I mean, bad faith? There is already, and has been, war and migration due to fossil fuel dependence. So, this is their rhetorical endgame?
I take the message that global warming is now such a huge concern for most people, that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep clinging on fossil fuels.
Oh shit, Number 5 could be a good fit to be attacked by the racists looking for academic fraud. If only he wasn't Aryan, ehm I meant "white". /bitter sarcasm
Two fallacies in just one paragraph. The state does not have a monopoly of legal violence. Other entities are also entitled to legal violence. One example is self-defense, or laws that call for citizens to defend the constitution. I also wonder, what on earth even is legal violence? Police brutality is not legal to start with. This whole concept is thought terminating.
Then this person attacks the distinction of powers. It might be a facade, but it is still a leap to say that there is no difference between overtly controlling everything and gaming the system to extract gain. There is corruption as a crime, with some bad guys ending up in jail by the judicial system. Then there is accepting corruption as part of life and saying that one flavor of corruption is better than the other.
His argument here is "there is no need for guardrails, because everything is doomed to be corrupt, so it is all about which class enjoys the corruption". Well, classes are not inherent in people, and if a "working class corrupted state" enjoys corruption, it is now the ruling class, and it should be taken down too.
In its verbal reduction and cognitive sleigh of hand an we say that this is some authoritarian pattern of thinking itself. The great teacher of which is of course Lenin. "The State and Revolution" has informed both content and form of this argument, but I think is for the better part persuasive fallacy, designed to attack the possibility of anarchist collectivism.
On that account, it is similar to fascism, which was also invented to control the rise of widespread anarchist unions in the 1920s.
This is just from the top of my head, but I suppose that it goes back to first principles: gender essentialism is a key ideology organizing society and extending to sexism, homophobia, genderism and transphobia. Then gender essentialism dictates broad sets of behaviors that are based on cisgender and heterosexual expectations, including sex temperament.
It may not come up often, but as long as it is visible as a distinct "thing" then it can get you in trouble. A cis-passing trans person might not get everyday harassment etc, but that does not mean there is no murderous transphobia. Similarly, a demisexual cis man can get in trouble because not being enthusiastic about women can have him pegged as gay etc, so he has to pretend he is consumed by sex drive to fit it. Then there is all the social BS asexual people get which includes negative stereotypes (like being repressed latent homosexuals and/or SA survivors) and overall diminishing their voice, like "it must be ...anything else" except for you not genuinely want sex or being attracted to people of any gender.
There might not be pogroms against asexual people, but that doesn't mean there is not invisibility and discrimination once you scratch the surface. It can go as far as life and family benefits that are structured around the expectation that people get sexually and romantically involved, form core families, bring up kids. Not only parents and relatives might get nosy if you are not dating or have a family by a certain age, but there might be salary and welfare adjustments that also make these assumptions.
Being asexual is connected to the main oppressions queer and trans people face and there is no reason to take asexual oppression less seriously than sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, because it is interacting with those.
they are told all the time that "cis-phobia" is just as big of a deal or a bigger deal than transphobia
This is mind-blowingly stupid. These people did not know the term cis three years ago, not even in the context of organic chemistry, and now it's a bigger problem that transphobia.
even widespread abuse that can influence thousands, is nothing compared to the physical attack and complete disregard of how terrifying it is for your home to be invaded by an aggressive group of self-righteous strangers
These two things are on the same side of the scale really (systemic oppression).
Dude's black and living in the USA, so the chance he gets murdered in his own home despite being innocent is also incredibly high.
The same is true for trans women. Very high chance of getting murdered especially when black.
a far worse crime than continuing to promote a harmful rhetoric about women who look more masc than the socially defined
We talk about very well defined anti-trans genocidal tropes here, WTF are you babbling about, watering it down like this?
I mean, bad faith? There is already, and has been, war and migration due to fossil fuel dependence. So, this is their rhetorical endgame?
I take the message that global warming is now such a huge concern for most people, that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep clinging on fossil fuels.
Oh shit, Number 5 could be a good fit to be attacked by the racists looking for academic fraud. If only he wasn't Aryan, ehm I meant "white". /bitter sarcasm
Two fallacies in just one paragraph. The state does not have a monopoly of legal violence. Other entities are also entitled to legal violence. One example is self-defense, or laws that call for citizens to defend the constitution. I also wonder, what on earth even is legal violence? Police brutality is not legal to start with. This whole concept is thought terminating.
