The article at the Guardian about sex dolls
6 days ago by FlippyKing to /s/GenderCriticalGuys from self.GenderCriticalGuys
The Twitter account "Absolut Queer @1queer1" just spams the same tweet over & over using gender critical hashtags, I've reported & muted them (link in the body) by SnowAssMan in GenderCriticalGuys
[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 6 days ago (0 children)
So long as twitter and reddit make using their web sites hell for women and for people who believe in physical reality, such people should just not use their websites and patronize other ones. We're here on SaidIt because of that. No need to give traffic twitter.
Are there any other Men (preferably Gay) who do not buy into the Trans Ideology as a whole? by Kai_Decadence in GenderCriticalGuys
Not gay, but I do not think "trans gender" is an actual thing in any real sense. If gender is a social construct then I need not ever think about it beyond that statement. "Identities" are BS I think also and "I identify as ..." is an empty phrase. As Popeye said, I ams what I ams. By making abstractions out of realities, by making identities out of traits or behaviors, we risk losing sight of reality. This leads to leagalism where the law as an abstract idea is enforced and not the specific wrong it was meant to address-- giving a ticket for jay walking when someone is avoiding a physical altercation, or charging someone with assault when it is self defense. The idea of not being a dick to guys in dresses an idea meant to address a wrong, but the legalism version of it lets Yaniv in canada harass women in court over ball waxing. We are listed as male or female on drivers licences and such documents not because we are expressing any sense of our own identity but because the document is meant to make it easy for authorities to physically identify specifically who they are dealing with. It is about identifying someone else, not about anyone' silly inner sense of identity.
That time Hunter Biden got a six figure yearly retainer from a credit card company while Daddy Biden worked on major credit card legislation by Trulytimes in politics
[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 6 days ago (0 children)
That Hunter has to kick up to the old man, like it was a mafia family, makes a lot of sense.
Some evidence that some men can have "women's" brain by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun - 6 days ago (0 children)
It's a silly idea. Is it possible to find such similarities in brains between tims and actual women but not between other groups of men and actual women, such that this becomes a defining characteristic of what a woman is, and such that the genitals and reproductive function of their bodies will somehow not be the defining characteristic? Brains are very elastic, consider what brains of musicians or monks compared to the general population, and epigenetics shows that so much about the insides of our bodies can be changed. To make "man" and "woman" anything other than reproductive categories of people is just silly. These are not "identities", but physical realities.
Gender Critical opinion and advice: I don’t want Trump to win by TinyHonk in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 6 days ago (0 children)
"most historians" is obvious hyperbole, and what would they be judging it on? One would have to look at what and why they, each because there's no way the are saying it collectively when they can't agree on anything collectively, are saying specifically about why they make such an absurd statement. And it is absurd.
Trump pushed for and passed a criminal justice reform that everyone agrees was surprisingly progressive. Compare that to Bill Clinton who Michelle Alexander details how bad his presidency was on criminal justice. Trump has not invaded any new countries, making his presidency better of foreign policy than both Clinton-- who invented "humanitarian bombing"-- and Bush who literally lied us into a war in Iraq which: destabilized the entire region, created a refugee crisis that is still reverberating in Europe and the middle east, destroyed historical treasures directly and indirectly, and sent oil prices through the roof for like a year where some people couldn't afford to even drive to work. Like it or not Trump's presidency is better than Bush's and Clinton's already both on criminal justice and on war. Obama expanded Bush's wars, and all credible evidence points to his funding of ISIS and ISIS-renamed groups to over-throw Syria and wage a war along with Turkey to stomp out Rojava. Trump had an early bombing campaign which was applauded by the media, where they literally called it being "presidential", but critics ie war-mongers complained it was intentionally ineffective and too limited to serve their purposes-- which are clearly centered around creating one specific pipeline through Syria that profits our oil companies while blocking another specific one that would profit Russia. If you want to cheer for our oil companies there, that's on you just be sure to enlist.
Trump was pushed to invade Iran, which would be a disaster, but instead he played stupid games with false-flag operations and let it all peter out into nothing, for now. Both Hillary and McCain talked about bombing Iran and Hillary even said she's willing to nuke them. We, as in the world, seriously dodged a bullet in 2016. Trump's overthrow of Bolivia most be compared to Obama's overthrow of Honduras, which Hillary took credit for. Honduras is still run by a military dictatorship and was a major source of the so-called caravan of immigrants or refugees walking through Mexico to bum-rush the border. Thanks, Obama. Bolivia by comparison just had a peaceful election where the CIA's puppet just congratulated the former finance minister who served under Evo Morales and who apparently was the mastermind of Bolivia's peaceful take over of their own natural resources. It remains to be seen if he will honor the contracts signed by the CIA's temporary president. On "monroe doctrine" related issues, Trump is clearly better than Obama.
On trade it is obvious: Trump is vastly superior to every president since perhaps Johnson, not because he's been great but because so many have been disasters. TPP and TTIP were both stopped dead in their tracks by his win. He is the first to even try to renegotiate NAFTA, something Clinton promised as he signed it even though all critics of NAFTA pointed out that he could just NEGOTIATE it better before pusing it through congress and signing it. He just simply lied to his party base about his intentions in the hopes they would not fight against it so hard.
Clinton was horrible on trade, but he was on different on it than GHW Bush would have been. GHW Bush tried to get "MFN" for China which the Democrats opposed and stopped. Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) went on PBS explaining how you don't reward human rights violators with trade deals. Then a year later and barely into Clinton's presidency he went back on PBS to explain how trade would lead to a more democratized China with better human rights. I think that was after Tienanmen Square. But the crack down on Hong Kong and the Uhygar enslavement and harvesting of organs has shown that was a bunch of lies meant to put money in the pockets of Wall St while killing our unions and allowing companies to just opt out of our environmental and labor protections by moving production. NAFTA created the mess in Juarez and the enviromental distruction along the boarder there. The damage done to Mexico by NAFTA is well documented. The Bushes and the Clintons and both party establishments share the blame for that.
GATT and WTO has also been a disaster. Country of origin labelings have been ruled in violation of the treaty, not by our courts but by a court created and maintained by corporations specifically to shoot down a country's attempt to regulate commerce in their own country. That you do not have a right any more to know what country your meat comes from, and thus what drugs kept the critter alive while he was living in probably piles of its own feces with no hope of an inspector even fining the operation, or that it is profitable to raise chickens here but ship them to China for "processing" and ship them back for sale, are just a couple of the absurdities of trade deals given to us by Clinton and proposed by Bush. Obama and GW Bush also passed similarly bad trade deals, but for our economy and for our industry and for our communities that need a tax base to pay for infrastructure upgrades, it was just kicking a dead man. Obama was pushing for TPP and TTIP, and Hillary would have passed them, and Biden will likely resurrect them. Trump is much better on trade than any of them.
Finally, the Equality Act will do, as I said above and you didn't counter at all, to women and girls what exploitative trade deals did to our manufacturing and to the global enviroment and to worker's rights.
Four more years is very little to pay to protect us from more of the same or any return to the "normalcy", described above, the Dems on the upper east or west side of Manhattan want to go back to. If Biden wins, you can see AOC, Jamal Bowman, and all the "squad" primaried and replaced well-behaved Wall St servants. If Biden wins you will never see a fair primary run by the Dems, which anyone fairly looking at the last two will admit is already a concept buried in the dust-bin of history. And you will elevate Harris, who might be worse than Joe much like Hillary's choosing Tim Kaine was meant to elevate yet another Wall St (in Virginia of all places) Dem who was against women's reproductive rights.
So, your idea that Trump is the worst in history is just silly. Russiagate? Aaron Mate showed it all to be lies. Crowd Strike themselves who pointed the finger at Russia had to admit that they had no actual evidence or reason to suspect Russia did anything to the DNC's servers. The tax returns just showed a charlatan like every rich bastard when we were promised it would show he was firmly in some unnamed Russian's pocket. Trump has done horrible things. That the Dems focus on none of them and make up lies shows you more about them than him.
