They’re physickers not languagers.

Let’s do that. The annex thing.

Did you not type it out? Could have sworn I copy/pasted it directly from the contextual post.

However, sarcasm is when you mean the opposite or at least not exactly what you’re saying. In this case you’d be misquoting at best, mocking at worst, except! You then attacked the misrepresentation, and at that point made it a strawman argument.

Another fun fact, walking back a previous statement by claiming sarcasm or joking can be considered a form of backpedaling.

At this point you may want to get a thesaurus, yourself.

Oh? Did you not know how to use that one either?

Cherry picking only applies if I’m presenting a select portion of data to support my argument/narrative. In this case I’m not arguing for or against anything, so no, that isn’t an example of cherry picking.

I’m just sharing knowledge in the hope of lifting the people around me.

If you’re using logical fallacies intentionally or ironically as some kind of performance piece, by all means continue.

Hi.

I don’t like using logical fallacies in arguments because I’m a strong believer in rhetoric and conversation. But I’m so fed up with the over-use of “strawman” lately so I’m hopping in to point out that :

“waaaa everything I don’t like is bigotry”

Is, in fact, a strawman argument. Since I’ve noticed other places in these comments where you use the term incorrectly. In this case you’ve exaggerated and stripped away any nuance in order to argue against the point you fabricated instead of the point that was made.

And:

“Until that gets through your thick thick skull”

Is an ad hominem attack because you’re attempting to discredit their argument based on a quality unrelated to the point being made, in this case the thickness of their skull.

He looks smug as hell.

I mean, they are real. Just soft and fuzzy. Thank you! I was inspired by tryptophobia.

Thanks! That’s exactly what I was going for.

One of the most beautifully written novels I’ve ever read.

What, lol.

My post was about how I’m not attracted to it.

You might want to stop conducting gender studies at bars.

Please, show me your psych degree from the university of 4Chan.

Thank you.

Mostly decorative. I have a series of pouches on my walls for desk items and sometimes put LEDs in them for soft lighting, but the majority of what I make is for fun— Aside from the three hundred cat toys hiding under every piece of furniture.

I know and understand where it comes from, but I don’t want to deal with it in a partner.

The chainsaw thing was absolutely because I’m a chick and representative of his overall attitude toward me that evening. Asking if I’d used a chainsaw would have been appropriate, or a quick rundown on starting/stopping would have been fine.

Basically, I ask myself if he would have said the same thing in the same way to a man. I’ve worked on enough jobsites to know that no, that doesn’t happen.

I was like this when I started dating. Popular media and family impacted how I viewed love and relationships, so accustomed to living with controlling narcissists I didn’t understand what healthy affection looked like.

My first relationships were nightmares with similar people who reinforced those ideas. If I was approached by someone with a healthy, balanced mindset, I wouldn’t know what to do with them.

Which is not to provide a solution, but rather some insight. In a sense it’s a good thing you recognize a toxic situation before it begins, in another sense it can be lonely and frustrating, and I can commiserate from the other side

This is beautifully shaded and full of emotion. The overall design is fantastic, really captivating.

Creative, fun and encouraging. Emotionally mature, respectful, and commited to ongoing self improvement. Everything else is peripheral, but bonus points for writers and artists who are into pc gaming and technology.

My biggest issue has been men socialized with some kind of bias against women, who don’t examine their need to protect and try to make decisions for me. I’m pansexual but lean toward people with dicks.

I learned how to use power tools when I was seven, I’m mechanically inclined, and built my own PC at eighteen. There are an unfortunate number of men who will start a conversation with me from a place of condescension. The last date I went on, he showed me his chainsaw, I asked to try it out and what he said started with “Okay, well it can be a little scary at first because it’s loud…” Another guy told me I was cracking eggs wrong when I made breakfast. I used to be a head chef.

I assumed your closing paragraph was the summary of your take, as you built an argument on how aggressive censorship is turning the world into a “fisher price paternalistic dystopia.” You described personal anecdotes about over-moderation and purported that limiting free expression could stifle ideas. In response, I debated that moderation and censorship are required to safeguard free expression for voices that might not be heard.

This latest controversy with Bluesky is part of an ongoing issue with moderation, where users want Jesse Singal banned, a journalist who publicly supports free speech and open sharing of ideas while harassing anyone who criticizes him behind the scenes. Bluesky users say he circumvented their blocks with screenshots of their posts, where he makes rebuttals they can’t see, exposing their user names when he’s well aware many of his followers are bloodhounds. A number of journalists critical of him have said he has either tried to sue, smear their reputations, or get them fired. This relates to my point on parodox of tolerance— which is not true, because a concept can’t be true or false, it just describes the phenomenon at the basis for this controversy.

About the original statements: Bluesky’s response was condescending without adressing the issue. Yes, Jay Graber has championed users ability to curate their experience, but in practice their moderation has been lacking with regard to racism and transphobia while others have been banned or had critical posts deleted when they don’t violate the TOS. For instance, after Charlie Kirk, when people celebrated his death without calling for violence. Thus, why I brought up the disproportionate views on cancel culture.

With regard to your opinion on gender dysphoria, I did read the messages you were banned for. As for English not being your native tongue, while I understand the struggle, I can only respond to what you say.

No one is disagreeing that gender dysphoria can have a neurological cause. It’s just weird to point it out and suggest it hasn’t been researched thoroughly enough, when transexuality was considered a mental disorder for most of it’s history. Only recently have more factors been uncovered as research teams look for a broader understanding. So, while you may have have researched it, I don’t believe you’ve done a very good job of it.

An edit because you brought up ADHD: This is a great analogy in favor of early gender affirming care because, while ADHD is neurological, it can’t be cured and can only be managed.

Cancel culture is relevant to the discussion about free speech and censorship.

A strawman argument is when someone fabricates a persona for someone, and debates that false idea instead of addressing the argument being made.

Most of my comment was about how maximizing free speech for all participants in a community will inevitably require limiting free speech for some.

But, instead of addressing that, you’re talking about the definition of nazis and an overreach on moderation. I’m only saying moderation is required, not that I agree with all censorship.

Nor did I say calling transexuality a neurological trait invalidates it, I was clarifying what it means to have a neurological condition because the way you talk about it leads me to believe you haven’t done very much research on the subject.

To bring you up to speed, transexuality was previously considered a mental health disorder until a better understanding led to its reclassification as gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. Gender dysphoria is an umbrella term, and results from a number of different known causes, any combination of psychological, hormonal, neurological and genetic. Research on the subject is ongoing with recent broader acceptance, including neurological studies. PubMed has a few at least. You can look those up for yourself if the subject interests you.

Edit: It’s not my paradox of free speech, it’s a well known philosophical concept. Here’s some links.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/#ConTolPar

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415463/

All community spaces will eventually have to deal with the paradox of free speech, where maximizing free and open expression will result in less diverse opinions when minority voices are drowned out by people who invalidate them.

Keeping black people out of media, women out of trades, or homosexuals out of the military, are never called cancel culture — the label seems to only apply when silencing a racist/homophobe/misogynist/transphobe.

And, the human experience is neurological. A neurological condition is still a physical condition because our brains are physical things that control our bodies.

Also, checked the modlog. To quote you:

You’re misrepresenting the situation a little I think.