars. Plenty of people would have jumped at the opportunity.
AI is definitely going to be a problem for the industry but your comment seems like a stretch.
- Comment on Jeremy Renner Turned Down ‘Hawkeye’ Season 2 Because He Was Offered ‘Half’ His Season 1 Salary: ‘Did You Think I’m Only Half the Jeremy Because I Got Ran Over?’ 1 month ago:
I read the wiki and a few articles about it a while ago when I saw the video that brought attention to the app: youtu.be/od7P-RhLjLQ
I don’t think the wiki or any articles I read seem misleading. I understand that he did not personally set any of this up, but having a separate app where people pay money to interact with you seems like shitty behavior for a celeb who is already beyond rich. I’m not saying it’s as bad as a crypto rug pull, but it’s giving similar energy. Clearly there are some people who were getting something out of the app, but it feels kind of predatory. If he wanted super fans to keep up with him he can just send out a newsletter. I get notifications when certain people I follow are touring near me and it doesn’t require a special app. I would probably feel differently if he put a lot of effort into engaging with fans there but it would still feel tainted with the fact that some people are spending money with the hope he’ll notice them.
It’s like having a patreon with no actual perks. If Taylor swift or timothee chalamet made a patreon and you could maybe get some nebulous benefit from joining I would think that’s also shitty behavior. It’s not illegal, and I understand that in theory the app was free, but the conceit is to make money off these parasocial relationships with you and it’s just gross imho. At least with merch or patreon subs you know what you’re paying for. I highly doubt he was even the one responding to most super fans seeing as most posts were copy/pasted from other social media platforms. He probably had some doing it for him.
- Comment on Jeremy Renner Turned Down ‘Hawkeye’ Season 2 Because He Was Offered ‘Half’ His Season 1 Salary: ‘Did You Think I’m Only Half the Jeremy Because I Got Ran Over?’ 1 month ago:
I didn’t watch it but my understanding is that Hawkeye passed on the torch and he probably was going to be more in the background instead of the star. I don’t know the exact parameters but I imagine it would not be as much screen time or physically demanding scenes. Fuck Disney for being a shitty company but I’m not sure if this is 100% attributable to that.
- Comment on Jeremy Renner Turned Down ‘Hawkeye’ Season 2 Because He Was Offered ‘Half’ His Season 1 Salary: ‘Did You Think I’m Only Half the Jeremy Because I Got Ran Over?’ 1 month ago:
I was never a fan of his, but when I saw this I decided he’s just not a good person. What a gross thing to do to people who support you. I hope to not have to see him in anything going forward.
- Comment on Anon has his way 1 month ago:
Agreed. Peace and love.
- Comment on Anon has his way 1 month ago:
Yes, I agree that in healthy interactions subs should have the power and most doms are pretty flexible.
As I mentioned above, breath play is dangerous and imho too common considering how few people have any idea what they’re doing.
I also agree regarding 50 shades. That dynamic is unhealthy and no one should have to experience that.
What I can say after experiencing both sides of casual and less casual encounters is that if I meet someone in a non kink bar and the extent of her kink is she wants me to verbally degrade her, I’m unfortunately unlikely to get a list of things she wants to be called. I can sit her down and have a conversation about it, but that’s more likely to see her disinterested in speaking openly about it than asking something about it during the normal flow of the encounter. “Tell me how naughty you are” or whatever is more likely to illicit things she is comfortable being called than actually sitting her down to talk about it. In my experience, outside of the kink community, I’ve not seen people willing to have open and honest discussions about their kinks. In long term relationships it’s different, but if I’m taking someone home and we’re not expecting to be together for an extended period of time, I have not personally found it fruitful to attempt to invoke a paradigm shift regarding shame and power as it relates to sexuality. Maybe that’s a me issue, but I’m not sure that it can be done that fast and I’m attempting to work within that framework. I would never physically restrain someone or engage in more serious play on a one off basis without having a serious discussion about it, but I don’t think most people engaging in casual encounters go that far either.
I’m trying to meet society where it’s at, and I’m not sure what the realistic alternative is. Maybe I’m too pessimistic, but imho casual subs will continue to try to find people who will engage with them the way they desire and it will continue to put them at risk until either they or casual doms get more serious about boundaries and consent. I do not see kink community norms making it to a more casual setting any time soon, so in the meantime I can only suggest stop gap measures. I’m not seeing a lot of what I would consider realistic advice for people who find themselves in that situation. I know plenty of het women who would prefer a few rougher than expected encounters than having to sit down and verbalize their sexual desires. I can tell them to get over that, or I can suggest that people doing the harm (engaging in rough sex without consent is harm regardless of if you THINK they want it or not) take responsibility as well. Ideally we see movement on both ends, but imho the het women are not actually doing harm. They are putting themselves in situations they know have the potential to be harmful, but they aren’t DOING the harm. It their partners who are deciding the boundaries. I don’t think they are purposefully harming people, but that’s the outcome.
