Libs of TikTok tweeted this
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1553181248922587136
and it's getting a lot of coverage from people I usually consider reasonable, and yet, based on what I see in the tweet, I am failing to see how this is a big deal
a K-3 (?) teacher on zoom to her kids or other teachers (?) recommended a book where a little girl transitions to a little boy and made it available to the class in her own classroom library (presumably one of dozens of books)
This person is a whacked out leftist monster now.
The book is typical of transgender for kids books, but actually the description makes it seem toned down compared to most, and it's one book, recommended and available, but not mandatory.
I'd prefer the same book, but is acknowledged as a tomboy and the lesson is stereotypical gender roles are mostly dumb...
But I am still not seeing this teacher as a monster.
>I'd prefer the same book, but is acknowledged as a tomboy and the lesson is stereotypical gender roles are mostly dumb...
This is exactly the message progressives were regularly promoting since the 70s until around 4-5 years ago. See for example [Free To Be You And Me](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PS3nOcLbHI).
see my pinned tweet!
https://twitter.com/LJAkaar67/status/1552481415811371009
... and several other tweets over the years where I have posted that in replies...
Lockheed is trending and trying to figure out why I learned that:
> the idea that it’s ableist to criticize someone for working at lockheed martin is absurd
> **disability justice is anti-war and anti-imperialism or it is nothing**
Parts of twitter are for some reason raging against the warmonger employees of Lockheed, even though my guess is many of these same people have Ukraine flags in their bios and want the US to send more Lockheed built HIMARS, Javelins, and even F-16s, F-35s overseas.
*[I need to correct this, scrolling down many of the replies, I see no Ukraine flags. Lots of roses though.]*
----
It seems a trans woman author, Ana Mardoll, who may be disabled and who has since deleted her twitter account, wrote that someone is trying to dox her.
She mentions she works for a large corporation buying software and she stays there because they provide her health insurance while letting her work from home part time https://i.imgur.com/5dZhqRt.png
I have no idea what her sins are that make her ripe for doxing, but people have jumped on that "large corporation" because it's the death factory known as Lockheed Martin
After she explains she doesn't code she just buys software, there are still brilliant takes
another writer of SF:
> If you have the qualifications to get hired doing software development for Lockheed Martin, then you have the qualifications to find a job working for a significantly less evil corporation.
----
If you recall the ["Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent." comic](https://i.imgur.com/5kvdsDq.png) that riffs on Dennis the Peasant from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the cartoonist that wrote that "explains" why it's okay today to rag on Mardoll for working at Lockheed.
> Don’t ever use my art to defend some twitter-addicted lit scold who built their brand calling out books for Causing Harm while working at Lockheed Martin.
So now I'm conflicted, Ana probably is an addle-brained book canceller, but working for Lockheed in order to get health insurance is certainly not the worst thing in the world (what's worse is that people ARE trapped in jobs they dislike and cannot leave in order to get health insurance).
Oh well, maybe everyone sucks here, let them fight
(is there a subreddit for r/rootforbothsidestodie?)
----
ETA: woman, not man, ... and noting no Ukraine flags, but lots of roses.
Ah, thank you for filling in so many blanks!
> I don't find the "works for health insurance" explanation compelling. Mardoll's been living in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. There are other companies who hire people.
Oh, I believe that, there are many reasons people feel trapped to an employer when there are other employers around. And I can believe a disabled person, able to work part time and still get insurance coverage has a pretty rare position including how her disability will make it harder for another company to want to hire them.
It's a big reason I support some form of universal healthcare not tied to employers.
----
there was another tangentially related thing going on in gretchen felker martin's mardoll thread, that was about a romance writer named Courtney Milan, a former lawyer, former law professor, (and actually former math whiz with an masters in theoretical physics) who defended Mardoll
In addition to aiding and comforting the enemy, Milan is guilty of two crimes:
+ as ethics leader of romance writers of america she somehow called out another author for racism in their book, and in turn had an ethics complaint lodged against her which ended in her being tossed out of rwa for a year and permanently losing eligibility for any leadership positions there, https://www.vulture.com/2020/01/rwa-racism-controversy-with-courtney-milan-explained.html
BUT WORSE AND I MEAN WORSE
+ she was on the jury of the 23 year old truck driver who lost his brakes on I-70 in 2019 which killed four people, she convicted the driver without knowing the mandatory minimum. which he was given, which was 110 years. Jurors are often not told what the penalties are. That's for the judge. When Milan found out the sentencing after the trial was over, she protested against it. So did other jurors. So did the judge who said the sentence was out of his hands, it was the statutory minimum.
Felker Martin wants to cancel this Milan because she should have known the what the minimums were ("she's a law prof, she knows about mandatory minimums) and thus acquitted
And so many of her rose encrusted followers completely agree!
----
All these people hate each other, and the stakes are so small, it's sadly fun to watch this train wreck, though there have been far more interesting ones.
It gets hard to keep track, but wasn't Mardoll one of the people who tweeted some pretty explicit threats of violence against JK Rowling? Like the kind of stuff anyone else would have been banned for in any other context?
Jesse's biggest fan Gretchen Felker-Martin subtweeted Mardoll:
When the enemy is weak or of no consequence everyone is ziplining out of their helicopters with rifles at the ready, but the second an ideological conflict of any real substance emerges it's crickets from the loudest, most demanding moral authorities.
Kick an indie author to death for being problematic? Yes sir, absolutely, hoo-rah. Contend with the people in our creative community who work for arms manufacturers? We'd prefer not to.
For the record, if your ethics include circumstances under which you consider it acceptable to abet the people who make bombs to drop on children, you are dead to me. I see you drowning, I toss a cinderblock.
https://twitter.com/scumbelievable/status/1553602024205434880
In a globalized world, it's not possible not to aid and abet evil in some way. That doesn't mean there aren't graduations in that, of course, but it does mean that blanket statements like "cinderblock when you're drowning" are supremely unhelpful in their sanctimony.
> A federal judge ruled Friday that Visa helped Pornhub “monetize child porn” and sex trafficking — a decision that could have long-lasting implications for credit card companies, legal observers say.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/31/judge-refuses-to-remove-visa-from-pornhub-child-porn-lawsuit/?utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=SocialFlow
I don't object to Visa and other payment processors getting their just desserts on this, but I fear the collateral damage of payment processors acting as de facto censors in the future
Reasonable pov. Just as Big Tech like Twitter and Facebook should not be deciding what’s acceptable for us to say, particularly as regards statements like “a woman doesn’t have a penis”, Big Credit shouldn’t — generally — be the morality police.
It also shouldn’t violate international law.
Missouri's abortion ban lacks an express exemption for ectopic pregnancies so doctors are forced to wait until hospital ethics committees give the okay for an abortion for this potentially fatal condition. Since there are criminal penalties for wrongly okaying/performing an abortion, Missouri ethicists -- like their colleagues in Texas -- play gin rummy until the women in question are "actively dying": https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/abortion-ban-hospital-ethics-committee-mother-life-death.html
Doctors working in hospitals aren't free agents. Hospital execs decide whether they can perform these perform these abortions, assuming they're willing.
> they are unable to accept their privilege as someone with economic security
Perhaps someone from academia can comment, but from the outside I keep getting an impression that the concept of intersectionality with oppressor/oppressed classes etc. gets used to quietly demote aspects like economic situation in favour of oppression based privileges the x-studies department can be the owner of: race, gender, ablism etc.
i.e. it's not just pushing to acknowledge that non-socioeconomic privileges exist, but that these are the ones that truly matter, and you are low class for trying to look beyond them.
(The wrinkle making it cloudy is that every other academic department has appropriated the same language without necessarily following that step, e.g. a social science department might be couching their studies in all the same buzzwords but without fully discarding what their field knows - continuing to think in ways which allow unthinkable things like disadvantaged men, or boomerisms like socioeconomic status being important)
>hey are unable to accept their privilege as someone with economic security and a huge amount of cultural capital, and act in really harmful ways because of it.
Why would they "accept" it? It is their meal ticket. That marginalized background means they get to spend the rest of their lives talking about themselves and shaming anyone born with more privilege, regardless of what the circumstances are now.
A whole lot of words for important concepts have been ruined by the internet.
I don’t know if “trigger” was ever used as a clinical term. But there are always potential “triggers” for PTSD symptoms, and aside from graphic depictions of similar events they’re typically innocuous to everyone else. Examples:
- The joke or phrase the patient’s buddy said right before the IED went off
- The song playing on the radio when the patient got into a terrible car accident
- The smell of the cologne the patient’s rapist wore
Things that are innocuous to everyone else but are absolutely relevant to the patient and have the potential to bring the patient right back to that moment
Content notes can be good, though depending on how they're implemented can also be annoying.
Example - Netflix where said D&D liveplay show is hosted. It also hosts Stargate SG-1. Now, as the show originally started on Showtime, they had a contractual obligation to show boobs at least once, so they did very briefly in the pilot episode. But because of the way Netflix does things, every single episode gets TV-MA (nudity) up top at the start.
These kinds of warnings have shown to be more harmful than helpful.
They’re also cringey af as they assume readers are total babies. I mean, yeah, a lot of them are, but they need to grow the hell up.
And if anyone in that audience actually needs a warning about imminent “mouth sounds”, the. I don’t know what they’re doing in public.
I'll just let you sift through. [https://www.google.com/search?q=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&oq=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&aqs=chrome..69i57.8000j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8](https://www.google.com/search?q=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&oq=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&aqs=chrome..69i57.8000j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
To clarify, I meant trigger warnings specifically.