Then this person attacks the distinction of powers. It might be a facade, but it is still a leap to say that there is no difference between overtly controlling everything and gaming the system to extract gain. There is corruption as a crime, with some bad guys ending up in jail by the judicial system. Then there is accepting corruption as part of life and saying that one flavor of corruption is better than the other.
His argument here is "there is no need for guardrails, because everything is doomed to be corrupt, so it is all about which class enjoys the corruption". Well, classes are not inherent in people, and if a "working class corrupted state" enjoys corruption, it is now the ruling class, and it should be taken down too.
In its verbal reduction and cognitive sleigh of hand an we say that this is some authoritarian pattern of thinking itself. The great teacher of which is of course Lenin. "The State and Revolution" has informed both content and form of this argument, but I think is for the better part persuasive fallacy, designed to attack the possibility of anarchist collectivism.
On that account, it is similar to fascism, which was also invented to control the rise of widespread anarchist unions in the 1920s.
A principle of historical research: a timeline can impose structure on a mess of data and reveal the meaning.
2000s: A number of introvert boys with special interests assure you that Playing a Female Character in DnD is OK and Means Nothing.
2020s: Most of them are women now, Looking the Other Way when memes like this come up in the feed.
This will be remembered as Trump's prophecy, and historians will discuss why it wasn't taken seriously before a big bad thing happened.
The SA used to be a gay thing until the Night of Long Knives.
That'd be conversion therapy. You're still thinking of sex-change traps, missing the point.
The original purpose of sex-change traps was to induce dysphoria to cisgender characters.
"Open URL" in smplayer works consistently. AFAIK it exposes your IP to YouTube, so (I might add) smplayer behind a VPN.
At least in the mobile the SABR problems others mention can be solved by a setting: Choose legacy instead of DASH formats in Player.
This is just from the top of my head, but I suppose that it goes back to first principles: gender essentialism is a key ideology organizing society and extending to sexism, homophobia, genderism and transphobia. Then gender essentialism dictates broad sets of behaviors that are based on cisgender and heterosexual expectations, including sex temperament.
It may not come up often, but as long as it is visible as a distinct "thing" then it can get you in trouble. A cis-passing trans person might not get everyday harassment etc, but that does not mean there is no murderous transphobia. Similarly, a demisexual cis man can get in trouble because not being enthusiastic about women can have him pegged as gay etc, so he has to pretend he is consumed by sex drive to fit it. Then there is all the social BS asexual people get which includes negative stereotypes (like being repressed latent homosexuals and/or SA survivors) and overall diminishing their voice, like "it must be ...anything else" except for you not genuinely want sex or being attracted to people of any gender.
There might not be pogroms against asexual people, but that doesn't mean there is not invisibility and discrimination once you scratch the surface. It can go as far as life and family benefits that are structured around the expectation that people get sexually and romantically involved, form core families, bring up kids. Not only parents and relatives might get nosy if you are not dating or have a family by a certain age, but there might be salary and welfare adjustments that also make these assumptions.
Being asexual is connected to the main oppressions queer and trans people face and there is no reason to take asexual oppression less seriously than sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, because it is interacting with those.
Suggesting Jordan Peterson as someone who "earnestly tried to respond to the question".
They realized that their previous strategy does not work. Now they desperately need the vote of the most desperate constituents.
The double standards show. No one could state the same thing about rampant anti-trans hatred in the UK without facing significant backlash.
The rendering of Rowling as a man looks like ...Ben Shapiro with more of an eyebrow.
Emphasis placed wisely
See what you did wrong there? You are about to do it again!
Oh dear, I saw that.
And immediately looked away.
This is mind-blowingly stupid. These people did not know the term cis three years ago, not even in the context of organic chemistry, and now it's a bigger problem that transphobia.
These two things are on the same side of the scale really (systemic oppression).
The same is true for trans women. Very high chance of getting murdered especially when black.
We talk about very well defined anti-trans genocidal tropes here, WTF are you babbling about, watering it down like this?