- Comment on Anon has his way 1 month ago:
I’m really not sure that we’re in disagreement here. I think anyone initiating is great. I suggested ways for doms to do it that are more consistent with casual interaction than in kink communities, since there seems to be a consensus that subs in the casual scene don’t like it to be so explicit.
I’m not saying subs can’t or shouldn’t. I’m just saying that seeing as subs in more casual settings seem turned off by explicit discussion of boundaries, that it seems like a hard sell to then expect a cultural shift of them embracing being the ones to begin the conversation. If you can start that shift, amazing, but I don’t see a huge movement in that regard currently. I think it’d be ill advised for me to just tell newbie/casual doms “don’t worry have your sub be responsible for bringing up their boundaries”. I would err on the side of caution and I was just providing a suggestion for how to do that in a casual setting without ruining the mood. As I’ve said before, anyone can bring it up and everyone should bring it up.
- Comment on Anon has his way 1 month ago:
I think sex positive people generally appreciate when their partner is upfront and clear about their boundaries. I just don’t think it’s as common for subs to be the ones to start that discussion. Even your wording regarding it taking a huge burden off your dom implies that there was some pressure on the dom to ask for it. In my experience, the doms are the ones that start that discussion. My experience seems to align with other people’s experience when we discuss it, but I’m definitely not saying that’s always the case.
- Comment on Anon has his way 1 month ago:
Yessss. The orgasm gap in general is so real and guys (not talking about OP specifically but just in general) are all like “this makes pp feel good so why you no cum yet?” Absolute zero fucks given about their female partners. Some women enjoy penetration and can cum from that alone, but I’ve had female partners that have lots of toys but no dildos because “why even bother” and that’s so valid. Solo female masturbation is 9/10 in my experience clitoral, so idk why guys struggle to understand that in and out is only going to do so much for most women.
But you know how these wanton harlots are, enjoying things outside of missionary with their husband for the sole purpose of procreation. Disgusting! Brides of satan the lot of them.
- Comment on Anon has his way 1 month ago:
Yeah, I agree with your personal experience regarding who is generally turned off by it, but I think that’s why it needs to be a masc/Dom lead thing. Subs are too turned off by it conceptually and don’t want to take the lead. I think the big issue is how it’s incorporated into foreplay. Unfortunately, being sexy and dom about consent is not second nature to everyone, but it can definitely be done.
“Do you want me to X” or “wouldn’t you like that?” can be sprinkled throughout foreplay. “Tell me when to stop” or walking someone through an RP scenario where you respect their no and then they have to enthusiastically express consent to proceed. Absolute basic outline below devoid of all sexuality and not actually phrasing I would use: “Tell me to stop” “I don’t want you to” “Tell me anyway”
Option A “Ok. Stop” You stop and then have some sexy banter and tell them they need to ask you to continue. You’ve now demonstrated that you will respect their no even if you know it’s just play and you have their enthusiastic consent to proceed. If they don’t want to proceed either they didn’t actually like what was happening or you can try to ask them what they want instead and now they’re in charge.
OR “No I like this too much” You can proceed and potentially ask sexy follow ups to understand what specifically they like. “Oh you like how I X or do you like how I Y better?”
The issue is there’s a fine line between sexy and cringe. Knowing how to read a situation will definitely help, but the concept of using consent to build suspense is not new. There’s a whole genre of bodice rippers where the woman is the one that finally gives in and lets the man take her because he insists he won’t touch her until she begs for it. It obviously requires more restraint from the dom, and different techniques work on different people, but generally a way can be found to put consent in the hands of a sub without letting them feel like the power dynamic has been lost. It really is an art form though and not everyone can be a great artist, but we can all try our best.
- Comment on Anon has his way 1 month ago:
Yes, those are exactly the things that should be happening.
I think the aversion to it is often that it’s not incorporated into the foreplay itself. For more serious things it should be completely separate so that there’s no question what is part of the the play and not, but imho for casual sex there’s less of a need to have a sit down discussion about it. I’m a woman though, so I get that it’s easier for me to say than for a man to say. It sucks because a lot of that onus is put on the person coded as masc/dom in more casual settings, but that’s just the reality of it. I think if more masc/dom coded people incorporated it into their casual sex it’d be less taboo much faster. I don’t think femme/sub coded people are going to be able to push it and still feel like they’re inhabiting the space they want to, so I don’t know if we’ll see a lot of cultural movement unless heterosexual men start to champion this idea of incorporating consent into foreplay.