The only sane choice is to vote Green or vote Trump and make the Dems come back in four years. The only reason we got to debate the Dems love for wars (thanks Tulsi), or their love for locking up pot-heads, or trade, or M4All is because the Dems lost. That's the big lesson from 2016: hand dems defeats and make them quit their addition to Wall St and war cold turkey. Four more years and a chance to do it all again is much better than handing Biden a win and perhaps never getting a chance fight for what is important. We already know what Biden will fight for, and it will make the song "Dude looks like a Lady" transphobic because under the law it will be "Bearded Lady looks like a Lady"
Abigail Shrier on Fox Nation #SaveWomensSports states plainly that "mediocre men are holding back women" while next to two mediocre men by FlippyKing in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 7 days ago (0 children)
Shrier does not look inTIMidated at all in that little clip, and she does not strike as someone who would be intimidated that way. The more I see and hear from her, the more thoroughly impressed I am actually. Rys is just not in Abigail's league as a presence or as a speaker or think, or if his boss at the university is to be believed, a writer. I think Ry's is less than a bully, a failed and fake bully probably.
[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 7 days ago (0 children)
The biggest issues that will be decided this election, as I see it, are the following:
1) passing the "equality" act where Democrats will do to women what their passing of the GOP's NAFTA and MFN for China and GATT did to unions, wages, and holding corporations to work-place and environmental protections.
2) the resurrection of trade deals like TPP and TTIP which I'm glad stopped being pushed by Trump's surprising election win 4 years ago.
3) When, if ever, the Dems might nominate someone who will end our endless wars renegotiate or end our existing exploitative trade deals, hold wall street and war criminals accountable, and not veto M4All. If Biden wins it may be twenty years before we can even try to topple the corporate control of the Democrats, judging by how long it has taken to fight the Wall St take over of the party in the 90s. He's all for fracking, locking up pot smokers who aren't named Hunter or Kamala, transing kids, endless wars, bad trade deals, eliminating sex-based rights, and vetoing M4All.
I lost this election long ago, just as I lost the 2016 election long before November of 2016. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and 2016 as I've voted Green most elections since Nafta passed. To see Dems scream about ending the Electoral college, the body that frees me to vote Green in my sadly Wall St Dem run state, really angers me. The Dems have "lesser eviled" themselves to a point where they simply are not the lesser evil, especially when we must consider that this comes down to 4 more years of one verses 8 or more years of them. If forced to choose between Trump or Biden, the choice for me is obivious. Biden winning will be a disaster. We will only get to fight this fight again if Biden loses. My only question is if I can vote Green again or not.
I have hated Trump since I first became aware of him, and growing up around New York, it is a lot longer than most people. But his presidency has not been as bad as we were told it would be, his uncouthness not withstanding. Russia Gate has been shown by Aaron Mate to be all lies, and the promise that his tax returns would show his fealty to Russian oligarchs has been admitted to be false by the same outlets who made the promise. They just buried that in the depths of the articles about his tax returns. The treatment of minors held in custody over immigration is a scandal our entire governmental apparatus should be shamed and impeached over. Judges seated above children and treating them as if they are their own competent representation, literal caging of children by both the Obama and Trump administration, and lawyers arguing against allowing children to even brush their teeth, shows that anarchists are right about government and the nature of law and authority much more than it says anything about the supposed differences between trump or obama or clinton or biden.
ACB will probably be bad on women's and worker's rights, but no nominee from Biden can be expected to be better. Biden has been willing to let Row v Wade be erased because he was willing to let it be up to the states-- that was the major aspect of what Row v Wade decided. The Dems really do not stand for anything good any more, and if they ever will it will only be if Biden loses. Maybe it is time, if he court really will be in the majority against women's reproductive rights, to fight that much harder for protections and resources for pre-natal care and for mothers and families. If we can fight for such protections and resources, maybe the "conservatives" will suddenly see the light on reproductive freedom. But this is now way of track from Biden v Trump
Abigail Shrier on Fox Nation #SaveWomensSports states plainly that "mediocre men are holding back women" while next to two mediocre men
10 days ago by FlippyKing to /s/GenderCritical from youtube.com
Nancy Pelosi Ends Nancy Pelosi's Career by Tarrock in politics
[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Wow, the salon owner's video is pretty powerful on its own. She's nearly in tears, as she low-key flips Pelosi the bird (good catch from the guy who made the youtube video).
Prof: If Dems Win In 2020, It Would Be "Virtually Impossible For Conservatives Ever To Win Again" by [deleted] in politics
[–]FlippyKing 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
I'm sorry, has anyone seen Biden's or Harris' record? They are as conservative as any republican has ever been. Pro-wall st, pro-business, let the market run our lives, hand everything over to corporations who claim expertise. This is Clinton (B or H) all over again: Conservatives, you won already.
I Stand With Sophie by gayposeidon in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
If we take the child's statements at face value, what non-violent options does the father have to protect the child from abuse? Sorry, but you have to put your self in that person's shoes before you can speculate about what they should or shouldn't do. At the very least no one seeing the video can say "wow, I had no way of even suspecting this was going on." The system in the case is obviously failing the child. What system? Probably many. Why is this down to which of these parents is custodian and why is this down to having to believe one side or the other? The system or systems in play here are not well reasoned and rely on authority and power not to solve the problem but to exert its own force upon the situation, and to try to wipe the internet of the child literally crying for help only helps those who abuse power.
How is the child expressing vulnerability bad? Should she get her act together and speak calmly? Should children be seen but not heard? You are blaming the victim, and even if nothing bad at all is happening to this child by the mother and her boyfriend and if it is the father pushing her to make up stories, regardless of what is exactly at play here, the child is obviously the victim. None of this is the child's fault. She has nothing to be ashamed of or feel guilty about. What ever the truth of the matter is, she can at least speak the truth about it and be proud of that and grow into the best person she can be. Silencing her will create more damage than letting her state how she feels. The judge is in fact silencing her, but not addressing her expressed fears and not addressing the alleged abuse. The difference between documenting her fears and not documenting it comes down to this: is no one on her side, or are some people in her side? Is this a case of an abuse of power, or is it a case of a system out of control with no accountability and no ability even to speak out and expose it? Is the kid and her father truly at the mercy, or lack there of, of the system or can people still us the public forum to shine light on abusive power? You are more concerned of the child's privacy as if the father is invading her privacy, than what she is alleging. What a mile in that kid's shoes and the father's shoes. If you still will insist on going along to get along with the judge's wishes then you might be the villain, playing the role of Eichmann, here.
[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
I don't think that is why the judge is doing it. The judge in some sense, maybe not a legalistic sense, is endangering that child and the judge's actions could be seen as hiding evidence of that. The judge needs to recuse because the appearance of a conflict of interest, in this case the interest of justice in the custody of the child and the interest of the judge's own role in the matter, are readily apparent. If the father is not a suitable "custodian" while these matters are sorted out, then I think the system is set up for a foster parent.
GC: Why isn't a vagina/clitoris a small penis and why isn't a penis a big vagina/clitoris? by Nohope in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 2 months ago (0 children)
I stated above a clit has a purpose. I'm not sure we're disagreeing. As for 'tits on a bull', as I said above: what ever gets you through the night. I'm more worried about the horns on a bull, or just their mass.
[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun - 2 months ago (0 children)
As Elton John and John Lennon sang: what ever gets you through the night.
[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - 2 months ago (0 children)
yes, absolutely despicable. I put a lot of stock into Caliban and the Witch by Sylvia Federici and see a major source of a lot of our current problems in the way we were divided and women were subjugated during the primitive accumulation phase of capitalism. But FGM is separate from all that, completely unrelated, and points to a much worse (or at least much broader) subjugation of women-- as does foot binding. Life could be celebrations but we end up with literal horror movies to live through.
[–]FlippyKing 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun - 2 months ago (0 children)
I've seen trans activists claim that a penis and a clitoris are the same thing, but the clitoris is an absolutely unique body part unlike anything on a man or any other part on a women because it is the only body part whose sole purpose is pleasure. A penis delivers pee and sperm, it has a purpose beside pleasure. Don't tell trans activists, and I hope they haven't read this far, but no one pees out a clitoris.
As for how a vagina is not a penis, well I fear anyone asking that question is probably a child and shouldn't be on the internet.
Adam Schiff Gets Away With Doxing High Profile Conservatives by scrubking in politics
[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 months ago (0 children)
Schiff is the congressman representing the CIA district of California, or am I mixing him up with some one else?