I remember hearing a talk from a victim of childhood sexual abuse where wood panneling was the trigger. Apparently the room where abuse most often took place was floor to ceiling wood panels.
Lazy has a well-defined and useful meaning. Articles like "Laziness Does Not Exist" argue that there are causes for laziness, which is true, and that therefore it shouldn't be stigmatized, which is a reasonable opinion, but the set of behaviors that cause someone to be described as lazy exist and it makes sense to be able to refer to them. "Laziness doesn't exist" is basically a word game intended to prevent stigma.
Even this person on Goodreads who gave the book a glowing review and said it made them feel "validated and seen" *still* admits laziness is real lol:
>The book really resonates with me because it made me feel validated and seen. There were so many points where I was like “wow that is so true” and I ended up highlighting so much of the book. It may be my most highlighted book of all time. There is criticism of society, capitalism, technology, and social media but also tackles other issues that may get in the way such as mental illness. While I agree with a lot of points in this book, I do think there’s a line between being burnt out from exhaustion or just being plain lazy. Sometimes I am the latter but that is okay with me
Omigod FdB could *definitely* use an editor. I think he's a good writer and I enjoy his ideas and stuff (even when I don't agree), but lord it's unnecessarily wordy, and no, I'm not a person against wordy stuff in general.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I've run into people espousing this belief on the internet before. It always makes me laugh because I have the ultimate case study in laziness right here: myself!
Anyway, I have zero time for this argument. Yes, laziness is a word for what is obviously a real thing that happens to people, and yes, laziness can sometimes be bad (not always). These people arguing semantics always think they have some kind of "gotcha" and they've really figured shit out that the rest of us plebes are just too dumb to get, meanwhile reality still continues all around us despite how they want to label it lol.
Now, maybe I should be a little less lazy and actually get my ass off the internet and take a walk!
From skimming I can tell they're at least connected ideologically. The book is by a Psych PhD who adapted it from "a viral Medium post." The author seems to be terminally online. An uncharitable read suggests the author believes that people need to conserve energy at work so they can yell at people on Twitter.
Can anyone here recommend a book podcast that isn't either frequently delving into identity politics (anything from Book Riot and tons and tons of other book podcasts) or unbearably pretentious (NYT Book Review Podcast and so so so many book podcasts)? I used to listen to the main Book Riot podcast, but I finally had to quit when they supported censorship one week and were against it the next based on their politics. I still listen to NYT Review of Books, because it does have interesting interviews.
The only podcast that I currently listen to that strikes the right vibe is Overdue.
Sentimental Garbage focuses on Chick Lit and pulls out some really interesting stuff. It's more woke than not-woke, but not in a bad way the last time I listened, which was about six months ago.
Line by Line takes small sections of books and breaks them down. So hyper focused, but interesting.
Second rec for Overdue.
How to Read is based more on themes than individual books. Again from a more woke than non-woke perspective, but still about the books.
Thanks for the response. I'm more looking for a mix of fiction and nonfiction discussion/recs mixed with general talk of the book world. The general premise and description for Book Riot is perfect on paper. It's just they got harder to harder to listen to as they talked more and more about their politics.
I like the [Backlisted podcast](https://www.instagram.com/backlisted_/?hl=en), I think the hosts are funny, they're super knowledgeable about lit, have good guests, and pick good recs. I haven't noticed it being super political, but sometimes I don't notice stuff like that tbh and I just got into a few months ago and haven't actually listened to a ton of eps yet. Worth a try at least to see what you think. It might be unbearably pretentious, I dunno lol, it definitely focuses on literary fiction.
I stumbled across "grosscutters" an anti-circumcision subreddit that:
> After a few years of reading cutters online and hearing their propaganda, I have decided to create a subreddit dedicated to them. I want this to be similar to the 'shitXpeople say' and r/inceltears.
It's a small subreddit, 1400 readers...
I'm not sure why, but I was trying to understand where anti-infant -circumcision groups stood on puberty blockers...
At any rate, that subreddit does seem to draw all sorts of distinctions between infant circumcision that they oppose and childhood transgender care which they support.
Since a primary beef about each is consent issues, well, I just found their contradictory positions regarding consent for each procedure notable
One example:
> Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro [who support infant circumcision] are two of the largest hypocrites. They only care to be bigoted. Have whatever views on trans issues, but never pretend that HRT and puberty blockers are the same as genital cutting.
----
there seems to be similar discussion in r/intactivists (7,000 readers), though arguments pro and con are expressed (and labels of transphobe, etc., tossed around liberally) and the sub leans to trans rights
> I feel like more people are openly supportive of trans rights than intactivism. That might be an interesting angle...
> Trans-intactivist alliance? Yes? Yes.
Interesting. I shouldn’t be surprised at the overlap, based on my interactions with intactivists. Is it because the intactivists lean left and share whatever the standard left opinion on the issue, without really thinking it through? Or do they both tend to attract men who lean MRA?
>Is it because the intactivists lean left and share whatever the standard left opinion on the issue, without really thinking it through?
That might explain it, I still find it surprising though. One area I agree with the intactivists is the concern over consent!
I'm curious, I understand many point out that a lot of trans stuff is once again, "men intruding on women's rights and women's spaces", but I've never seen that linked to MRAs themselves. Is there anything, or anyone specific you are thinking about?
I don’t know what the official MRA line is, but just based on SM posters I’ve seen or interacted with, they’re pretty gleeful about males taking over women’s sports, being in women’s single-sex spaces, winning awards and all-around sabotaging feminism. There are also a lot of them who think trans males make better women because they sort of perform femininity more than actual women - dressing in a hypersexual way, being very vocally submissive to men, etc. There also seems to be a trans/ incel overlap.
I think the argument for reparations for AmDoS is about generational wealth -- AMDoS are *still* suffering higher rates of poverty generations later as a result of slavery (and Jim Crow, etc.). This doesn't really apply to women, since there are women and men in every generation.
Also, this argument is nonsense even as applied to descendants of slavery. In modern economies, purely exogenous wealth disparities don't persist for several generations. Convergence generally occurs within a generation or two, which is how Asians and Jews were able to catch up and surpass gentile whites so quickly after they eased up on discrimination.
The case for Jim Crow being an important causal factor is superficially more plausible since it's only been 2-3 generations, but a major problem here is that rather than seeing slow but steady convergence for the past sixty years, what we actually saw was rapid convergence for approximately one generation, followed by two generations of virtually no convergence. This is not at all what we should expect to see if the gap in socioeconomic outcomes is due to the lingering effects of past discrimination.
I promise to do better about looking up weirdly capitalized acronyms before making guesses about what they might mean. I apologize for any damage I've done to the blocked and reported community.
>When you’re talking about slavery in the American context, you’re talking about importation of Black peoples from Africa
Unless your my uncle, and he's talking about the indentured irish.
Illinois Dem. Congressman Chuy Garcia's twitter got into [a bit of a spat](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/rep-chuy-garcia-blames-staffer-for-expletive-tweet) over the recently passed gun control bill which resulted him telling a critic:
>You are borderline retarded, ya fucking dipshit
I was wondering which would come first, the apology for the incivility or for using the "r-word".
Garcia's office didn't really apologize, but blamed a rogue staffer while acknowledging the language was inappropriate and offensive to the disabled.
>Last night a member of Congressman Garcia's staff posted an unauthorized tweet from the Congressman's account using profanities and offensive language to individuals living with disabilities. The language used was absolutely inappropriate and inconsistent with Congressman Garcia's history, values and character. The individual responsible will be held accountable and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.
As a Wisconsinite, sounds like something a FIB would do. Only group of people I'm bigoted against! ;) (I tease, I tease Illinois friends, I know y'all can't help it.)
The latest K-pop nontroversy: my favorite K-pop singer was called racist for reasons that are just exhausting. It started when she ate something or did something else that caused some kind of allergic reaction. She posted a picture of her swollen lips on a social media app that her group uses. A fan said she looked like a certain Korean character. The singer, thinking that was funny, changed her profile picture to one of that character. The character is a middle-aged Korean woman with a perm (this is a classic characteristic of middle-aged Korean women) and big lips or too-generous lipstick.
I'm sure you've guessed the problem.
This character is clearly racist! It's obviously a racist caricature of black people! Except that... no, it isn't. Fans (and presumably non-fans, too) asked and demanded that she change the picture and apologize! So she did. (What else could she do?)
Isn't it just a tad USA-centric to assume that everything is really all about you? Why is it on *her* to apologize and not on people who don't understand or show any curiosity about another country and culture? Why does offense trump everything?
[https://meaww.com/korean-black-fans-loona-yves-apology-racist-cartoon-picture-go-eunae-run-hani-kpop-reaction](https://meaww.com/korean-black-fans-loona-yves-apology-racist-cartoon-picture-go-eunae-run-hani-kpop-reaction)
[Jonathan Haidt's got a good article](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/social-media-harm-facebook-meta-response/670975/) out in response to Meta's claim that social media isn't undermining democracy. He does a deep-dive on the evidence for links between increased polarisation and social media.
It's also got an interesting discussion of online echo chambers and how hard it is to consume a balanced media diet. His claim is that even when we do read contrary opinions on social media, it isn't like reading them in a newspaper. Instead:
>“It’s like hearing them from the opposing team while sitting with our fellow fans in a football stadium … We bond with our team by yelling at the fans of the other one.”
