_NoName_

Y’all are reading this as feminist? It’s literally an observation by some chicks on twitter, not some kind of feminist rhetoric.

Feminism is currently more preoccupied with dismantling the gender binary entirely, not reinforcing stereotypes like in this twitter post.

I’ve never had a wife, nor a daughter, so I can’t really say much about how forgiving they are. If this doesn’t match your lived experience, stop giving a fuck and move on.

Also Freetube has these features.

I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a ‘good guy with a gun’ stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.

This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it’s needed for that case.

They’re saying that if someone tries to attack you with a knife (or even no weapon), pro-gun proponents argue you should have a right to a firearm to defend yourself against that attacker, citing that most people straight up do not have the physical ability to ward off the attacker (who is on average an adult man).

This issue is solely the fault of capitalism. By removing choice you are forced to by a more premium product, but you’re advertised it by all the supposed benefits: one less external opening on the phone, no more tangled headphones, no more dealing with headphones that only work when the cord is plugged in just right, no more chance of your headphone port going bad.

They skip over the fact that most of these issues are directly problematic because of cost cutting and designed obsolescence (aka engineered lifetimes). The opening is one thing, but headphones tangle in pockets easily because they use such thin flimsy cords. Same thing goes for cords breaking in the lining and only working at certain angles: a more robust cord would be less prone to issues.

On top of this, the entire designs of phones not having repairability in mind is the only reason that a headphone port breaking is a big deal. If they were designed to be disassembled with replacement parts being readily available, it wouldn’t be an issue. They could even make the ports more robust to decrease failure rate.

Got a bad run this time - all idiots. Gotta reroll I guess. Go get the blender back out.

Could I get an explanation on what’s happening in the gif? Is that on a train?

Was gonna say, it’s almost definitely a cost-savings measure.

Do the pieces look different or are they just called a different thing? Like what’s a ‘jumper’?

Answer provided by chatGPT /s

I’ll trust that’s true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.

Voter intimidation sounds exactly right here. Like he’s telling his voters to stay away so anyone they attack is probably a non-follower of his

I mean, I think alittle? Not because of the reasons you think, though, and it’s not really ‘your fault’. More of a pitfall that most people fall into.

TLDR: ditch the apps and try to get out into more social situations through clubs and sports. The ‘right one’ will come along when you are more socially able an mm you’ll likely make friends along the way (genuine friends are WAY more important for staying sane).

So, tinder specifically objectifies and compresses you into a blurb and some photos - it basically cans you for mass consumption. When you finally get ‘bought’, you only get a chat box to communicate unless you actually exchange contacts, and the whole thing’s kind of terrible in general because of that. I’ve tried bumble and it’s pretty much a similar thing.

There’s this thing sometimes called the ‘predator/prey relationship model’ by feminists, and dating apps explicitly reinforce this model, with the only minor change being that bumble required the woman to open the interaction. The predator/prey relationship makes it so that in our society, dudes are expected to go out, find a random woman they fancy, and ‘pounce’ them, essentially. Originally, this was quite literal if you have heard some stories of relationships starting in the 40s and 50s where a couple got together because the guy was just constantly unrelenting. This has shifted to being more egalitarian and consensual but still requires the guy to basically peacock to gain the woman’s approval. Once it officially becomes a relationship, the woman is expected to be submissive while the man is expected to be dominant. It’s a pretty old-fashioned relationship style that still affects modern dating today. Some folks even still subscribe to it.

The better model that I think is more natural is to just go out and find new friends and groups I can participate in. This way, anyone you might date sees you in more context. You get more practice being social, which can be helpful in actually getting someone to become attracted to you, at which point they might actually start putting in effort.

I don’t see much problem with this. It’s one thing to advocate for everyone having greater freedoms to form non-heteronormative-style relationships, and an entire other thing to necessarily want that for yourself. That’s what Feminism is about after all, a broadening of accepted lifestyles and freedoms - not necessarily a complete shift to a paradigm that prohibits the previous one. In this kind of case, it just sounds like you are discovering up front that you two are not seeking the same type of relationship, which is good to find out early.

It’s kind of like advocating for a bike lane in your city despite you not biking and having no interest in biking. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite for not using freedoms you advocate for.

My understanding is that infant labiaplasty and other female genital cosmetic surgeries are pretty common as well in western countries. Luckily there is a growing protest to these practices on ethical grounds, since they’re all medically unnecessary surgeries performed on babies that can’t consent to it.

This journal publication seems to put it into perspective decently. It also points out some of the racist hypocrasy surrounding it, like how we classify these actions being done by non-western cultures as ‘mutilation’ which is unlawful, while classifying ones aligned with our own culture as ‘cosmetic’ and still allow them.

I think it’s kind of hilarious some of the insanely close conclusions some ancient philosophers got to being correct.

For example, Xenophanes observed that there were fossils of fish and shells, and correctly concluded that Greece was at one point underwater. He also had a bunch of insane claims on top of that, but the underwater part was correct.

His teacher, Anaximander actually said humans came from fish, which is hilariously close to correct despite the incorrect reasoning.

Empedocles is probably the most interesting. He concluded that humans and animals originated from these disembodied organs, which found each other and would form wholes. The catch was that many weird forms came about, like people with heads in the center of their bodies, and any other creation you can think of from just slapping animal organs together. He asserted that the forms which were unfit for life died out, leaving only the ones which worked to continue living. Empedocles almost describes a concept adjacent to multicellular organisms forming from single-celled symbiotic relationships (obviously Empedocles didn’t know about bacteria or cell theory), and then goes on to pretty accurately describe the mechanisms of natural selection.

Yeah, it’s called a Widlerizer.

The process of collective disarming is the path towards growing past war. And that first step is the collective banning of manufacturing such weapons.

So we’re still in a limbo period with nothing actually on the market.

I know you’re correct, since there are now solid state batteries on the market which outperform liquid-electrolyte LiPo batteries, but just stating “we’re at the tipping point” without dropping any link as evidence makes your claim very unconvincing.