"Cancel culture cannot erase a strong argument" - Feminist Current by BenderRodriguez in GenderCriticalGuys
[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
at least you were succinct!
There's a trend here. You type a lot, use fuzzy terms and admit not having thorough data or anything, and end up saying nothing. Regardless of it being "frenzied cancelling" or not, you even in that sentence waste many words to say nothing.
I'd say we could just agree to disagree, but I'd be guessing really. I'm good. Technically, by sheer probability, it's probably true that saying nothing is wasting my time and yours. Good luck!
[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I feel like you dismissing the links as anecdotal while not wanting a source longer than 15 pages is self-contradictory. There are not so many variables, a few discrete sets of behavior seem readily discernible. Anyone trying to do any study objectively on any of these issues is "cancelled" and set up by a mob of trans activists and often doxxed if not threatened directly with violence.
In any event your reply walks back your initial comment quite a bit, so maybe you recognize that your initial comment is basically bogus.
[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
polite comments are considered threats by trans activists. I've not seen any actual threats directed at trans people, meanwhile the threats coming from them are staggering: https://terfisaslur.com/
Women, as in actual women, have been raped by transwomen, as in actual men identifying as women, in prison and many places. https://saidit.net/s/thisneverhappens/
Where as the actual violence against trans people is very low, so low that each documented event can be looked at directly without using statistics. Most, the vast majority, involve drugs and prostitution, and often the violence is initiated by a transwoman. I'll leave you to look up that if you want.
Joe Rogan Experience #1509 - Abigail Shrier - an author, journalist, and writer for the Wall Street Journal. Her new book "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters" is available now. by 1donteven in GenderCriticalGuys
So you avoid saidit's "Pyramid of debate" and go right for the dunce-cap of paranoid bullshit. You should read the book. No your nonsense is not in there, but it is a great book.
Cosmology, Anisotropy Maps & the Loss of Reason - Sky Scholar by Tom_Bombadil in space
[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
As much as I love his content, I love interviews with him because he is just so amazing. He's had an interesting life, he's had such staggering achievements, and he is just caring and compassionate person. Thanks for sharing this video.
Question for GC: Can you explain why a neopenis/phalloplasty is not a penis? If a man is something with a penis, then if a man removes all of his genitals in surgery, why will he still remain a man after surgery? by GarageCar in GenderCriticalGuys
[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago* (0 children)
So, if x is y depends on on how you define y, not x. That is not the same thing as saying x is the same as y, if "same" is taken to mean for some specific set of purposes-- but that would be speaking conversationally or at least imprecisely.
To ask this question, if a surgical imitation of a penis is a penis, is to ignore the obvious differences we all know to be true. The first difference is that one is created just as part of how a human is born and the other is not. Surgeons do not make penises. Is a cow made by a carpenter a cow? No. Carpenters do not make cows. Differences with regard to how it functions and if certain uses of it can or can't risk getting a woman pregnant are in fact differences. No amount of "but what ifs" about some stupid future of trans-humanism where a corporation can let a very rich, and very obviously spoiled, and even more obviously neglected, female child produce sperm changes the differences now or ever. The question, and any question like this, is either gaslighting, or asked by someone who is either choosing to be stupid, or too young to get it.
deleting a redundant sub I created by FlippyKing in SaidIt
[–]FlippyKing[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
You are too kind, perhaps literally, but thanks!
Yes, I did that. Turns out, here is no way to delete a sub. That sort of adds a bit of "careful what you wish for" to the whole process.
[–]FlippyKing[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
Thanks! I've made it private and I guess that is good enough.
kid, that's why I'm trying to delete it you fucking idiot. Grow up, take a break from you mother's teet, and get away from her iphone and off the internet.
[–]FlippyKing[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
That's very low on the pyramid of debate this site likes to talk about. In fact, it's not even on it. It sounds like you have some projection issues to work out with your parents and therapist.
deleting a redundant sub I created
3 months ago by FlippyKing to /s/SaidIt from self.SaidIt
There's now (at least one) GC Guys sub on Said It by [deleted] in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
wow, my spelling error allowed me to create a near duplicate sub of the one you linked to. I'm glad it's there. I do not want to do the work of a moderator. I'm trying to delete mine now. Thanks!
I wish wearing a dress didn't make my penis hard. by LoganBlade in itsafetish
[–]FlippyKing 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
right, THE DRESS made the stiffy. Blame the dress. The virus of that old bad idea has mutated into this form.
Can you help me understand where and why these biologists are wrong in saying "sex is not binary and is a spectrum" by Ellen in GenderCritical
Thanks! Please use and improve it.
UPDATE: What's happened to the J Yaniv coverage by WrongToy in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 15 insightful - 7 fun15 insightful - 6 fun16 insightful - 6 fun16 insightful - 7 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
Yaniv is exactly the kind of person Reddit wants on their site. It would be like a 70s metal band coming out against mullets.
R/GenderCriticalGuys just got banned by Lilith_Fair in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
Reddit really wants nothing to distract from it's central mission of porn, and grooming and sexualizing of kids. I think it will make a boycott easier to justify. The loss of add revenue is hitting facebook, it would have to have a similar effect on Reddit which I think is smaller.
Debunking of the shitty SciAm article 'Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia' by womenopausal in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
The argument addresses a straw man: no one is arguing that an individual's biological sex should be determined by brain structure or hormones, and the existence of intersex people does not conflict with the existence of biological men or women. They are arguing with a definition, that the definition of "man" is someone who was born with XY chromosomes and a penis and the definition of "woman" is someone who was born with XX chromosomes and a vagina.
The argument addresses a straw man: no one is arguing that an individual's biological sex should be determined by brain structure or hormones, and the existence of intersex people does not conflict with the existence of biological men or women. They are arguing with a definition, that the definition of "man" is someone who was born with XY chromosomes and a penis and the definition of "woman" is someone who was born with XX chromosomes and a vagina.
This of what you typed especially jumped out at me. Other parts did too, but then I'd end up quoting 1/2 of what you typed.
I hope you can put these bullet points up on other social media places to refute the bogus article. It hits the nail on the head, drives it in one swing.
THE GREAT BOYCOTT - a megathread on companies to boycott and their alternatives. by Aureus in Activism
(I apologize for the length here. It is a mix of questions and fleshing out of my ideas, and pointing out some flaws in them)
How do you keep your bitcoins off line, and then how do you use them offline? (I'm really asking. I have none.) Is this a solution that can be used practically by people who now use the central-bank issued currency of their state's choosing? (maybe an unfair question, but I can't think of a better way to ask it).
With regard to the question if food and shelter are not made more difficult by money but by those who control it: I refer back to my point about how many generations of us have lived in shelters without needing security deposits or mortgages. Currency does not exist with out people who control and print it, that must include something exactly analogous to control and printing applicable to bitcoin.
We freely made shelter as we spread across the planet but now depend on currency to purchase it. Bitcoin will not change that, bankers or not. Shelter has been made scarce by a variety of factors (actually talked about by Colin Ward in Anarchy in Action). In the US there are more vacant homes than homeless people, so the scarcity is artificial. The fear of being homeless is a tool capitalism uses to make labor less willing to stand up for itself. I have to admit that my desire to eliminate currency does not address that either though. Making shelter a right removing it from the artificial scarcity, might be the only way.
I agree with you that the problem is the bankers (that may be overly broad. Maybe the banking system is more accurate?). You state the problem very clearly-- the problems farmers face etc, excellently stated-- and I agree most of that. Banker’s power comes from our respect for their currency, which is respect that we have no real choice in the matter.
Bitcoin may be a better method of doing currency, it just seem that anything involving currency places extra steps between us and our needs and transactions. Picture any transaction, minus the money. What changes? The totals in bank accounts, really that’s it.
You can not use bit coin everywhere, you can't really use any currency everywhere. But we must use currency virtually everywhere. I think the potential for problems grow as the range and universality of the currency grows. How can people be assured that similar gamings of the system that bankers now use will not be found by those who issue and manage bitcoin or any other replacement for what we use now? Perhaps more importantly, now can any currency displace the current system while that system not only crushes competition but can be used to make people homeless and ruin whole countries economies, the way Soros did to Portugal and other countries?