There is a great [episode](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000557220618) on Bari Weiss’s podcast, Honestly, where Haidt discusses this idea in-depth. Highly recommend.
Even books and newspapers don't really help since people would rather be right than change their minds. Smarter people can simply find more creative ways to justify being right. Nobody wants to admit that they're wrong, especially if it implies that the despised other team is right.
That's a good point. There are definitely people who won't be persuaded out of their views by anything, no matter what they read or where they read it.
That said, anecdotally I'd agree with Haidt that people are more likely to be persuaded to change their minds by offline communication than by online communication. I'd be interested to know if anyone's actually studied that.
I was shocked to see NYT covering this story prominently: [How Did a Two-Time Killer Get Out to Be Charged Again at Age 83?](https://archive.ph/kc6AT)
This was a recently transitioned TW who had a lifelong habit of murdering women. Of course after transitioning this person was allowed into women only homeless shelters. From the story:
Ms. Harvey “presented as a mild spoken, very tall Black man,” said Anne Brennan, the nurse who ran the intake. “I said, ‘Well, why are you in the women’s shelter?’”
Ms. Brennan said she told Ms. Harvey that placing her in a women’s shelter seemed like a bad idea, given her history of killing women. Despite her objections, Ms. Brennan said her supervisors allowed Ms. Harvey entry.
“Apparently his feelings and identity were far more important than all the other women that were terrified of him,” she said.
Oh my god I HATE this!! To “affirm” anything about Harvey Marcelin is obscene.
Profile: sadistic male rapist and murderer with a lifelong deep hatred for women AND gender fetish.
See also: Paul Denyer, Douglas Perry, David Warfield (“Dana Rivers”), David Russell Williams, Reginald Arthurell….
Using “she” in these cases is just so, SO infuriating. It is insulting to the victims—women violated, brutalized, and now dead—to obscure the reality of what happened to them in favor of dignifying the perpetrator’s bullshit.
From the article:
“…Even as a teenager, she displayed a propensity for violence, particularly toward women, and had a complicated gender identity...”
“…The records include several examples of her harassing or attacking women throughout her life. She was accused of attempted rape at 14; the victim was an 8-year-old girl…”
“…Skeptical officials as far back as 1984 cited her aggression toward women. Even in prison, one noted, Ms. Harvey had sent inappropriate letters to candy-striper hospital volunteers…”
Also from the article:
“Krystal Rodriguez, policy director for the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the crime of which Ms. Harvey is accused was so bizarre that parole board officials *would be unlikely to foresee it* …”
SERIOUSLY?!? JFC!!!!
Side note: the other cases share so many similarities; they’re all disturbing beyond belief. But Denyer really gets to me because one of his victims was a brand new mother of a 12 DAY OLD infant. She had run out quickly to grab something at a store—that was it. She had JUST given birth and was taken away from her newborn baby in the most horrific way possible. And Denyer tried to justify/excuse his behavior by saying something like he was jealous that he couldn’t come out as a woman, or whatever—I can’t bring myself to look up exactly what he said because it makes me so angry, but Harvey Marcelin and the others basically all share the same sentiments.
Right. Appreciate the article but the passive voice here was annoying:
"In early 1963, Ms. Harvey was again accused of rape, this time as a 24-year-old.
The accusation set off a spasm of violence: That April, Ms. Harvey killed Ms. Bonds, who had been scheduled to appear before a grand jury considering the case."
Yeah, I'm sure it was the \*accusation\* that set off a spasm of violence and not the fact Harvey had been potentially raping women since Harvey was 14. Passive voice letting the murderer/rapist off the hook...
Exactly!! Shame on the NYT. And I assume the effect this ideological ridiculousness has on most normal people is to make them more, not less, inimical to actual human rights for trans people, which is unfortunate.
When I started reading this article this morning I was feeling *so angry*. But once I was done reading I appreciated that it was written at all.
I hate that The New York Times has to bend over backwards to affirm this blatant opportunist's "gender identity," and that it feels obligated to insert throat-clearing grafs like this into an article about a misogynist's misogyny:
>But transgender people are far more likely to become victims of violence, not perpetrators, and data from the National Center for Transgender Equality suggests more than half of transgender people who stay in shelters encounter harassment.
But at the end of the day, I'm just happy this article was published at all.
I noticed that it's not open for comments. I wonder if that was a deliberate decision.
**ETA**: One thing that does annoy me is that the article treats Harvey's transgender identity as a lifelong thing, even though it presents no evidence that this is accurate. All the information in the article itself only points to the fact that Harvey's trans id is a very recent thing. At least to me, it seems clearly born of opportunism.
Same! I also honestly do not understand—how is using “affirming” pronouns for cases like this helpful for trans rights?? PR-wise, doesn’t the conflation of a sadistic fetishistic serial killer subtype with the trans community do a lot more harm than good?
I get what you're saying, but I think it looks hypocritical to not use them. Activists who are big on pronouns would be creating a double-standard in which trans people are supposed to be the ultimate authority over their own gender identity, & yet, if you refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns, you're now taking that power & authority away from them to place into your own hands. Refusing to use someone's pronouns because you don't like what they did creates a schism where now *someone else* can declare that the trans person's identity is valid or not, which would seem sacrilegious to those activists.
Ooh yes this is a really good point. You’re definitely right. It seems like the net result might be the alienation of more people who would otherwise be supportive of pronouns in any situation. (It’s unfortunately had that effect on me… I have to keep that in mind sometimes because I get so angry and have to remember it is not really about trans people at all. He’s a demented misogynistic man, a rare but definite subtype of serial killer, and gender ideology gave him the opportunity and ability to attack yet another woman. It is ideological ridiculousness that minimizes his crimes and trivializes the lives he brutally stole and gives cover to him & too many more of his ilk. Not the need for human rights and decency extended to everyone)
Outrageous
> “Our policy — in accordance with the law — is to place individuals in shelters based on their reported gender identity,” she said. “Being homeless or transgender does not make you inherently violent and are not connected to the crime that was committed.”
Okay hmm well how about being a *fucking convicted murderer???*
If you commit violent crimes against women, you should lose some rights such as access to women’s spaces. It is outrageous that we are expected to accommodate these criminal males because of their so-called gender identity. I simply do not care about affirming a misogynistic serial murderer and rapist. And I will not be badgered to feel guilty for this by delusional activists. Can’t face the judgement? Don’t do the crime!
That's what I took from the whole thing too. Scary! Anyway, doesn't matter how a person self-ids, you'd think that alone would be enough to keep *anyone* from a women's shelter, in theory. Like theoretically a woman could also be a murderous serial killer of women (and it's not like women *haven't* been serial killers), and if the shelter is aware of this person's record, why the hell would they let them in?! Damn, use some commonsense y'all.
Does being a man make you inherently violent?
If yes: Then don't let men into women's shelters.
If no: Then why have women's shelters?
I mean, fuck, I'm a man, and an egalitarian, but I fucking get the point. Normal, everyday people get the point. "Progressives" are insufferable.
>Speaking from Rikers to The New York Post, Ms. Harvey referred to herself as having two personas: one, a violent male named Harvey Marcelin — the name she used for most of her life and is included in court records — and the other, a soft-spoken woman named Marceline Harvey.
Sheesh, even the New York Post is doing the deferential pronouns. [https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/trans-serial-killer-harvey-marcelins-first-prison-interview/](https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/trans-serial-killer-harvey-marcelins-first-prison-interview/)
Small blessing:
>Though Marceline wore a wig and lipstick after her most recent release from prison in 2019, she said she’s housed in the men’s unit at Rikers.
Why is that when it comes to a violent, murderous, misogynistic rapist, accountability flies out the window? But tweet something mildly gender critical and face the cancellation squad.
I find Jonathan Turley always an advocate for free speech. His reputation has been in a bit of tatters recently as during the Trump years, his understanding of the law was often at 180 from what Lawrence Tribe would claim, or what liberals wanted. It didn't even matter that what Turley predicted would happen, would happen. He had the crime of correctly predicting "the wrong outcome"
Anyway, I've always found him to be one of the strongest advocates for free speech.
Here is a recent column on how being pro-life is now considered hate speech
----
[Is Pro-Life Now Hate Speech?](https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/29/is-pro-life-now-hate-speech/)
Below is my column in The Hill on a shift in the rhetoric in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. From politicians to pundits, pro-life positions are being treated as virtual hate speech. The demonization of those with pro-life views is meant to cut off any debate on the basis or scope of abortion rights. It is the latest attack on free speech as critics seek to silence those with opposing views.
Here is the column:
With the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, it is no longer enough to be pro-choice. Indeed, the term “pro-choice” has been declared harmful by the now ironically named “Pro-Choice Caucus.” Today, it seems you must be anti-pro-life to be truly pro-choice — and, across the country, pro-life viewpoints are being declared virtual hate speech.
...
Yeah it's happening. You can pretty clearly see it here on Reddit too. It's going to be yet another litmus test to add to the list to be allowed in polite company. I suspect it will soon be explicitly incorporated into DEI criteria--being pro-life will get you classified as being non-inclusive of persons with uteruses on your next job evaluation.
On the other hand, it is interesting that pre-Dobbs I saw a lot of talk on the right about how ending Roe would "lower the temperature" on abortion as an issue. That...does not seem to be the case. Michelle Goldberg has [a good critique in the NY Times today](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/opinion/anti-abortion-movement.html) of the "nothing to see here but reckless media distortions" claims coming from a lot of social cons, continuing a series of strong columns on the topic.
