Nonbinary folks are in a unique position to comment on the definition of “being a man” or “being a woman”.
I imagine that it is kinda like asking a person who is mixed race (white and black) about their view on racism in America. At some point in time, a mixed race person finds a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that occurs when discussing race, since they have family members they love on both sides of the spectrum.
Depends on who you’re talking to. For people who are egotistical and lack introspection, I agree with you. For people who are humble and critical of their own thoughts and behavior, then being blunt can be helpful because it initiatives the cognitive dissonance.
Unfortunately, the Gen Z’ers who are falling for this manosphere bullshit are likely egotistical, so may be it would be better to not be blunt. These guys obviously don’t do to well with cognitive dissonance; hence why they’d rather believe that cisgendered “manly” men are the victims rather than accept a different (and more correct) model of reality.
Communists don’t have a monopoly on “the left”. There are socialist liberals who also fought for these things, not just communists.
There was a time when “centrists” were largely Republican. Many of them have jumped ship due to Trumpism, so they are now part of the very mixed coalition that is the Democratic Party. Problem is we were so focused on fighting each other that we forgot to fight the fascist fucks on the other side of the aisle.
I mean, it works with the Republican campaign, why didn’t work for the Democrats campaign? Literally, Trump spent most of his campaign demonizing the other side.
That’s what irks me about the “Harris lost because she ran a terrible campaign” argument. The reality is, Trump ran a far worse campaign. In the final months, the dude was up on stage saying stuff that made medical physicians think he was mentally declining. The guy wasn’t forming sentences, and he was talking about the size of some dudes dick.
We have all of these people trying to explain Harris’s failure without also recognizing the campaign that Trump ran. This is not a genuine way of analyzing the results of this election. The reality is Harris’s campaign had some blunders, but the Trump campaign had far more major blunders in comparison; but he still won. I would like to know how that happened…
Okay, this notion is just incorrect. Harris, during her time as senator, was one of the most left leaning senators out of all Democrats. Her votes almost completely aligned with Bernie Sanders.
Was misogyny THE reason Harris loss, probably not; but it definitely played a meaningful role. During the campaign race, there were a lot of information being pushed to American citizens. It was up to us to process the information and choose what to believe and what to throw away. Post-election, we are learning that people were judging Harris based on false premises. Americans were willing to believe a lot of bullshit about Harris, whereas Trump got the opposite treatment: Americans willingfully ignored terrible truths about Trump. I think misogyny played a role in defining this difference in how we treated information regarding each candidates.
The irony: This is basically what we have. When it comes to action, as senators, Kamala and Bernie voted the same way on most issues. Obviously, they are not the same people, but their viewpoints led to more or less the same voting actions.
You realize that you’re currently being con’d. Netanyahu wants Trump to win the presidential election, because he knows Trump will be friendly towards his genocidal actions. Netanyahu is doing everything in his power to extend this genocide so that he can stay in power; and so that he can keep single issue voters like you away from the polls.
Netanyahu knows that if he ended Israel’s genocide before the election, the Biden administration would receive credit in playing a role in mediating the conflict. This would likely assure a Harris victory. By escalating the conflct, he is assisting Trump. Why would you think that this genocidal maniac is doing this?
So here you are, the single issue voter that is tuning out all of the other important issues. For example, Trump considers communist (all you genius tankies) some of the biggest enemies in the USA; or how Trump backers and policymakers wants to remove women’s right to make decisions about their bodies.
Do I believe that Biden/Harris has done enough to help Palestinians? The answer is no. Do I believe Biden/Harris feels like Netanyahu and the Israeli government are in the wrong? Yes. Do I believe Trump feels like Israel is in the wrong? No.
So even if this is your single issue, as an American living thousands of miles from Israel, your best way to assist Palestinians right now is to put someone in the Whitehouse who at least views them as human-beings. By not voting or voting third-party, you’re not helping anyone but yourself. You are doing it so you don’t need to “feel bad” about crossing some morale boundary.
Listen man, if that’s the route you want to go, then fine. But I’m gonna go ahead and waltz my sorry butt to the polls and cast my vote for the person who will more likely do something to assist Palestinians even if I feel like I’m crossing a moral boundary. Am I gonna feel good doing it? No. But it’s the better decision to make, especially considering all the other important issues that surround this election beyond the Palestinian genocide.
From your description, it sounds like you are an Agnostic Atheist. It takes some faith to be an Atheist. Personally, I agree with your points, so I’d be more of an Agnostic Atheist too; but I am somewhat convinced that science has decent evidence which disproves the old and new testament god. I believe our scientific understanding of our universe suggests god would not give a shit whether it was worshipped and it would not be some moral judge. It’s consciousness (if we can even call it that) would be so far beyond what humans could comprehend that our puny human morales and ethical dilemmas would be irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, I still think human morales and ethics are important, because us Agnostic Atheists don’t need the fear of divine retribution to do the right thing.