I have to say that it’s been more than 80 years, and my ideas in these comments do not address the problem either. Lords and Kings sent soldiers and tax collectors to take the produce of the poor. I can’t say the plight of the peasant or serf was due to currency any more than anyone can blame central banks. For it. I guess authority is the problem, as so many anarchist writers have pointed out.
Well after admitting flaws in my ideas, here are my reasons for not really backing away from my central issue with currency. I chose blame money and stop there, because I see that as the most fundamental way to strike at those who have power undeservedly. Bitcoin is no end-around to the Federal Reserve. I think the ultimate problem is that our natural resources are commodified in terms of a social construct. Being hungry or shivering in the cold is not solved by physical means, but by adding extra steps between those physical means via currency. "Homeless? GET A JOB" should be replaced with Homeless? Build a Shelter while we integrate you into the tasks we do to provide for ourselves as a community, and I say it that way because we fail as individuals and are a social species that live in communities.
Meliset Abreu plays ASIANA V by Nikola Starcevic
3 months ago by FlippyKing to /s/music from youtube.com
I agree about the problem with credit unions and IT security. I wonder about how much investment one must put into such security before you get a real and effective protective result. I think it's an area where a lot of money is wasted on fools and bad services.
I'm just anti-currency at this point. I don't see how bit coin or any currency can solve problems caused by currency, those who issue currencies, those who manipulate them, and those who rig the the system so bankers "growing" a social construct make more than farmers growing food.
The problem I see, and I probably say this above, is that essential things our species had a very easy time with-- food and shelter-- are now tied to and made difficult by currency. How many generations of humans have had to secure shelter either via a 30 year mortgage or a 2 1/2 month security deposit, a credit check, a bank statement, proof of ID, the legal contract of a lease, and first and last month up front? Same with food. We live successfully on almost every acre of land on the earth. Problems with survival certainly exist in some areas. Inuit people dealt with growing too old to be of use to society and being a burden on loved ones and a drain on limited resources by just walking off into the wilderness to die. But, the fact that they lived long enough to become burdens shows there were successful in ways that should make us question ridiculously low life spans in segments of civilized society now and more so historically.
In the US, fish stock has been depleted and I blame currency. hear me out. In NYC, large farms like what was on Delancey St are gone. They do not grow their own food. They were replaced by factories and sweat shops, but now those are gone and Wall St grows "money", the media industry distribute lies for money, and the rest of the population mostly support those industries either through education or entertainment or food and services. How did such a large population in a region just stop producing their own food? By burdening the food production capacity of other regions and other populations, by exchanging food for currency. But food is real and currency is a social construct. Gardeners and farmers often have to experiment to find the best practices for the specific bit of land they are on. If the experiment fails, they produce less. No one bails them out, instead it is something taken advantage of as farm bankruptcies weaken farmers and enable the investor classes to buy up the land. Also and counter-intuitively, governments have paid corn farmers to destroy corn to keep prices up, and this kind of thing still happens as recently Vermont paid farmers to destroy milk to keep the prices up.
Why are prices kept up by limiting supply? Excess could feed people, or stored for the future. It's done to make the flow of currency balanced in some way, but also to keep the food out of the mouths of the poor and to keep fed the mouths of the idle who produce only social constructs.
People who make nothing but money also dream up ways of making new money, but if those ideas are bad they've also dreamed up ideas to protect themselves from from the kinds of catastrophes farmers face with their efforts fail. Marx spells this out better than I, but essentially politics is an arena reserved for those with the free time and money to participate. The overworked and underpaid off far away from centers of power are unable to influence the actions of government in the same way as those who manipulate social constructs.
The only solution I see is to disentangle the necessities for life from the constraints of currency, and to treat farmers or health care workers or the building trades, as something separate from lower forms of life like politicians or bankers or movie stars. That is not to say these lower forms of life should not be rich or famous, but those who provide for our material needs need a level of security that just is not provided for in a society run by people who deal mostly in social constructs.
I want to add another source for Colin Wright's refutation of these ideas, a twitter thread he made a while ago: https://mobile.twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1124406797916409856
The spectrum idea is silly on many levels. Sex is a means of reproduction found in a broad range of unrelated species, ranging from fish and plants, to insects, primates and all the way up to turkeys. Even with interesting variations, like the oft-cited clownfish and seahorse (and I guess mermaid, I'm sorry, I mean mer-individuals of unspecified gender) it still comes down to male and female, or small and large gamete production. With regard to intersexed conditions or DSDs, these are not an indication of any kind of spectrum. Many conditions loosely termed intersex still result in male and female individuals, so those individuals fall squarely in one of the two the bimodal sex categories: male or female. Other dsds, where differentiating between male and female is not clear and reproductive health issues exist, these are not on any spectrum. They simply are disorders that have been dealt with horribly historically by the medical profession. These are around 0.17 (or is it 0.017?) % of the population. Basically our xx xy bimodal distribution of individuals is clear cut for virtually everyone.
But, most importantly, gender has nothing to do with sex other than the presumptions made about about sexed individuals about things outside of the realm of sexual reproduction. Sex refers to reproductive capacity, gender refers to the BS not directly related to reproduction, BS that was entirely made up from each cultures varied assumptions and expectations about how sexed individuals should act. "Gender" is just a neutral sounding sexism.
Another great place for info debunking genderist's arguments is Paul Cockshott's blog:
We just reached 2K readers! by [deleted] in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 20 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 3 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I think it is further proof that you were having a tangible impact on women and on the debate there, and more impressively it is proof that people are following the GC community and it will continue growing.
If saidit is only a temporary home, or an outpost for GC on the periphery of the eventual capital now being built: I think the growth shows where ever you build it, they will come. (yes, I'm a dude who made a baseball movie reference in a woman's sub. Yes, that's why no one takes me anywhere)
Congratulations, and thank you
GenderCritical sub still showing up on /s/all New. Is that intended behavior? by rdh2121 in SaidIt
We know what a man and a woman is, and we've known since we've been old enough to know which one has the who-ha and which has the other one. It's just "triggering" to the mental health of the mentally ill to say it plainly.
Women do bear the brunt of it, because they're mere existence is a threat that exposes the "toxic mimicry" that transwomen very often are (as opposed to being simply neuro-divergent, or victims of abuse, or mentally ill)
Forget Google - It's time to break up the payment processing duopoly of Visa and MasterCard by magnora7 in finance
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that! It seems kind of obvious, but the breaking it down and parsing it out is useful and gives good ways of look at the problems. I agree, it is an example of those. It goes way beyond Biden, who as a person has done far more harm to those he was trying to appeal to in that interview than would give him a right to just grandstand for their votes. But, he's like Tilda Swinton in the Narnia movie donning the lion's mane. Biden is pretending to be heir to the New Deal/Civil Rights traditions, simply by his position in the Dem Party.
I really want national politics to collapse. We have no say in what the federal government does anymore, they are fully unaccountable in every single way be it immunity for judges and prosecutors to the fact that most house members and senators are multi-millionaires and secure in their reelection efforts by the collusion of the two parties, and it is all a distraction of real tangible problems we all have locally. So many communities can not afford to maintain their drinking water infrastructure, but we're still meddling in any country that has oil. To his credit, Trump is not as bad about it as Bush or Obama, but he's not proving to be an solution to anything and the circus that is DC is run by clowns from both parties.
Petition for mods of major subs to ban /user/fuzzbutt22 for censorship on /s/PinkPillFeminism by SuperConductiveRabbi in SaidIt
[–]FlippyKing 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
substitute "men" with "joooz" and no one here would complain.
Also, how is the presences of a post indicative of the censorship you complain about in the title this post. It seems like another example of reasoning found below the pyramid we're supposed to respect.
Judge Rules Virginia Giuffre's Lawyers Must 'Destroy' Jeffrey Epstein Files by [deleted] in conspiracy
If they don't appeal that ruling immediately they're just as guilty as Epstein and all his pals. If the evidence ends up stolen or copied without the lawyers knowing, what will the judge do? Go house to house, computer to computer, to make sure the information is erased? Seems like a desperate attempt to avoid "committing suicide" on the part of the judge.