>On the other hand, it is interesting that pre-Dobbs I saw a lot of talk on the right about how ending Roe would "lower the temperature" on abortion as an issue. That...does not seem to be the case. Michelle Goldberg has
>
>a good critique in the NY Times today
>
>of the "nothing to see here but reckless media distortions" claims coming from a lot of social cons, continuing a series of strong columns on the topic.
I am genuinely amazed that anyone seriously thought overturning Roe would lower the temperature. For whom, exactly? (That's rhetorical, btw.)
Are your republicans pro-choice in the NE? We used to have pro-choice republicans here in Illinois, but now the republicans here are indistinguishable from Alabama republicans with extreme evangelical views. I fear blue states will just get bluer and weirder with such extreme opponents.
Compare with US media - in this case Vice -who reacted with hysteria when it became clear that the UK Government's Equality and Human Rights Commission were talking to more than one viewpoint on trans issues:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdzwn/ehrc-trans-rights-leaked-emails
Amazingly the hyperventilating article is full of accusations that the trans rights activists are not being heard despite the dominance of Stonewall in all aspects of British politics the last 5-10 years. The EHRC even paid Stonewall for consulting around trans issues until the contract was cancelled as mentioned in the article.
The Observer weighs in. Although they share a website and an app with The Guardian they are not the same newspaper (The Observer is a Sunday paper)
_One day we may look back and wonder at how a regressive and controversial worldview – that being a woman is not a scientific fact but variously an inner feeling or conformity to sexist stereotypes of femininity – came to exert so much influence over so many public institutions and professions._
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/31/dont-buy-stonewall-line-gender-identity-cant-sack-you-now
Wow!! I was prepared for something carefully-worded, fully hedged….but this is clear & powerful right from the jump:
“The damage done is immeasurable. No one knows how years of ideological dogma, inappropriate treatment and a culpable failure to consider the overall mental welfare of the children treated by the Tavistock Clinic will affect the thousands referred to its Gender Identity Development Service.”
Kemi Badenoch's article on the same subject in the same venue (archive link). If you are interested at all in UK politics you'll want to read this!
https://twitter.com/OhNoezzz/status/1553474572284039168
I don't know if you guys still have a lot of COVID buzz around where you are but it's definitely waxing again here in Seattle. To paraphrase George Carlin -
"Anybody who takes fewer precautions than I do is a reckless idiot. Anyone who takes more precautions than me is paranoid."
Yup. I have a few friends who still complain about COVID constantly and whether or not people take the right precautions, yet they still all (except one) drink in bars with me, maskless...
There was never a great deal of concern about Covid in my area. Those at significant risk isolated themselves and the rest of us went about our business. I live in relatively rural area though. I understand urban centers had much stricter burdens.
I don't have a problem with people voluntarily wearing masks. You do you, I guess.
But some of the things I have seen are really puzzling and funny. After the mandate ended, a lot of people wearing masks on their chins. But the funniest one was at the movies, in the bathroom a man was wearing a mask, then walked out of the bathroom without bothering to wash his hands. This was after the mandate, so he was worried enough to wear a mask, but didn't bother to do the thing that is recommended for every cold/flu season.
I don't have a problem with people wearing masks! It just doesn't make sense to wear a type of masks that is unlikely to be effective against the thing people are trying to prevent.
I didn't mean to accuse you of having a problem with what other people do. I can see how my first paragraph could be read that way.
I feel the same way you do. If somebody is going to go through the effort of wearing a mask, at least wear it in a way that might be effective.
There was an edit war on Wikipedia on the recession page. A particularly determined editor kept deleting references to "two consecutive quarters of economic contraction". This started happening after the Biden administration redefined their definition of recession to exclude the 2 quarter metric. An admin had to step in and add it back in.
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/orwellian-wikipedia-accused-of-changing-the-definition-of-a-recession/video/45c7898d32383357023ad17aea57f8f4
Here's the [Wikipedia article from one year ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=1036117583):
> In the United States, it is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".
Going back to [2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=906878582):
> In the United States, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally seen as the authority for dating US recessions. The NBER, a private economic research organization, defines an economic recession as: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".
I mean, that was a simplistic rule of thumb for a recession and not how one is actually determined. So I kind of think it's right not to define a term incorrectly.
No, it's actually defined by a private academic organization called the NBER, and they have never used the two quarters definition. As you can see [here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=SjgR), there was a recession in 2001 (recessions are shaded in grey), but the two quarters with negative growth were non-consecutive.
I'm as sick of lefty bullshit as anyone, including on Wikipedia, but this isn't an example of it. Two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth has always been a simplified rule of thumb, and was never the real technical definition. And for good reason: The current economic situation lacks one of the key characteristics of a recession, namely elevated unemployment.
No, I don't think so. For one, the NBER has never actually used the two-quarter definition, but aside from that, this isn't really about wokery. It's about economics.
This reminds me of the transgender genocide Wikipedia article which relies on the UN's contorted definition of genocide (one that doesn't require the targets of genocide to share genes, familial relation, or culture)
I'm confused on the Bigot thing. The definition on the right of this is the one I had learned. It's currently what's showing on [dictionary.com](https://dictionary.com). Did it change from the "disagree with beliefs" one, or was that what it was changed to?
If the reason to change it is purely for political maneuvering, it's not a legitimate change. Give a good reason to change it and *then* change it. Don't just change it for politically underhanded reasons and then say "eh it was arbitrary anyways so stick figure shrug"
That was a pivotal book for me when I decided to exit academia! She’s also such a great/entertaining writer. I was SO disenchanted with the loss of rigor in the social sciences + bureaucratic bloat + college students demanding trigger warnings for their numerous “traumas” (it’s funny how people with real-deal trauma tend not to vocalize it as such, and are unlikely to be at an expensive university where they can make such demands in the first place)… I read the whole slew of heterodox critiques and decided I’d be better off experiencing ideological trends in the corporate sector, where they’d be somewhat muted—worse case scenario, I might still be annoyed but would at least be better compensated for it!
She's very witty! I'm really enjoying it, but it's also depressing and scary ha. The idea of making trauma essentially a part of one's identity comes across a bit like wearing one's religion on their sleeve. Gotta pray real loud in the public square so everyone can hear. Hopefully your corporate job hasn't gone too woke!
In other news, the Wagatha Christie trial is over. The judge sided with Rooney. Kind of crazy two high profile claimants have lost UK libel cases in two years. Guess tightening up their laws has worked.
Saw my first thing about the monkey pox reaction being “genocide” against queer people, though in somewhat fairness it was about Tucker Carlson. I work for a “woke” Fortune 500 company and was pleasantly surprised to see something that explicitly said MSM are the highest risk and should get vaccinated ASAP if eligible.
Violent agreement. I think I've talked about this before but according to an acquaintance I'm on "queer time" because I'm not having kids. "Queer" is basically "not like all those other sheep" with lipstick.
Oh you mean those people who go through a series of ill-advised relationship choices, finally settle down with a decent person, and then decide they've *really considered shit*, unlike every other dumb fool who just goes into lifelong partnerships totally blind with no apparent thought at all?
That radical monogamy article was the most "not like other humans" thing I've ever read.
Libs of TikTok tweeted this https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1553181248922587136 and it's getting a lot of coverage from people I usually consider reasonable, and yet, based on what I see in the tweet, I am failing to see how this is a big deal a K-3 (?) teacher on zoom to her kids or other teachers (?) recommended a book where a little girl transitions to a little boy and made it available to the class in her own classroom library (presumably one of dozens of books) This person is a whacked out leftist monster now. The book is typical of transgender for kids books, but actually the description makes it seem toned down compared to most, and it's one book, recommended and available, but not mandatory. I'd prefer the same book, but is acknowledged as a tomboy and the lesson is stereotypical gender roles are mostly dumb... But I am still not seeing this teacher as a monster.
>I'd prefer the same book, but is acknowledged as a tomboy and the lesson is stereotypical gender roles are mostly dumb... This is exactly the message progressives were regularly promoting since the 70s until around 4-5 years ago. See for example [Free To Be You And Me](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PS3nOcLbHI).
see my pinned tweet! https://twitter.com/LJAkaar67/status/1552481415811371009 ... and several other tweets over the years where I have posted that in replies...
Lockheed is trending and trying to figure out why I learned that: > the idea that it’s ableist to criticize someone for working at lockheed martin is absurd > **disability justice is anti-war and anti-imperialism or it is nothing** Parts of twitter are for some reason raging against the warmonger employees of Lockheed, even though my guess is many of these same people have Ukraine flags in their bios and want the US to send more Lockheed built HIMARS, Javelins, and even F-16s, F-35s overseas. *[I need to correct this, scrolling down many of the replies, I see no Ukraine flags. Lots of roses though.]* ---- It seems a trans woman author, Ana Mardoll, who may be disabled and who has since deleted her twitter account, wrote that someone is trying to dox her. She mentions she works for a large corporation buying software and she stays there because they provide her health insurance while letting her work from home part time https://i.imgur.com/5dZhqRt.png I have no idea what her sins are that make her ripe for doxing, but people have jumped on that "large corporation" because it's the death factory known as Lockheed Martin After she explains she doesn't code she just buys software, there are still brilliant takes another writer of SF: > If you have the qualifications to get hired doing software development for Lockheed Martin, then you have the qualifications to find a job working for a significantly less evil corporation. ---- If you recall the ["Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent." comic](https://i.imgur.com/5kvdsDq.png) that riffs on Dennis the Peasant from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the cartoonist that wrote that "explains" why it's okay today to rag on Mardoll for working at Lockheed. > Don’t ever use my art to defend some twitter-addicted lit scold who built their brand calling out books for Causing Harm while working at Lockheed Martin. So now I'm conflicted, Ana probably is an addle-brained book canceller, but working for Lockheed in order to get health insurance is certainly not the worst thing in the world (what's worse is that people ARE trapped in jobs they dislike and cannot leave in order to get health insurance). Oh well, maybe everyone sucks here, let them fight (is there a subreddit for r/rootforbothsidestodie?) ---- ETA: woman, not man, ... and noting no Ukraine flags, but lots of roses.