Thank you for sharing your beliefs in such detail. I appreciate it. Sorry to hear about your experience with those forcing their religion on you due to being transgendered. I am cisgendered, but I like to consider myself an ally. I have a lgbtq+ flag flying in my classroom (I’m a teacher) and I already had to give a student a stern talk for telling me that “god loves you” after looking at my flag
I agree with this sentiment, but Christianity is partly defined by “spreading the word of god”. So “telling people what to believe” is par for the course (think missionaries).
Curious though, why do you not refer to yourself as atheist? Non-religious is actually not very specific. Non-religious can mean Agnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, or Atheist.
Wasn’t it dragon age 2 where the level design got super repetitive though? It felt like they kept reusing the same exact level design in ways that didn’t really make sense.
The reality is: if you don’t understand why providing “white” scholarships is very different from providing “people of color” scholarships, then you don’t have a full understanding of how Racism manifests in America. This is a fundamental thing you will need to work to better understand before a discussion of this topic can be useful.
Nevertheless, you are correct that not every white person in America take advantage of generational wealth, but this is besides the point. The fact is Black Americans have been in this country for 400 years and the community is still disproportionately impoverished, whereas there are a lot of European/Asian immigrants who have been here for much less time and they are much better off. You kind of make this observation in your response, but missed the implications it has on how Racism rewards certain demographics.
By this metric, one can argue that we currently “misuse” a lot of words in the English language, but the reality is language evolves. Think about how the definition of “nice” has evolved from meaning “ignorant or stupid” in the 1300s to it’s current meaning.
Project Zomboid. Feels like a Sims game with zombie and great survival elements. Arguably, the best zombie survival game to hit the market. Supports split screen couch co-op.
It’s not totally subjective, because they define a way to measure an athletes performance objectively. It’s also a bit ironic because gymnastics could also be quite subjective too. Ultimately the judges and the athletes are aware of how everything is being scored, and the athletes plan their routines around how highly they can score on this rubric.
The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.
FSR exists, and FSR 3 actually looks very good when compared with DLSS. These arguments about raytracing and DLSS are getting weaker and weaker.
There are still strong arguments for nvidia GPUs in the prosumer market due to the usage of its CUDA cores with some software suites, but for gaming, Nvidia is just overcharging because they still hold the mindshare.
I’ve noticed that words that are considered “profanity” tend to be vernacular words that express negative emotions (pain, anger, frustration, etc). The fact that these words are considered profane seems a bit unhealthy, because it limits our ability to verbally express how we are feeling internally. Nevertheless, I think some people might use these words too often. If one is cursing every other word all the time, then it’s a bit like “crying wolf” once they use it when they’re actually experiencing a strong negative emotion.
I was engaging with a collective in the US, and they seemed to be wishing for a global revolution; so excommunication would not be an option like the Kulaks unless the idea is to remove them from Earth.
I guess I can’t judge all collectives when I only engaged with one (go figure, right). I appreciate you taking the time to share information with me. It was enlightening.
I appreciate you sharing the model of god suggested by Orthodox Christians, but I fail to see how this information alleviates the Paradox.Could you present your information in a way that relates to the Paradox? I am discussing with good faith, so I am actually curious how a person who believes the Christian model of god would find a way to solve this Paradox.
This being said, I do have some questions and comments regarding your statements.
If god has already defeated evil through Christ, then why is evil so prevalent today, even among those who worship him? God would rather damn people to burn in hell for eternity for doing evil than remove evil from the universe all together? To me, this is, in and of itself, an evil course of action which puts to question god’s goodness.
I am not sure if I am understanding you here. If evil is the absence of good, then does this mean that evil and good cannot coexist? In other words, can an action be both evil and good, or does every action fit in a bucket of either good or evil?
As for your final statement regarding how god is good and without god, neither good or evil can exists: I can’t help but relate this to the concept in Eastern Philosophy of ying and yang. Not sure if you are familiar with it, but the basic premise is that when you have two opposite concepts (for example, good and evil), one cannot exist without the other. For instance, if we lived in a universe that was only “good” then “good” would not exist, because without “evil” then there doesn’t exist a concept of “good”. In other words, if everything is “good” then the concept of “good” is irrelevant.
Reading your closing statement and relating it to ying/yang made me think that it kind of goes both ways. If god is good, then evil must exist for god to exist, since evil must be present for good to be present.
This is precisely what puts them in a unique perspective.