Libertarian Presidential Candidate a woman by GC4210 in GenderCritical
It is almost guaranteed to be Howie Hawkins, it if isn't officially declared him yet. The only other real competition is Dario Hunter. The only obstacle I can see to Hawkins is if enough Greens take issue with his being on some other socialist party's ticket or the way other candidates were excluded from events. I don't see any of that blocking him though.
I'm registered green and have voted green for two and half decades. I may vote libertarian this time, depending on Jo's views (edited a week later to add: oh hell no. Here's an example of the reasoning going on there: people should be allowed to move freely where every they wish (OK, good premise) Therefore we oppose all tariffs and barriers to trade (wait, what? That's a non sequitur.) The Libertarian Party is sticking to proposals that will solve nothing and their prioritizing of rich people's inconveniences over real problems.). Dario at first sided strongly with the green's "lavender caucus" on the idea of expelling Georgia's green party for endorsing the women's declaration on sex-based rights. He may have walked it back a bit, after the "dialogue not expulsion" petition started.
Howie apparently "misgendered" or "dead-named" some trans people and had to kiss the ring. The lavender caucus' leader Margret Elizabeth (very much, picture Dean Pelton from the show Community but apparently 'woman identifying') I think got Howie to say twaw. Greens have been pretty much trans activists, and while there are very vocal gender critical members and members who want the party to embrace diversity of opinion on the trans/gc issue, it is an uphill battle just as it is every where else where decisions and policies are made.
I think what's going on in the Greens is important, because I don't know how the roots of the greens (the very hippy/crunchy granola/earth mother goddess types-- kinda why I joined) can pretend away biological reality. I don't see how any party on the left can embrace any kind of philosophical idealism over material reality.
I know what you mean. On the one hand I can see that there are few "good faith" arguments over what a man or woman is. Even if one tries to extend a kind of olive branch to the other side (the Gender accepting side I guess) where you could say there is the term "woman" as defined by biological sex and a term "woman" as defined by gender, they do not accept the gender one and would insist on using the biological sense one. That would eliminate a lot of things that seem to be in good faith but violate an agreed upon vocabulary. This kind of thing makes sense in many fields of study where the use of terms only makes sense when the definition is agreed upon. The beginning of Plato's dialogue The Sophists deals with this, where Socrates asks a "stranger" from Syracuse about the Sophists there. The stranger is more than happy to talk about them, but first he has to makes sure they are talking about the same people or school of thought. Otherwise his "sophists" and Socrates could be two completely different populations and schools of thought, and they would not really be making sense to each other even if they were in agreement. It's the same with GC, just what one means by "woman" and "man" has to be agreed upon or else the discussion is not in good faith.
As for other discussion about gender roles, I think it can be fair for them to be suspicious of anything that looks like an attempt to put them back in the kitchen. I'm glad I don't have to decide if anything along those lines violates rule 4b or not, just as I'm glad I don't have to deal with any ramifications if I were to decide that such a violation might not deem enforcement. The concern stated by the OP (which might be you, I don't really keep track of those things) is about the spirit of the rule and not the technicality of the rule. In the same way getting a ticket for going 36 in a 35 mph zone would be considered a dick move, I can't really fault women for being hyper vigilant. More than that, they were a fastly growing community in reddit and in the world, as women might finally be organizing or at least motivated in large numbers, against what is an obvious attack on their rights-- if no other right than the right of free speech and freedom of assembly. Removing their ability to assemble on reddit was a dick move, a panic move showing they know women are gaining ground. To knock them off "new" as they try to reorganize over a technicality at the time when they are trying to reorganize and undo the damage the banning did, seems to be a dick move hiding behind technocratic bureaucracy.
Yes, but it is not coincidence that these newer battle lines are drawn in a way that makes it impossible to find historical continuity.
I think we need to actively redraw the lines, because it is the strategic or tactical equivalent of refusing to fight on the terrain your opponents choose-- in this case a terrain they design and landscape themselves. It's also a matter of "know thyself". For people who call themselves "progressive", I think they need to understand what that word means. To me the progressive reformers make very little sense, but progressive populists and populists got much closer to the right track. It means the difference between public banking like North Dakota has (or what we all had access to before Reagan eliminated savings accounts at the post office) and minor meaningless regulation of derivatives.
Besides how their terrain makes class discussion in and of itself impossible, it eliminates one critique of their uncritical embrace of critical race theory. Another way to critique it, that it creates a new religion around white's orginal sin of racism that is every present needing constant confessing and rebuking, is too easily dismissed by them as ignoring the problem, if these battle lines can not show via class analysis a clear world view going back hundreds of years that makes perfect sense of how the world works.
The left right thing is a lie, there is just a hill. Those atop the hill may see a left and right, but we need not accept their view, their terrain. We can fight up the hill together, or we can try to ignore the hill or fence it off so that they have no impact beyond their little hill and we go about creating a decentralized world with resilient communities.
Excellent, thanks. I get it now. Maybe it comes down to an interpretation of "high on the pyramid of debate". I know the amount of trolling GC subs get, and none of that trolling is very high on the pyramid of debate. I can't speak for everything that got deleted, but I imagine that's the crux of the issue.
What is rule 4b? I see rule 4, prohibiting astroturfing and artificial amplification.
When I look at https://saidit.net/s/all/new/ I see posts from the books sub. That is at least two years old. Should that also not show up, or am I looking at this wrong?
Telegraph: 'Niche' transgender ideology 'corrosive' to society, says report by womenopausal in GenderCritical
Sort of off topic, but Stuart Hamerhoff researches into the nature of consciousness specifically looking for quantum processes in our brain's microtubules. It has implications in quantum computing. He made an analogy about the order questions are asked and how that that altered the responses. I saw it maybe 6 or more years ago in a video of a talk he gave, I will never be able to find it again, so sorry for the lack of a link.
I think Helen Stanilan also raises an important issue, and she talks about it in her interview on Graham Lineham's yt channel, about general ignorance about what "trans" means. This is true of every issue I think, where those in power rely on general ignorance and disinformation to gain public favor for bad ideas. Here, too many people assume "Trans" means those who have had genital surgery to transition. I try to use "self ID" as often as possible because at least that term tries to be concrete about the range contained under the set "trans".
Now, to get completely off track ... Another thing that I try to make a big deal about is just what "identity" means in terms of public policy or law. Our identity is tied to our physical characteristics with regard to law and those in power. We do not put down physical characteristics on ID cards for trivial purposes, it is how those in power keep track of us and pin down who we are with no interest at all in who, or what, we say we are. Any use of the word "identity" beyond that seems pointless to me with regard to public policy. It is especially pointless to talk about one's inner or innate identity or sense of gender or anything. It is nothing more than a proclamation of faith.
[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago* (0 children)
The idea that the bolsheviks used the term "racist" to instigate class warfare makes absolutely no sense. The left, the entire left, in Europe and Russia were already trying to instigate class warfare along class lines. The bolsheviks were actively involved in a class war already. Race was then, as it is now a distraction from class and class warfare. If anything the Bolsheviks were trying to distract from class war, especially since they were emerging as the ruling class. You idea makes no sense.
Also, I was responding to this quote: "by banks you mean jews, and i agree with that". It is a total non-sequitur and a stupid assumption about banks and bankers. Are the German banks, that dominate Europe and screwed over Portugal, Ireland, and Greece, "jews", or are they banks? If you didn't know which, which would matter and which wouldn't? Banks control money, "jews" control too many imaginations it seems. But, rest assured the German banks are banks, not jews. Is Barclays who are neck deep in banking problems in Great Britan "jews"? They are Quakers and try to adhere to Quaker principles (poorly in some cases).
What would you call someone who conflates "jews" with the entire banking industry? Would you call them racist, anti-semitic, stupid, wise, or something else? I can appreciate you might have a problem with how I characterize the comment I responded to, but then how would you characterize it? Please, enlighten me. Maybe I should have chosen anti-Semitic but I don't like that term, as Palestinians are Semitic. I think I should have chosen stupid, because the Jewish guy that used to cut my hair isn't a banker nor is the cab driver who used to live across the street from me. Nor are any of the people working on Wall St and in finance and banking that are Irish or Italian, Black, English and every other ethnicity. Along with stupid I should have called it counter-productive, because when talking about Master Card it is class war and has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. How would you characterize it?