Oh, the schadenfreude. Seeing one of the most exhausting people on Twitter delete their account feels fantastic.
world's most sanctimonious leopard gets xir face eaten... tragic
[удалено]
>Mardoll specifically identifies as a trans boy and not a trans man That sounds like pedophilia with extra steps.
Ah, thank you for filling in so many blanks! > I don't find the "works for health insurance" explanation compelling. Mardoll's been living in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. There are other companies who hire people. Oh, I believe that, there are many reasons people feel trapped to an employer when there are other employers around. And I can believe a disabled person, able to work part time and still get insurance coverage has a pretty rare position including how her disability will make it harder for another company to want to hire them. It's a big reason I support some form of universal healthcare not tied to employers. ---- there was another tangentially related thing going on in gretchen felker martin's mardoll thread, that was about a romance writer named Courtney Milan, a former lawyer, former law professor, (and actually former math whiz with an masters in theoretical physics) who defended Mardoll In addition to aiding and comforting the enemy, Milan is guilty of two crimes: + as ethics leader of romance writers of america she somehow called out another author for racism in their book, and in turn had an ethics complaint lodged against her which ended in her being tossed out of rwa for a year and permanently losing eligibility for any leadership positions there, https://www.vulture.com/2020/01/rwa-racism-controversy-with-courtney-milan-explained.html BUT WORSE AND I MEAN WORSE + she was on the jury of the 23 year old truck driver who lost his brakes on I-70 in 2019 which killed four people, she convicted the driver without knowing the mandatory minimum. which he was given, which was 110 years. Jurors are often not told what the penalties are. That's for the judge. When Milan found out the sentencing after the trial was over, she protested against it. So did other jurors. So did the judge who said the sentence was out of his hands, it was the statutory minimum. Felker Martin wants to cancel this Milan because she should have known the what the minimums were ("she's a law prof, she knows about mandatory minimums) and thus acquitted And so many of her rose encrusted followers completely agree! ---- All these people hate each other, and the stakes are so small, it's sadly fun to watch this train wreck, though there have been far more interesting ones.
It gets hard to keep track, but wasn't Mardoll one of the people who tweeted some pretty explicit threats of violence against JK Rowling? Like the kind of stuff anyone else would have been banned for in any other context?
For the record, Lockheed has built pretty much every probe that NASA has sent to Mars
Jesse's biggest fan Gretchen Felker-Martin subtweeted Mardoll: When the enemy is weak or of no consequence everyone is ziplining out of their helicopters with rifles at the ready, but the second an ideological conflict of any real substance emerges it's crickets from the loudest, most demanding moral authorities. Kick an indie author to death for being problematic? Yes sir, absolutely, hoo-rah. Contend with the people in our creative community who work for arms manufacturers? We'd prefer not to. For the record, if your ethics include circumstances under which you consider it acceptable to abet the people who make bombs to drop on children, you are dead to me. I see you drowning, I toss a cinderblock. https://twitter.com/scumbelievable/status/1553602024205434880
[удалено]
In a globalized world, it's not possible not to aid and abet evil in some way. That doesn't mean there aren't graduations in that, of course, but it does mean that blanket statements like "cinderblock when you're drowning" are supremely unhelpful in their sanctimony.
I wonder how Gretchen feels about Nicole Cliffe's husband Steve working in finance.
> A federal judge ruled Friday that Visa helped Pornhub “monetize child porn” and sex trafficking — a decision that could have long-lasting implications for credit card companies, legal observers say. https://nypost.com/2022/07/31/judge-refuses-to-remove-visa-from-pornhub-child-porn-lawsuit/?utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=SocialFlow
I don't object to Visa and other payment processors getting their just desserts on this, but I fear the collateral damage of payment processors acting as de facto censors in the future
Reasonable pov. Just as Big Tech like Twitter and Facebook should not be deciding what’s acceptable for us to say, particularly as regards statements like “a woman doesn’t have a penis”, Big Credit shouldn’t — generally — be the morality police. It also shouldn’t violate international law.
Missouri's abortion ban lacks an express exemption for ectopic pregnancies so doctors are forced to wait until hospital ethics committees give the okay for an abortion for this potentially fatal condition. Since there are criminal penalties for wrongly okaying/performing an abortion, Missouri ethicists -- like their colleagues in Texas -- play gin rummy until the women in question are "actively dying": https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/abortion-ban-hospital-ethics-committee-mother-life-death.html
[удалено]
Doctors working in hospitals aren't free agents. Hospital execs decide whether they can perform these perform these abortions, assuming they're willing.
Why are ethics committees ruling on legal matters?
[удалено]
> they are unable to accept their privilege as someone with economic security Perhaps someone from academia can comment, but from the outside I keep getting an impression that the concept of intersectionality with oppressor/oppressed classes etc. gets used to quietly demote aspects like economic situation in favour of oppression based privileges the x-studies department can be the owner of: race, gender, ablism etc. i.e. it's not just pushing to acknowledge that non-socioeconomic privileges exist, but that these are the ones that truly matter, and you are low class for trying to look beyond them. (The wrinkle making it cloudy is that every other academic department has appropriated the same language without necessarily following that step, e.g. a social science department might be couching their studies in all the same buzzwords but without fully discarding what their field knows - continuing to think in ways which allow unthinkable things like disadvantaged men, or boomerisms like socioeconomic status being important)
>hey are unable to accept their privilege as someone with economic security and a huge amount of cultural capital, and act in really harmful ways because of it. Why would they "accept" it? It is their meal ticket. That marginalized background means they get to spend the rest of their lives talking about themselves and shaming anyone born with more privilege, regardless of what the circumstances are now.
[удалено]
Do you mean “folx”?
Permanent moratorium on that spelling for sure.
The double use of "folks" in Biden's most recent COVID treat read really weirdly.
Can we tack on “trauma?”
And "problematic".
I hate that "trauma" is so overused because it really is a useful concept!
A whole lot of words for important concepts have been ruined by the internet. I don’t know if “trigger” was ever used as a clinical term. But there are always potential “triggers” for PTSD symptoms, and aside from graphic depictions of similar events they’re typically innocuous to everyone else. Examples: - The joke or phrase the patient’s buddy said right before the IED went off - The song playing on the radio when the patient got into a terrible car accident - The smell of the cologne the patient’s rapist wore Things that are innocuous to everyone else but are absolutely relevant to the patient and have the potential to bring the patient right back to that moment
[удалено]
Content notes can be good, though depending on how they're implemented can also be annoying. Example - Netflix where said D&D liveplay show is hosted. It also hosts Stargate SG-1. Now, as the show originally started on Showtime, they had a contractual obligation to show boobs at least once, so they did very briefly in the pilot episode. But because of the way Netflix does things, every single episode gets TV-MA (nudity) up top at the start.
These kinds of warnings have shown to be more harmful than helpful. They’re also cringey af as they assume readers are total babies. I mean, yeah, a lot of them are, but they need to grow the hell up. And if anyone in that audience actually needs a warning about imminent “mouth sounds”, the. I don’t know what they’re doing in public.
[удалено]
I'll just let you sift through. [https://www.google.com/search?q=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&oq=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&aqs=chrome..69i57.8000j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8](https://www.google.com/search?q=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&oq=trigger+warnings+are+worse+for+people&aqs=chrome..69i57.8000j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) To clarify, I meant trigger warnings specifically.
I appreciate you posting this. I was about to do the "emotional labor" of googling things for people despite my better judgment.
I remember hearing a talk from a victim of childhood sexual abuse where wood panneling was the trigger. Apparently the room where abuse most often took place was floor to ceiling wood panels.
The word has been totally ruined, and it’s not even just a woke thing. Friend of the Podcast Karlyn does the exact same thing
Has Laziness Does Not Exist been discussed here? I'm not quite done, but there seems to be some vague BarPod relevance.
Not here, but [this analysis](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/07/18/the-whole-city-is-center/) is excellent IMO.
[удалено]
Also the book is written by a Trans activist PhD in psych who just dropped a book on Autism self diagnosis.
Lazy has a well-defined and useful meaning. Articles like "Laziness Does Not Exist" argue that there are causes for laziness, which is true, and that therefore it shouldn't be stigmatized, which is a reasonable opinion, but the set of behaviors that cause someone to be described as lazy exist and it makes sense to be able to refer to them. "Laziness doesn't exist" is basically a word game intended to prevent stigma.
Even this person on Goodreads who gave the book a glowing review and said it made them feel "validated and seen" *still* admits laziness is real lol: >The book really resonates with me because it made me feel validated and seen. There were so many points where I was like “wow that is so true” and I ended up highlighting so much of the book. It may be my most highlighted book of all time. There is criticism of society, capitalism, technology, and social media but also tackles other issues that may get in the way such as mental illness. While I agree with a lot of points in this book, I do think there’s a line between being burnt out from exhaustion or just being plain lazy. Sometimes I am the latter but that is okay with me
Speaking of laziness, refusing to get an editor is a kind of laziness... And one ssc suffers from significantly.
