I really liked that Ed Helms asked a lot of very straightforward questions about Yarvin’s ideology, which just went to show that it completely falls apart if you think about it critically for even a moment. It’s not something you come to believe after listening to the best arguments from a bunch of different positions. It’s something you come to believe because it justifies your own elitism.

FUN FACT: Five Justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by presidents who were inaugurated despite losing the popular vote! That’s a full majority! And purely by coincidence, all of them are Republicans! :D

…alright, obviously it’s not fun. I can’t believe the audacity some people have to act surprised and offended when people say the Court is illegitimate.

It was the response from a lot of people to COVID precautions that made me realize that a disturbing number of people are completely lacking in empathy, and don’t even understand it as a concept. They’re the people who truly did not understand why a person who isn’t at personal risk of complications would still do thinks like distance, wear a mask, or get vaccinated, because most of the benefits involve stopping the spread to others.

This is exactly the same thing. Not only do they not care about other people, they genuinely do not understand the others do.

I hate how relevant this question is in so many situations.

Yet again.

That user is basing their position on a Daily Mail article citing LePoint, a french right-wing magazine, that quotes one of her trainers, who said (with context) “There was a problem with her hormones and chromosomes, but she’s a woman. That’s all that mattered to us.”

Nowhere does that even suggest she has XY chromosomes, and, to state the obvious, he’s not a doctor. He’s responding to an unsubstantiated allegation, and probably giving it too much credit. He even says that she underwent a testosterone test that came back within female norms.

It really is simple. The burden of proof is on people making these claims, and we’re not taking the word of a blatantly corrupt organization, that had a vested interest in disqualifying Khelif, who would not say what test was administered or what the results were. If they had more specific information, they wouldn’t shut up about it, because won’t even shut up now with less to go on.

Fair point. I just don’t like the move, and don’t want to support a company doing it. Even putting that aside, it really makes me worried that they’re at the point that they’re trying to ride on their reputation while increasing profit margins. It makes me think that, if I buy their newer models, they’re more likely to cheap out but charge more.

It’s about PROTECTING WOMEN! And if I have to hurt a bunch of women to protect them from hypothetical scenarios I made up to demonize trans people, so be it!

Same. I’ve been thinking of replacing the cheap immersion circulator we have, and was going to go with Anova. This blatant enshittification is enough to make me look elsewhere.

From the same folks who were just calling Kamala Harris a “DEI pick.”

As an Innuendo Studios video put it, it’s “last hired, first fired.”

The fascinating thing about this is that, in context… it’s still fucking weird, but for different reasons.

He’s technically joking about how it makes you transition, saying it’s a claim he heard from “scientists.” So he wants to call men women as a misogynistic insult, but also to poke fun at the concept of scientific study. It’s wrong to distinguish between gender and sex as part of evidence-based medicine and basic conscientiousness. It’s cool and good if you’re doing it to be a dick, though. He’s got to police gender roles, but also insist that they are completely immutable based on your sex.

What a creepy weirdo.

My favorite part was that Vance, supposedly, wrote about it in Hillbilly Elegy. Reading the book would easily solve the issue once and for all, but no one wanted to.

It’s also why the AP article was retracted. They could obviously prove that it’s not in the book, but like you said, it would be impossible to prove that he never, at any point in his life, when no one was around, fucked a couch.

…but also, the AP article didn’t even involve reading the book. They just used Ctrl+F on key terms because, again, no one wants to actually read that book.

For sure, and it is absolutely true.

I just like “weird” because it only works one way. For people who value individuality and diversity, it doesn’t necessarily have a negative connotation. For people who value conformity, it’s a devastating insult. Apparently Ben Shapiro went on Megyn Kelly’s show to cry about it, which is great.

Yeah, that’s true.

It’s just that based on prior arguments I’ve had, they’re just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It’s partly that they’re advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.

If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance’s could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.

I am perfectly happy with how I presented myself, actually. And I think you also revealed a lot about yourself, too. If you’re happy with what that is, then that’s all there is to it.

I do think it’s worth pointing out that the thing that really seemed to set you off was asking you the same question you asked me. I answered it easily, and you took great offense while hurling insults and misrepresenting positions I’ve already put down in words. Why should I get into the facts when you don’t really care about the facts, or what I have to say?

If the question of whether Israel killing civilians is bad (not even unjustified, not even criminal, just bad) bothers you… maybe that’s a good thing. I certainly have no problem supporting Palestine while condemning Hamas, or supporting Jews while condemning Israel. It’s possible you just didn’t want to voice an unpopular position, but maybe it bothers you that you can’t say “yes, it’s bad.” If that’s the case, keep pulling on that thread. I think you could use some self-reflection, especially given this last post. I’m sorry, but this was a lot of the pot calling the kettle black.

I sincerely hope you have a better tomorrow. I know you’re angry and frustrated, but I hope you can find peace and understanding.

Alright.

Firstly, I think a lot of how you’re framing the pro-Palestine protests is either unfair or inaccurate. That’s not to say that you are being unfair or inaccurate, but the sources where you get your information might be. (I will agree that antisemitism is on the rise, and demands a response. I just see more of it from the right, even from Zionists who either want to remove diasporic Jews or support a model of an ethnostate). So, if you don’t draw a distinction between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas, there’s no conversation to be had, because we’re not really dealing with what protestors do, say, or believe. While you compared this to MAGA, it’s the exact same rhetoric used by MAGA to attack BLM, which itself mirrored the rhetoric used against the Civil Rights Movement.

But it’s also not worth getting into the weeds unless we can find some common ground, so I’d like to ask you the same question again: Is it bad when Israel kills civilians?

So Hamas killing civilians is a bad thing too?

Yes, obviously. Why do you ask? Since you asked, I may as well ask, is Israel killing civilians a bad thing?

Gonna start calling out people showing support for Hamas at protests?

Sure, if you see them, kick them to the curb. Do you agree that there’s a difference between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas?

It’s extremely frustrating to hold the apparently controversial opinion that killing civilians is, consistently, a bad thing.