One last request: how does the term "racist" instigate "class" warfare, when it distracts from it? Here's how you instigate class warfare: Eat the Rich, blast "rolling down rodeo" while rolling down rodeo, pointing out that Nancy Pelosi's Ice Cream collection was her "let them eat cake" moment reminding everyone of what fate befell Marie Antoinette. How do make class warfare trip over its own feet? By having a disfunctional obsession with "jews", or white people, or anything irrelevant trait.
I am a retired biological housewife, am I still allowed to say that? by Delia in Introductions
Welcome! The range of things people can say here might be shocking actually. You're good.
Is BLM going to donate funds to the Biden 2020 campaign? by MarquisBoniface in WayOfTheBern
You can't really know until it is too late, like a lot of things really.
I think maybe pointing to tangible things that could be done that would make things better might make it tougher for them to just give the money to a candidate who isn't all that less bad but who dedicated his whole career creating the kind of world that needed BLM.
I'm swayed increasingly by Coleman Hughes, and think there's a lot wrong with how these matters are being approached by all the major players/groups.
[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I just want to confirm that you are not saying it is not a "real" word, yes?
Trotsky must have been speaking in Russian, or he would not have been understood. The words he was using would have been Russian, and come out of Russian cultural as languages are born out of cultures and reflect their cultures. The translation of that word into English then is also going to carry with it assumptions made by the translator, if Trotsky's word is the birth of the word. But Richard Henry Pratt may have coined "racism" long before that. Regardless of who first coined the word, it is just a mechanical process applied to any word, in this case the word being: race. It seems to me the origin of the word is not really knowable or meaningful, because of the nature of the English langage: once a word exists, the variations of it all also exist. Run was not born separate from running or ran. Racism and racist are right there along with the word race from day one, used or not.
But, my use of the word, was simply because "religious bigotry" is cumbersome. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the point I'm making and it was just speculation about the dude "hector died of aids" motivations and goals in posting-- which he has no issue with even if he thinks the word is not a real word.
If Trotsky and Bolsheviks were really trying to usher in a socialism of any kind is very debatable. The debate has roots going back long before the Russian revolution. I think it was Rudolph Rocker who pointed out the incongruities between previous goals and ideas of socialists and the Bolsheviks placing the Party above and separate from the actual population-- as if the party were some non-human entity above the people, and the people running the party then above that. Rocker also details the fact that the Soviet economy was a state-run capitalism, where the "soviets", workers, were shut out of decision making and had no control over the means of production. The idea that you can be socialist but deny the worker control over their own production is laughable. They did this though through violence and totalitarianism, most clearly in what they did to the Makhnovshchina and to Ukrainian farmers who should have had at least some sovereignty over their labor if they were really socialist. (very easy listens of Rocker's works are easily found at Audible Anarchist's youtube page. His "Anarcho-syndicalism: theory and practice" has a good summary of these ideas, and his "Nationalism and Culture" is much longer and more detailed.)
Obsessing over the Jewishness of some people who abuse power seems to give a free pass to their peers who are not Jewish, and I think misses the point and misses what people should be organizing against. Does it matter what religion someone is, or what they are doing to people? George Soros is no more of a bastard than JD Rockefeller or the Koch brothers because of his religion. The damage he does is not made greater by his religion than the damage done by the Bushes or Obama or the Clintons.
True, and it's fair to call it out-- but I was at least ON the pyramid.
[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
can you back that assertion up? That "racist" isn't a real word? It has a meaning in a dictionary. If someone coins a word or phrase, that does not mean it is not a real word. Otherwise, racist would be like supercalafragiliousexpealidoious. So, who created the word? Do you have a link to back that up?
You should address my previous comment, beyond admitting tdcr. That's the one that is most on-topic here, not: whether or not you're a racist, or if it is a real word, or as you seem to say that it is not a real word but you have good reason to be this thing that has no real word to describe it.
I'm pretty sure any name calling I did was not name calling but speculation and backed up with my reasons for the speculation. But sometimes you have to meet people where they are.
Telemedicine Solution for Healthcare Aggregators by lukejamie07 in technology
I know of cases where doctors who were required to be present in the hospital to do psych evaluations tried to get away with doing it via video. The connection was bad, the patient could not hear the doctor and so they were considered confused and non responsive. There is so much in any evaluation of a person for any kind of medical situation that is just absent from "telemedicine" even if it is working well. This just seems like a way to get paid, and for an whole in industry to find a way to grift, for doing nearly nothing, not to mention to elimiate doctors or pretend there is doctors covering areas where they are not.
What are you in the middle of reading right now? by PurpleAmathea in books
Blood Heir, a book that almost got cancelled by loud whiny YA authors worried about competition but pretending to be SJW warriors (pretty good actually);
a more lengthy version of "the Mo Tzu", or collection of Mohist writings from the Warring States period in China. I read an older edition of these ideas 30 years ago. I'm being reminded why I loved it so much then.
Hollywood Actors Pledge Never To Take A Role Where They Have To Pretend To Be Someone Else by Earl_Harbinger in funny
[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
It reminds of me Bill Burr's joke about 'why didn't they hire a murderer to play the murderer?'
Can someone help explain these posts from r/gc? by emissch in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I'm not clicking on it because I don't want to give Reddit any traffic.
But (yes, this is the internet, I'll comment without seeing it), I did see a lot of what I thought was concern trolling by agent provocateurs in GC over the final days, which I think was setting up the "taken down because of hate" rationalization.
Grateful for this website, signed up without hesitation. Need to rant.... by harlemtropic in Introductions
They panicked because so many people were hitting "peak trans" that they could feel everyone was seeing through their lies. Welcome!
On the pyramid of debate this site is so proud of supporting, your response is beneath it. You could read it later and not respond till then, but I suspect you know you are just being a disingenuous racist who is not interested in actually understanding issues or solving anything. Was that too long too?
These days it seems that anyone that doesn't worship the Democratic party is now called "right wing". What's your opinion? by Grateful in politics
[–]FlippyKing 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
They call Bernie supporters 'alt right' and anyone who votes Green they call far worse. Their only response to the record of their own party, actions their own party are fully complicit in, is to ask "do you want Dole/Bush/Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump to 'win'?" Those bastards all won long ago, Dole and McCain maybe winning the birth-lottery less so than the others and they certainly lived tougher lives than the others, but the only win I want neither the Dems nor the gop could not care less about.
[–]FlippyKing 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
none of that has anything to do with actual leftist. If we let them change what "left" means, the way the are doing to the work "woman" and why said it is suddenly home to a bunch of feminist women, then we lose the ability to really see what is going on and we let them divide us.
"Left" only makes sense politically and historically as the political expression of the working class. The left were luddites, wobblies, trade unionists. They were reacting against horrible working conditions, child labor, and the fact that over the span of a few hundred years they had lost all ability to just make a living off the land they were on and had held "in common" ie the commons.
The left then were joined in a sense by some in the middle class who looked at the disparity in their own societies, the wealth enjoyed by their peers and the squalor suffered by those who physically created it through work, and came up with schools of thought in reaction against capitalism and liberalism (which go hand in hand). Liberalism may appear to be about freedom to do what you want, but it was and remains about freedoms that were created when massive amounts of wealth were accumulated, and the new class of rich people wanted the same freedoms enjoyed by the old nobility.
Those were the sides back then, and they still are the sides. Identity politics is just the new expression of the same old BS.
The idea that banks are run by "the left" is laughable. No billionaire is on the left. They might be as liberal as the old robber barons and their children, nephews, nieces, and grand kids, but it is a rewriting of history to pretend that is or was ever "left".
The "alt right" looks to me like the first wave the "left" over a similar transformation of the global economy. When agriculture and subsistence was replaced by industrial capitalism, the "left" was born. Now that globalization has shifted manufacturing far away and automation is eliminating the need for most labor, the alt right seems to be in the same role. The difference is that we have a history of analysis and data to look at, and a history of struggle from Bakunin to Fred Hampton to learn from. TO distance the working classes from that history of struggle, the false divide of left and right is created and along with it the ridiculous notion that there are left-wing billionaires.
[–]FlippyKing 36 insightful - 1 fun36 insightful - 0 fun37 insightful - 0 fun37 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I think people really are catching on. The polls done over "self ID" are really important. over 90% are against it, and I think that was before the dog-pile on JK Rowling. Banning GC is a sign of panic. But, to make a boxing analogy, a fighter who is losing, or whose legs are starting to wobble, is most dangerous because they know they need a knock out fast.