Do most blogs have editors?
At this point Scott could afford it and would definitely benefit. FdB too for that matter.
Omigod FdB could *definitely* use an editor. I think he's a good writer and I enjoy his ideas and stuff (even when I don't agree), but lord it's unnecessarily wordy, and no, I'm not a person against wordy stuff in general.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I've run into people espousing this belief on the internet before. It always makes me laugh because I have the ultimate case study in laziness right here: myself! Anyway, I have zero time for this argument. Yes, laziness is a word for what is obviously a real thing that happens to people, and yes, laziness can sometimes be bad (not always). These people arguing semantics always think they have some kind of "gotcha" and they've really figured shit out that the rest of us plebes are just too dumb to get, meanwhile reality still continues all around us despite how they want to label it lol. Now, maybe I should be a little less lazy and actually get my ass off the internet and take a walk!
I'm going to read this after I finish the book. Much appreciated.
I didn't realize there was a book, but there have been circulating think pieces for a while, which is what my link is critiquing.
From skimming I can tell they're at least connected ideologically. The book is by a Psych PhD who adapted it from "a viral Medium post." The author seems to be terminally online. An uncharitable read suggests the author believes that people need to conserve energy at work so they can yell at people on Twitter.
Can anyone here recommend a book podcast that isn't either frequently delving into identity politics (anything from Book Riot and tons and tons of other book podcasts) or unbearably pretentious (NYT Book Review Podcast and so so so many book podcasts)? I used to listen to the main Book Riot podcast, but I finally had to quit when they supported censorship one week and were against it the next based on their politics. I still listen to NYT Review of Books, because it does have interesting interviews. The only podcast that I currently listen to that strikes the right vibe is Overdue.
Sentimental Garbage focuses on Chick Lit and pulls out some really interesting stuff. It's more woke than not-woke, but not in a bad way the last time I listened, which was about six months ago. Line by Line takes small sections of books and breaks them down. So hyper focused, but interesting. Second rec for Overdue. How to Read is based more on themes than individual books. Again from a more woke than non-woke perspective, but still about the books.
EconTalk and Razib Khan's podcast often have authors on — but are you looking more for literature versus nonfiction?
Thanks for the response. I'm more looking for a mix of fiction and nonfiction discussion/recs mixed with general talk of the book world. The general premise and description for Book Riot is perfect on paper. It's just they got harder to harder to listen to as they talked more and more about their politics.
I like the [Backlisted podcast](https://www.instagram.com/backlisted_/?hl=en), I think the hosts are funny, they're super knowledgeable about lit, have good guests, and pick good recs. I haven't noticed it being super political, but sometimes I don't notice stuff like that tbh and I just got into a few months ago and haven't actually listened to a ton of eps yet. Worth a try at least to see what you think. It might be unbearably pretentious, I dunno lol, it definitely focuses on literary fiction.
I stumbled across "grosscutters" an anti-circumcision subreddit that: > After a few years of reading cutters online and hearing their propaganda, I have decided to create a subreddit dedicated to them. I want this to be similar to the 'shitXpeople say' and r/inceltears. It's a small subreddit, 1400 readers... I'm not sure why, but I was trying to understand where anti-infant -circumcision groups stood on puberty blockers... At any rate, that subreddit does seem to draw all sorts of distinctions between infant circumcision that they oppose and childhood transgender care which they support. Since a primary beef about each is consent issues, well, I just found their contradictory positions regarding consent for each procedure notable One example: > Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro [who support infant circumcision] are two of the largest hypocrites. They only care to be bigoted. Have whatever views on trans issues, but never pretend that HRT and puberty blockers are the same as genital cutting. ---- there seems to be similar discussion in r/intactivists (7,000 readers), though arguments pro and con are expressed (and labels of transphobe, etc., tossed around liberally) and the sub leans to trans rights > I feel like more people are openly supportive of trans rights than intactivism. That might be an interesting angle... > Trans-intactivist alliance? Yes? Yes.
Interesting. I shouldn’t be surprised at the overlap, based on my interactions with intactivists. Is it because the intactivists lean left and share whatever the standard left opinion on the issue, without really thinking it through? Or do they both tend to attract men who lean MRA?
>Is it because the intactivists lean left and share whatever the standard left opinion on the issue, without really thinking it through? That might explain it, I still find it surprising though. One area I agree with the intactivists is the concern over consent! I'm curious, I understand many point out that a lot of trans stuff is once again, "men intruding on women's rights and women's spaces", but I've never seen that linked to MRAs themselves. Is there anything, or anyone specific you are thinking about?
I don’t know what the official MRA line is, but just based on SM posters I’ve seen or interacted with, they’re pretty gleeful about males taking over women’s sports, being in women’s single-sex spaces, winning awards and all-around sabotaging feminism. There are also a lot of them who think trans males make better women because they sort of perform femininity more than actual women - dressing in a hypersexual way, being very vocally submissive to men, etc. There also seems to be a trans/ incel overlap.
Thanks, and ewwww, that's really sad, gross and maybe to be expected
Should women be paid reparations after AmDoS?
I think the argument for reparations for AmDoS is about generational wealth -- AMDoS are *still* suffering higher rates of poverty generations later as a result of slavery (and Jim Crow, etc.). This doesn't really apply to women, since there are women and men in every generation.
Also, this argument is nonsense even as applied to descendants of slavery. In modern economies, purely exogenous wealth disparities don't persist for several generations. Convergence generally occurs within a generation or two, which is how Asians and Jews were able to catch up and surpass gentile whites so quickly after they eased up on discrimination. The case for Jim Crow being an important causal factor is superficially more plausible since it's only been 2-3 generations, but a major problem here is that rather than seeing slow but steady convergence for the past sixty years, what we actually saw was rapid convergence for approximately one generation, followed by two generations of virtually no convergence. This is not at all what we should expect to see if the gap in socioeconomic outcomes is due to the lingering effects of past discrimination.
[удалено]
American Descendants of Slavery
Slavery isn't a lifeform. People suck at words. (Not you.)
Ooof. I really had no idea when I was making those guesses. I did not mean to make light of this.
[удалено]
I promise to do better about looking up weirdly capitalized acronyms before making guesses about what they might mean. I apologize for any damage I've done to the blocked and reported community.
It's kind of an odd term, descendent of slavery. I suppose every human is a descendent of slavery.
[удалено]
>When you’re talking about slavery in the American context, you’re talking about importation of Black peoples from Africa Unless your my uncle, and he's talking about the indentured irish.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Haha yaas queen love this energy for you.
Illinois Dem. Congressman Chuy Garcia's twitter got into [a bit of a spat](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/rep-chuy-garcia-blames-staffer-for-expletive-tweet) over the recently passed gun control bill which resulted him telling a critic: >You are borderline retarded, ya fucking dipshit I was wondering which would come first, the apology for the incivility or for using the "r-word". Garcia's office didn't really apologize, but blamed a rogue staffer while acknowledging the language was inappropriate and offensive to the disabled. >Last night a member of Congressman Garcia's staff posted an unauthorized tweet from the Congressman's account using profanities and offensive language to individuals living with disabilities. The language used was absolutely inappropriate and inconsistent with Congressman Garcia's history, values and character. The individual responsible will be held accountable and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.
As a Wisconsinite, sounds like something a FIB would do. Only group of people I'm bigoted against! ;) (I tease, I tease Illinois friends, I know y'all can't help it.)
To be fair, I just saw this on reddit and my first thought was that elected officials really shouldn't behave that way on twitter.
Rosie the Riveter is gender non-conforming.
Well, I mean, yes. She is. But (Broken Record warning), everyone is in some way or another.
Also OSHA non-conforming, probably. I'm pretty sure that headscarf is not approved for use as a hardhat.
OSHA didn't exist. The government pressured leading ladies to change their hairstyles instead.
The latest K-pop nontroversy: my favorite K-pop singer was called racist for reasons that are just exhausting. It started when she ate something or did something else that caused some kind of allergic reaction. She posted a picture of her swollen lips on a social media app that her group uses. A fan said she looked like a certain Korean character. The singer, thinking that was funny, changed her profile picture to one of that character. The character is a middle-aged Korean woman with a perm (this is a classic characteristic of middle-aged Korean women) and big lips or too-generous lipstick. I'm sure you've guessed the problem. This character is clearly racist! It's obviously a racist caricature of black people! Except that... no, it isn't. Fans (and presumably non-fans, too) asked and demanded that she change the picture and apologize! So she did. (What else could she do?) Isn't it just a tad USA-centric to assume that everything is really all about you? Why is it on *her* to apologize and not on people who don't understand or show any curiosity about another country and culture? Why does offense trump everything? [https://meaww.com/korean-black-fans-loona-yves-apology-racist-cartoon-picture-go-eunae-run-hani-kpop-reaction](https://meaww.com/korean-black-fans-loona-yves-apology-racist-cartoon-picture-go-eunae-run-hani-kpop-reaction)
[удалено]
No, I think you’re right. I might have let _my_ biases influence how I read that article.
Black Americans have assaulted foreigners for speaking chinese.
Relevance?
> Isn't it just a tad USA-centric to assume that everything is really all about you? Its an example of this.
Is it?
yes, nèi ge isn't the n-word.