There always seems to be a "best in the world" in chess by FlippyKing in Chess
[–]FlippyKing[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
that is really cool, thanks for sharing it. I feel like I'd have to watch it, pause it, compare it to the record of who was playing who at the time to really understand in detail the dynamic at work in the graphic. What stood out to me is that Rubinstein and Schleter do not appear to jump up over anyone the way I thought based on things I read. I'm surprised Andersen was never up over the top, I thought he was best for a while. What the graph shows in the Botvinnik era makes sense to me, especially Smyslov and Tal. Tal's performance on that graph is nice to see, how his use of the "sham sacrifice" and psychology early on worked so well, and then when players caught on how he adjusted and climbed back up near the top.
I could watch it over and over for little details, like looking for Smsylov in the 80s when he found some ideas in the Cambridge Springs. Also, I want to look over Najdorf's games because he was way up there for a while.
Thanks for sharing that!
So are dudes allowed to participate here or is someone going to make another GC guys sub? by TheSeventhSense in GenderCritical
Thank you. The sources for what I said above are Sylvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch, and a labor lawyer I met over a few days long ago who pointed me to real labor history and not the sanitized version of it.
Contacting companies that advertise on Reddit to let them know they are basically a misogynistic hate site. by [deleted] in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
is there a list of reddit's advertisers? I think it is worth adding while contacting them that reddit's user numbers might be inflated because of the bans and departures. People might not fully deactivate accounts, but people have abandoned the sight. (Not the people with 10 sock puppet accounts and all that nonsense that goes on there)
[–]FlippyKing 22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I intend to make a sub along the lines of GC Guys as soon as I get past my two weeks here. We can't create a new sub until we've been here two weeks. I've been here a day.
I would not see the idea that they didn't ban GC Guys as only reflecting male privilege. I think it is at best a manipulation of this concept of privilege by those in power. Not banning the guys sub is meant to create further divisions between us. Guys who left reddit in solidarity over the GC purge are taking NOT that bait. One can argue if we are just too full for that bait or not.
It is similar to the white privilege working class whites have when compared to working class blacks. It is not a favoritism showed to white workers, it is a manipulation meant to break solidarity. Much of what we know about the "Red Scare" focuses on hollywood and screen writers, but the real target was communist party affiliated union organizers. The red scare was the worst thing to happen to the left (as in actual left) and to the working class in the US. The vacuum it created was filled by the mob. Much of the racism attributed to unions can be laid squarely at the mob's, and management's, feet.
Similarly, Silvia Federici documents clearly how the lower classes had their ways of making a living taken from them during the primative accumulation phase of capitalism, and in that process women were stripped of their economic activities and of everything else they had. The witch burnings were about breaking the will of women, their children, especially their daughters, and their communities. That guys went along with it, or over time just accepted the new order, is maybe the worst thing in western history because it bifurcated us.
Leaving Reddit over the GC banning is not much of a gesture in opposition to the divisions between men and women that were created and maintained since then. Maybe something better and real will start. It won't start staying there if for no other reason then it just leaves women twisting in the wind again. I obviously don't have answers, and I don't pretend to be solving anything, and I'm not virtue signally. I'm simply stating that I intend to start a GC sub, guys or open to both sexes, once I'm able.
But, lets not see the guys getting to keep their stupid little bit of reddit as anything other than manipulation and a desperate act of divisiveness performed by people who must have seen the poll results over "Self ID", where over 90% of the population is against it. Dividing us, or keeping us divided, is their goal. It does not have to be ours-- which is not to say women do not need single-sex spaces to themselves. But the ban just happened, we'll be off your couch soon, job or no job.
just one of the stones that the builder refused by FlippyKing in Introductions
Only hate against "majority" groups to be allowed under Reddit's new identity-based hate speech rules by Drewski in SocialMedia
[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
The youtube channel Time Ghost History has a series of videos called between two wars, about the turmoil in Europe that led up to the WWII. It is amazing. Basically every country, new or old, had to deal with the hatred between majority populations and minority populations, not just in the country but by region and city. Outside forces then manipulated them to create divisions where there might have only been minor differences.
There is a good chance shit's going to get very ugly, in very predictable and catastrophic ways.
Within 1 hour, Reddit banned 2000 subs-almost all right wing, Twitch banned Trump's account, Youtube banned Stefan Molyneux, Twitter banned Sidney Powell, and the MSM all had long ass articles ready to go to praise it. THIS IS ELECTION MEDDLING. Contact your state reps and demand something be done. by Tarrock in politics
Ultimately it's always on us to do what we need to do and run our lives and our relationships and our communities as best we can. The government is often really either at odds with that or irrelevent and like a johnny-come-lately taking credit for what we do naturally (which is basically a cheap version for Colin Ward's ideas)
Running from the gender critical bans by Cat13 in Introductions
I'm re-reading 'the Mo Tzu' and it occurred to me how many great thinkers or philosophical traditions can be broke up into "good human nature" or "bad human nature".
Moists I guess held to a good human nature and they thought like this: if we can not look to rulers for a generalized sense of what a ruler should be, where do we look? Well, as a people of a nation are under a ruler of that nation, so the nations are under the heavens, so we should look to the heavens. The heavens bestow their bounty to us freely with no discrimination such that all are loved equally (ie food and water are anywhere you look so we're all blessed equally by nature's gifts), so universal love should be the standard by which a ruler is measured the way plumb bobs (or plumb lines), levels, straight edges, and compasses (for circles) are used in building.
crazy, right? It runs the gamut from insect species to agent provocateurs. It's an amazingly useful concept, like a tool for understanding things in a new way.
We took local for granted for too long, just as we took a lot of things for granted. Another option is postal banking. People used to be able to cash checks and have accounts at the post office. It was an alternative to banks and served a lot of people. It ended un Reagan.
One solution is like no solution, having a lot of options in everything is probably important. It will make us more resilient-- which is like a key word here. There is, or was, a small "resilient communities" movement that looked at natural disasters and organized or encouraged communities to be prepared and ready for when they had to rely on themselves. It's not a big stretch to just say "we should rely on ourselves as much as possible"
Creating new subs by Diddykingsmackin in AskSaidIt
Excellent point. There are a lot of subs here already, that's kinda cool. I agree the two weeks thing is rough, especially in light of the massive immigration thing.
True about the admins, the "power" admins especially. I agree problems are inevitable, hopefully new and different ones though, it would be lame to just repeat the same ones over and over.
Money's been mystified by people who want us not thinking about it, much like law has. If we take a step back and just look at what communities need, and what they have, problems look very different and the idea that coal miners should learn to code can be applied to people who sit atop piles of money like they were dragons.
Sanitation is one I always leave out, thanks for adding it. Yes, there are essential services like that that are just as critical as food.
[–]FlippyKing 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago* (0 children)
I'm a refugee also; and while the two weeks (and one week after for any other subs one might want to create) seems like an eternity, I see it as a (forced) chance to get to know everyone and to get to know the culture here. I would hate to just recreate reddit on this reddit clone.
The refugees and the early adoptees here are all here because Reddit has been pushing people away for a long time, left, right, weird, a-little-too-normie, everyone. Maybe we should find common ground and stuff before disappearing into our sub-enclaves. (edited to add: but if we could get out of that long wait, that would be cool too)
Why do people erase Storme Delarverie? by avesatan in GenderCritical
It's social engineering and rewriting history, to create continuity between the old reality and the socially engineered future they're creating.
Hello, Saidit, /user/astralwriter here! by astralwriter in Introductions
[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
Thank you astral writer for standing in solidarity with the banned. I deactivated my reddit account and signed up here as I saw subs getting deleted. I'm sure plenty I was subscribed to were banned before long.
I hope to astral-act, well astral-audition anyway, for any plays or sketches you might write! (jk)
Wow, that is a staggering list. I guess it is just obvious that the tech companies are owned and run by VERY-like-minded people, o say the least.
Local products, and as you say local smaller banks and credit unions, are important. Even if their "politics" don't line up, what is more important is that local communities build themselves up as best they can so these behemoths have less power over us. So many communities have been neglected and their economies so devastated, that they can't repair their own water infrastructure.
I guess it helps to know the monetary system is just completely fake anyway. Anything we can do to get out of using the fake money and dealing in real things is better. Ultimately, the money is a way to manipulate how we get what we need. We need shelter, food, clean water, clothing, and community. If money were real, the people who just manipulate it would never make more than a farmer.
I think real solutions, as in the kind that might free us from being dependent and influenced by these douchey corporations, will ultimately come via local organizing: community by community, addressing specific needs where they are, and untangling ourselves from the things that sap our power away from us and towards them. Yes, that's all just a bunch of empty rhetoric.
Thanks! I think there will be more of this. There already are threads on this site about it. One is mentioned by someone else in this thread.
They ban us because we're onto something. If we were just "wrong" it would be a simple matter and everything would be self-evident. But it also then puts it all on us to be civil and to discuss things in good faith.
Your post about boycotts, and how difficult it will be with things like mastercard, is spot-on. I'll be commenting there shortly, I think. Unless it's all been said by someone already.
[–]FlippyKing[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
Yes! oh, wait that should be: yes.
Yes! I saw that thread a little while ago. I think make the same rant there that I make here. I'm repetitive I guess.
Leaving Reddit for trying erase women. by hylia in Introductions
I left upon seeing all the GC subs get banned (some are private it seems, but might end up banned too I guess). I'm a dude, and was in GC Guys, and they haven't banned that sub yet. But I'm out of there. Staying there breaks my sense of being in solidarity. Maybe I should have kept my account active and just trolled till I got banned, but I'd rather see Reddit turn into a ghost town, or a sausage-in-skirt party I guess.
[–]FlippyKing[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago* (0 children)
I agree 100%
I think a lot of the words we're given as labels for political views are misnomers meant to make it impossible to talk about things using them. "Progressive" started being used more frequently in the 1990s because GHW Bush made the label "liberal" sound pathetic. Funny thing is the Bush's are pretty much classical liberals from the original meaning of the word. Progressive refers to the Progressive Era, when big institutions and monopolies where basically in feeding frenzies and messing up the economy and markets. "Progressives" decided they needed to regulate these institutions to protect them from themselves. It had nothing to do with protecting people or communities (Progressive populism and populism tried to look at things from a human perspective). So when Obama said he was a progressive, he wasn't lying. And what ever was left of the labor-left was pissed at him.
The "Left" as a political thing only makes sense when capitalism and industrialization had people, children before long, working themselves to death for nothing. They were pushed to that over a long series of events where people were no longer able to provide for themselves. In any event, the idea of a left in politics was always about economic issues. You could not be a ceo or a banker or live off your investments and call your self "left".
Social issues were never left. They were classically "liberal" which was the political ideology that developed along side capitalism. Liberalism presents itself as freedom and the right to do as you choose, but prior to industrialization most people grew their own food and freedom was about as broad as your feet could take you. Liberalism was about the freedom do what you want with the money you had. If you had a lot of money, you should be able to do what ever you wanted with it. Critiques of this way of thinking came from basically every side. In Spain traditionalists and Catholics fought violently against liberalism. Labor groups organized not against liberalism but against unfair working conditions. The relationship between classes began to be studied in detail. For me, the best and clearest discussion of these can be found in the writings of Bakunin, and they are conveniently found at Audible Anarchist on youtube (as is Rudolph Rocker, another great resource, and Kropotkin). These people are as far left as possible, and they have nothing to do with Biden or AOC or Bill Gates or Soros or any of them. (notice I make no mention of Trotsky or Marx, because the ones I mention are much better)
If you look at MLK or Malcolm X or Fred Hampton (especially Hampton) they ended up seeing things through class, not just race. That is not to say that they did not see racism and race as the major thing in their lives and in their communities, but they also saw the same dynamic at work in all working class communities and they were killed because they made the connection.
Their class consciousness has been replaced by identity politiics. Even the idea of being working class is treated as an "identity" when it is not. Class is about a relationship, as it was going all the way back to the Luddites or the German Peasant's uprising. By making it about identities, it gives those a top the system, those who moved their factories to China, those who don't blink an eye at sending their kids to $20,000 a year grammar schools, a pass while they destroy the schools we have to send kids to. When we ask about fixing the schools, they look at the schools across racial lines, not class. They say "the black schools do worse" and rather than see the continuum from poor schools to rich schools, they divide us by color.
Many of the people here (me included) are here because they see the word "woman" as biological reality, not an identity one can "identify as". The idea that women get the short of the stick in society make sense, they didn't even have property rights until recently. And looking at material reality tells us why: they make the babies, or the next generation of the labor pool. This is not an identity then, it is just reality. Making woman an "identity" is not anything that comes from any real "left" point of view because the left starts from a materialistic analysis of the world.
There is a lot of talk about depopulation on the right. What better way to make it impossible to stop if you can't even say what a woman is in reality and turn it into something you can just identify as? Left and right have been stripped of their meaning. It was originally working class vs idle leisure class that doesn't actually do any work. What I would call the Actual-Left and what others call the "alt-right" should agree on far more than they disagree on, that's what I think anyway.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm really fed up with things, and our "sides" need to start looking at things together. We were divided by those who profit from us being divided. We need to drop our BS and reunite in what ever ways we can. It won't be everything, but I do think the more real-world-based it is, the more it is about things we have direct knowledge of and not things that we only hear about from media people (I have no fucking idea what's going on in Seattle or NYC or anywhere like that, let alone what ever country they want to invade next), the more likely we will find agreement and solve problems. Honestly, when was the last time any actual problem was solved by anyone in power. Their power comes from the problems, not the solutions.
[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
That these social media companies are essentially acting as monopolies (or "trusts" I guess). Tulsi Gabbard talked about this a while back. Basically everything she said is evidenced here:
Not to take thunder away from the election meddling aspect of this, but it is also proof that the tech companies are a "trust" in all the ways that made people demand anti-trust legislation. I'm all for contacting politicians but ultimately we as citizens and members of our own communities have to make it so that none of these bastards really matter in our lives.
How'd it get banned? by [deleted] in GenderCritical
[–]FlippyKing 21 insightful - 3 fun21 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 3 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
It and all the other related subs were obstacles to their social engineering. Rowling's sanity attracted far too many people to these views, and the tide was obviously turning. "Die terf die" was losing it's power as a compelling argument, so banning and deleting subs without warning or quarantine was their only option.
This site really is sad by baron_iw in Introductions
[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I can see why your parents neglect you.
Does anyone else feel that division between 'Left' and 'right' only serves to further divide us? by Freshly_Squeezed in conspiracy
[–]FlippyKing 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I'm glad more and more people are seeing the divide and conquer thing for what it is.
I think the labels do not really matter. What matters is if we engage with each other honestly, addressing real tangible things and speaking from our own experience and knowledge. I have a feeling I'm going to say this a thousand times over the next couple of days, but as people like me migrate over from reddit as refuges, let's take it as an opportunity to realize it is the same divisive BS that has us all here: start from a place of agreement, the way Socrates does in Plato's dialogues. We are not separate, and we shouldn't be divided. We do not have to accept the way any media out let or media personality frames an issue. If we speak of real things and from our own experience, we will end up agreeing far more often than those who want us divided could ever imagine.
[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 7 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
and yet here you are.
For so reason a really scary version of Little Red Riding Hood just got conjured up in my head.
"My what big ..." Nope you know what? I'm not going to type the rest of that thought.
[–]FlippyKing 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
feminism isn't just one thing, and like anything what it is probably isn't what it is represented as. Like anything the most easily found versions of it and the ones that seem everywhere are probably misrepresentations of what it is at its core. This is probably true for a lot of things you might be part of. I know the things I believe or the labels I feel an affinity for are grossly misrepresented even by people who loudly claim the label. They're "toxic mimics" usually (check out Derrick Jensen's youtube video on toxic mimics). I think with so many people migrating here from reddit, we should consider taking each other in at face value and ignore the labels. Socrates always started from a point of agreement, and I think we can do that on anything.
Karl Perazzo and Raul Rekow at a sound check by FlippyKing in drums
I just wanted to share a video of my favorite dynamic duo. It's just a sound check, but these guys always knock me out.