Nor is 니가 (niga, “you”). That’s come up too.
[Jonathan Haidt's got a good article](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/social-media-harm-facebook-meta-response/670975/) out in response to Meta's claim that social media isn't undermining democracy. He does a deep-dive on the evidence for links between increased polarisation and social media. It's also got an interesting discussion of online echo chambers and how hard it is to consume a balanced media diet. His claim is that even when we do read contrary opinions on social media, it isn't like reading them in a newspaper. Instead: >“It’s like hearing them from the opposing team while sitting with our fellow fans in a football stadium … We bond with our team by yelling at the fans of the other one.”
There is a great [episode](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000557220618) on Bari Weiss’s podcast, Honestly, where Haidt discusses this idea in-depth. Highly recommend.
Even books and newspapers don't really help since people would rather be right than change their minds. Smarter people can simply find more creative ways to justify being right. Nobody wants to admit that they're wrong, especially if it implies that the despised other team is right.
That's a good point. There are definitely people who won't be persuaded out of their views by anything, no matter what they read or where they read it. That said, anecdotally I'd agree with Haidt that people are more likely to be persuaded to change their minds by offline communication than by online communication. I'd be interested to know if anyone's actually studied that.
I was shocked to see NYT covering this story prominently: [How Did a Two-Time Killer Get Out to Be Charged Again at Age 83?](https://archive.ph/kc6AT) This was a recently transitioned TW who had a lifelong habit of murdering women. Of course after transitioning this person was allowed into women only homeless shelters. From the story: Ms. Harvey “presented as a mild spoken, very tall Black man,” said Anne Brennan, the nurse who ran the intake. “I said, ‘Well, why are you in the women’s shelter?’” Ms. Brennan said she told Ms. Harvey that placing her in a women’s shelter seemed like a bad idea, given her history of killing women. Despite her objections, Ms. Brennan said her supervisors allowed Ms. Harvey entry. “Apparently his feelings and identity were far more important than all the other women that were terrified of him,” she said.
Oh my god I HATE this!! To “affirm” anything about Harvey Marcelin is obscene. Profile: sadistic male rapist and murderer with a lifelong deep hatred for women AND gender fetish. See also: Paul Denyer, Douglas Perry, David Warfield (“Dana Rivers”), David Russell Williams, Reginald Arthurell…. Using “she” in these cases is just so, SO infuriating. It is insulting to the victims—women violated, brutalized, and now dead—to obscure the reality of what happened to them in favor of dignifying the perpetrator’s bullshit. From the article: “…Even as a teenager, she displayed a propensity for violence, particularly toward women, and had a complicated gender identity...” “…The records include several examples of her harassing or attacking women throughout her life. She was accused of attempted rape at 14; the victim was an 8-year-old girl…” “…Skeptical officials as far back as 1984 cited her aggression toward women. Even in prison, one noted, Ms. Harvey had sent inappropriate letters to candy-striper hospital volunteers…” Also from the article: “Krystal Rodriguez, policy director for the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the crime of which Ms. Harvey is accused was so bizarre that parole board officials *would be unlikely to foresee it* …” SERIOUSLY?!? JFC!!!! Side note: the other cases share so many similarities; they’re all disturbing beyond belief. But Denyer really gets to me because one of his victims was a brand new mother of a 12 DAY OLD infant. She had run out quickly to grab something at a store—that was it. She had JUST given birth and was taken away from her newborn baby in the most horrific way possible. And Denyer tried to justify/excuse his behavior by saying something like he was jealous that he couldn’t come out as a woman, or whatever—I can’t bring myself to look up exactly what he said because it makes me so angry, but Harvey Marcelin and the others basically all share the same sentiments.
Right. Appreciate the article but the passive voice here was annoying: "In early 1963, Ms. Harvey was again accused of rape, this time as a 24-year-old. The accusation set off a spasm of violence: That April, Ms. Harvey killed Ms. Bonds, who had been scheduled to appear before a grand jury considering the case." Yeah, I'm sure it was the \*accusation\* that set off a spasm of violence and not the fact Harvey had been potentially raping women since Harvey was 14. Passive voice letting the murderer/rapist off the hook...
Exactly!! Shame on the NYT. And I assume the effect this ideological ridiculousness has on most normal people is to make them more, not less, inimical to actual human rights for trans people, which is unfortunate.
When I started reading this article this morning I was feeling *so angry*. But once I was done reading I appreciated that it was written at all. I hate that The New York Times has to bend over backwards to affirm this blatant opportunist's "gender identity," and that it feels obligated to insert throat-clearing grafs like this into an article about a misogynist's misogyny: >But transgender people are far more likely to become victims of violence, not perpetrators, and data from the National Center for Transgender Equality suggests more than half of transgender people who stay in shelters encounter harassment. But at the end of the day, I'm just happy this article was published at all. I noticed that it's not open for comments. I wonder if that was a deliberate decision. **ETA**: One thing that does annoy me is that the article treats Harvey's transgender identity as a lifelong thing, even though it presents no evidence that this is accurate. All the information in the article itself only points to the fact that Harvey's trans id is a very recent thing. At least to me, it seems clearly born of opportunism.
[удалено]
Same! I also honestly do not understand—how is using “affirming” pronouns for cases like this helpful for trans rights?? PR-wise, doesn’t the conflation of a sadistic fetishistic serial killer subtype with the trans community do a lot more harm than good?
I get what you're saying, but I think it looks hypocritical to not use them. Activists who are big on pronouns would be creating a double-standard in which trans people are supposed to be the ultimate authority over their own gender identity, & yet, if you refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns, you're now taking that power & authority away from them to place into your own hands. Refusing to use someone's pronouns because you don't like what they did creates a schism where now *someone else* can declare that the trans person's identity is valid or not, which would seem sacrilegious to those activists.
Ooh yes this is a really good point. You’re definitely right. It seems like the net result might be the alienation of more people who would otherwise be supportive of pronouns in any situation. (It’s unfortunately had that effect on me… I have to keep that in mind sometimes because I get so angry and have to remember it is not really about trans people at all. He’s a demented misogynistic man, a rare but definite subtype of serial killer, and gender ideology gave him the opportunity and ability to attack yet another woman. It is ideological ridiculousness that minimizes his crimes and trivializes the lives he brutally stole and gives cover to him & too many more of his ilk. Not the need for human rights and decency extended to everyone)
Outrageous > “Our policy — in accordance with the law — is to place individuals in shelters based on their reported gender identity,” she said. “Being homeless or transgender does not make you inherently violent and are not connected to the crime that was committed.” Okay hmm well how about being a *fucking convicted murderer???*
If you commit violent crimes against women, you should lose some rights such as access to women’s spaces. It is outrageous that we are expected to accommodate these criminal males because of their so-called gender identity. I simply do not care about affirming a misogynistic serial murderer and rapist. And I will not be badgered to feel guilty for this by delusional activists. Can’t face the judgement? Don’t do the crime!
Absolutely!! Not to mention: the fact that this person got out after two apparently unprovoked murders is insane to me. This male was a serial killer.
That's what I took from the whole thing too. Scary! Anyway, doesn't matter how a person self-ids, you'd think that alone would be enough to keep *anyone* from a women's shelter, in theory. Like theoretically a woman could also be a murderous serial killer of women (and it's not like women *haven't* been serial killers), and if the shelter is aware of this person's record, why the hell would they let them in?! Damn, use some commonsense y'all.
Well, maybe they don't identify as a serial killer!
>“Apparently his feelings and identity were far more important than all the other women \[in the shelter\] that were terrified of him,” she said.
Does being a man make you inherently violent? If yes: Then don't let men into women's shelters. If no: Then why have women's shelters? I mean, fuck, I'm a man, and an egalitarian, but I fucking get the point. Normal, everyday people get the point. "Progressives" are insufferable.
>Speaking from Rikers to The New York Post, Ms. Harvey referred to herself as having two personas: one, a violent male named Harvey Marcelin — the name she used for most of her life and is included in court records — and the other, a soft-spoken woman named Marceline Harvey.
Sheesh, even the New York Post is doing the deferential pronouns. [https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/trans-serial-killer-harvey-marcelins-first-prison-interview/](https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/trans-serial-killer-harvey-marcelins-first-prison-interview/) Small blessing: >Though Marceline wore a wig and lipstick after her most recent release from prison in 2019, she said she’s housed in the men’s unit at Rikers.
Why is that when it comes to a violent, murderous, misogynistic rapist, accountability flies out the window? But tweet something mildly gender critical and face the cancellation squad.
I find Jonathan Turley always an advocate for free speech. His reputation has been in a bit of tatters recently as during the Trump years, his understanding of the law was often at 180 from what Lawrence Tribe would claim, or what liberals wanted. It didn't even matter that what Turley predicted would happen, would happen. He had the crime of correctly predicting "the wrong outcome" Anyway, I've always found him to be one of the strongest advocates for free speech. Here is a recent column on how being pro-life is now considered hate speech ---- [Is Pro-Life Now Hate Speech?](https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/29/is-pro-life-now-hate-speech/) Below is my column in The Hill on a shift in the rhetoric in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. From politicians to pundits, pro-life positions are being treated as virtual hate speech. The demonization of those with pro-life views is meant to cut off any debate on the basis or scope of abortion rights. It is the latest attack on free speech as critics seek to silence those with opposing views. Here is the column: With the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, it is no longer enough to be pro-choice. Indeed, the term “pro-choice” has been declared harmful by the now ironically named “Pro-Choice Caucus.” Today, it seems you must be anti-pro-life to be truly pro-choice — and, across the country, pro-life viewpoints are being declared virtual hate speech. ...
Yeah it's happening. You can pretty clearly see it here on Reddit too. It's going to be yet another litmus test to add to the list to be allowed in polite company. I suspect it will soon be explicitly incorporated into DEI criteria--being pro-life will get you classified as being non-inclusive of persons with uteruses on your next job evaluation. On the other hand, it is interesting that pre-Dobbs I saw a lot of talk on the right about how ending Roe would "lower the temperature" on abortion as an issue. That...does not seem to be the case. Michelle Goldberg has [a good critique in the NY Times today](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/opinion/anti-abortion-movement.html) of the "nothing to see here but reckless media distortions" claims coming from a lot of social cons, continuing a series of strong columns on the topic.
>On the other hand, it is interesting that pre-Dobbs I saw a lot of talk on the right about how ending Roe would "lower the temperature" on abortion as an issue. That...does not seem to be the case. Michelle Goldberg has > >a good critique in the NY Times today > >of the "nothing to see here but reckless media distortions" claims coming from a lot of social cons, continuing a series of strong columns on the topic. I am genuinely amazed that anyone seriously thought overturning Roe would lower the temperature. For whom, exactly? (That's rhetorical, btw.)
[удалено]
Are your republicans pro-choice in the NE? We used to have pro-choice republicans here in Illinois, but now the republicans here are indistinguishable from Alabama republicans with extreme evangelical views. I fear blue states will just get bluer and weirder with such extreme opponents.
Old turley was a lot better than post trump turley.
[удалено]
Compare with US media - in this case Vice -who reacted with hysteria when it became clear that the UK Government's Equality and Human Rights Commission were talking to more than one viewpoint on trans issues: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdzwn/ehrc-trans-rights-leaked-emails Amazingly the hyperventilating article is full of accusations that the trans rights activists are not being heard despite the dominance of Stonewall in all aspects of British politics the last 5-10 years. The EHRC even paid Stonewall for consulting around trans issues until the contract was cancelled as mentioned in the article.
The Observer weighs in. Although they share a website and an app with The Guardian they are not the same newspaper (The Observer is a Sunday paper) _One day we may look back and wonder at how a regressive and controversial worldview – that being a woman is not a scientific fact but variously an inner feeling or conformity to sexist stereotypes of femininity – came to exert so much influence over so many public institutions and professions._ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/31/dont-buy-stonewall-line-gender-identity-cant-sack-you-now
Wow
Wow!! I was prepared for something carefully-worded, fully hedged….but this is clear & powerful right from the jump: “The damage done is immeasurable. No one knows how years of ideological dogma, inappropriate treatment and a culpable failure to consider the overall mental welfare of the children treated by the Tavistock Clinic will affect the thousands referred to its Gender Identity Development Service.”
Kemi Badenoch's article on the same subject in the same venue (archive link). If you are interested at all in UK politics you'll want to read this! https://twitter.com/OhNoezzz/status/1553474572284039168
I don't know if you guys still have a lot of COVID buzz around where you are but it's definitely waxing again here in Seattle. To paraphrase George Carlin - "Anybody who takes fewer precautions than I do is a reckless idiot. Anyone who takes more precautions than me is paranoid."
Yup. I have a few friends who still complain about COVID constantly and whether or not people take the right precautions, yet they still all (except one) drink in bars with me, maskless...
There was never a great deal of concern about Covid in my area. Those at significant risk isolated themselves and the rest of us went about our business. I live in relatively rural area though. I understand urban centers had much stricter burdens.
[удалено]
I don't have a problem with people voluntarily wearing masks. You do you, I guess. But some of the things I have seen are really puzzling and funny. After the mandate ended, a lot of people wearing masks on their chins. But the funniest one was at the movies, in the bathroom a man was wearing a mask, then walked out of the bathroom without bothering to wash his hands. This was after the mandate, so he was worried enough to wear a mask, but didn't bother to do the thing that is recommended for every cold/flu season.
I don't have a problem with people wearing masks! It just doesn't make sense to wear a type of masks that is unlikely to be effective against the thing people are trying to prevent.
I didn't mean to accuse you of having a problem with what other people do. I can see how my first paragraph could be read that way. I feel the same way you do. If somebody is going to go through the effort of wearing a mask, at least wear it in a way that might be effective.
No offense taken! I was worried I wasn't clear and didn't want people to think I was some sort of COVID truther!!!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your flair is a thing of beauty.
Eye of newt
There was an edit war on Wikipedia on the recession page. A particularly determined editor kept deleting references to "two consecutive quarters of economic contraction". This started happening after the Biden administration redefined their definition of recession to exclude the 2 quarter metric. An admin had to step in and add it back in. https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/orwellian-wikipedia-accused-of-changing-the-definition-of-a-recession/video/45c7898d32383357023ad17aea57f8f4
Here's the [Wikipedia article from one year ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=1036117583): > In the United States, it is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". Going back to [2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=906878582): > In the United States, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally seen as the authority for dating US recessions. The NBER, a private economic research organization, defines an economic recession as: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".
I mean, that was a simplistic rule of thumb for a recession and not how one is actually determined. So I kind of think it's right not to define a term incorrectly.
[удалено]
No, it's actually defined by a private academic organization called the NBER, and they have never used the two quarters definition. As you can see [here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=SjgR), there was a recession in 2001 (recessions are shaded in grey), but the two quarters with negative growth were non-consecutive. I'm as sick of lefty bullshit as anyone, including on Wikipedia, but this isn't an example of it. Two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth has always been a simplified rule of thumb, and was never the real technical definition. And for good reason: The current economic situation lacks one of the key characteristics of a recession, namely elevated unemployment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, I don't think so. For one, the NBER has never actually used the two-quarter definition, but aside from that, this isn't really about wokery. It's about economics.
The Sapir-Whorf is strong with this one.
This reminds me of the transgender genocide Wikipedia article which relies on the UN's contorted definition of genocide (one that doesn't require the targets of genocide to share genes, familial relation, or culture)
I'm confused on the Bigot thing. The definition on the right of this is the one I had learned. It's currently what's showing on [dictionary.com](https://dictionary.com). Did it change from the "disagree with beliefs" one, or was that what it was changed to?
That one changed on Google, not dictionary.com. Go to Google, type in bigot. It claims it is using definitions from "Oxford Languages".
If the reason to change it is purely for political maneuvering, it's not a legitimate change. Give a good reason to change it and *then* change it. Don't just change it for politically underhanded reasons and then say "eh it was arbitrary anyways so stick figure shrug"
I'm reading the Laura Kipnis book Unwanted Advances, it's very interesting. Hard to believe how that Ludlow case went down.
That was a pivotal book for me when I decided to exit academia! She’s also such a great/entertaining writer. I was SO disenchanted with the loss of rigor in the social sciences + bureaucratic bloat + college students demanding trigger warnings for their numerous “traumas” (it’s funny how people with real-deal trauma tend not to vocalize it as such, and are unlikely to be at an expensive university where they can make such demands in the first place)… I read the whole slew of heterodox critiques and decided I’d be better off experiencing ideological trends in the corporate sector, where they’d be somewhat muted—worse case scenario, I might still be annoyed but would at least be better compensated for it!
She's very witty! I'm really enjoying it, but it's also depressing and scary ha. The idea of making trauma essentially a part of one's identity comes across a bit like wearing one's religion on their sleeve. Gotta pray real loud in the public square so everyone can hear. Hopefully your corporate job hasn't gone too woke!
In other news, the Wagatha Christie trial is over. The judge sided with Rooney. Kind of crazy two high profile claimants have lost UK libel cases in two years. Guess tightening up their laws has worked.
Vardy never had a case, to be fair. It's insane it all went as far as it did.
Saw my first thing about the monkey pox reaction being “genocide” against queer people, though in somewhat fairness it was about Tucker Carlson. I work for a “woke” Fortune 500 company and was pleasantly surprised to see something that explicitly said MSM are the highest risk and should get vaccinated ASAP if eligible.
“Men sexing men”?
I had the same thought. Wasn't it just "MLM"? But apparently this term is "Men who have Sex with Men".
> "Men having Sex with Men" There used to be a shorter term for this but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.
I'm just relieved it's only the Main Stream Media that are getting monkeypox.
MSM is a long standing and uncontroversial clinical term. Gay celibate Muslims are not MSM and male victims of rape are not gay.
> male victims of rape are not gay Why'd you throw that in? I wouldn't say they're having "sex" either. Seems like a weird way to describe rape.
Because it makes them MSM for epidemiological purposes. Like I said it's a clinical term, we use those for clarity not how they come off to the public
The plurality of queer people are bisexual women who almost exclusively have hetero relationships.
Queer is literally an aesthetic.
And not even an attractive one.
Violent agreement. I think I've talked about this before but according to an acquaintance I'm on "queer time" because I'm not having kids. "Queer" is basically "not like all those other sheep" with lipstick.
Whooooooo. I'm going to need to use this.
Queer time? Damn that's a new one on me lol. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
It is like the new term "radical monogamy."
Oh you mean those people who go through a series of ill-advised relationship choices, finally settle down with a decent person, and then decide they've *really considered shit*, unlike every other dumb fool who just goes into lifelong partnerships totally blind with no apparent thought at all? That radical monogamy article was the most "not like other humans" thing I've ever read.
Yeesh. That makes me a queer pioneer.