Zinnia

@Zinnia

David J. Stewart #fundie #homophobia

Pfft. I’ll take cellphones and internet over not having those things. They’ve significantly improved my quality of life. And “cameras everywhere” isn’t too bad of a thing - yes, I could name issues easily enough, but most of these cameras are in the hands of the public instead of the government like it used to be, so authority figures can more easily be taken to account.

watson #conspiracy

1.) Planned Parenthood isn’t a government program.

2.) A lot of government programs improve the quality of life for those who need it, which doesn’t so much “reduce the population” as “reduce the rate of population increase”. People with good lives have fewer children on the average. Abortion improves the quality of life as well. Even if it were reducing the population, that’s a side effect, not the intended purpose.

3.) Sex reassignment probably does reduce the number of births among those who get it, but also reduces the number of people who won’t be having kids anyway due to suicide, so probably a wash.

4.) Vaccines don’t reduce the population either, instead it reduces the rate of population reduction, resulting in a net increase.

The End #sexist

<@Malingspann> #124203

Well, their guts are ugly. In the metaphorical sense of their intuitions of how humans should/do work.

Julie92845 #transphobia #senpai_noticed_us

I’m not going to object to “shadow of its former self”. While I didn’t actually start posting on the site until the glory days had mostly faded, I did check out the site maybe every few months during that era.

But “sad shadow”? Not hardly. Back then, there were far fewer sites at least semi-dedicated to ripping apart extremists of various stripes; more people were here because there were fewer options. Today, there’s more people engaging in such, but also far more options; this is a good thing, over all. Where mentioned elsewhere, this site is basically treated as a quaint bit of internet history, like a small town that was the site of significant historical events, but isn’t a major tourist attraction. That kind of has its own charm.

It’s also true that a site like Ovarit wouldn’t have been featured back then. Partly because the place was originally narrower in focus, and partly because sites like Ovarit didn’t really exist.

Robert Stacy McCain #dunning-kruger #homophobia

Here’s a detail that the OP seriously glossed over: When using attention-grabbing headlines and opening paragraphs, the most effective way is to focus on one particular salacious detail. In this case, the detail which virtually everyone in the news was focusing on was not “lesbian” but “cop”.

Also, we don’t actually know the sexual orientation of the people involved. Some or all might have been bi/pan. Unless they had some way of knowing, it would be wrongheaded speculation. Yes, I know that some people use “lesbian” to describe a w/w relationship rather than an orientation, but it would be unprofessional to use the term in that manner. Also “police doing unjustified violence” is more salacious than “lesbian” right now. So altogether, the easiest and most effective way to go about this is to just go “cop” and establish w/w early in the article.

(There is another reason not to go the other way, of course; when oppressed minorities do bad things, focusing on their minority status tends to unintentionally associate the bad thing with their minority status. But given that even right-wing news mostly focused on the cop angle, I doubt much of anyone was considering this.)

Aero the Alcoholic Bat #homophobia

If homosexuals are comparable to infertile heterosexuals, it is a disability.

Ignoring the subtle ableism here, which is almost certainly beyond the likes of this person, why not compare them to childfree-by-choice people instead? Which isn’t quite accurate either because gay people occasionally do have kids. Even then, I’ve seen people try to spin childfree as a mental illness…

If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral or anal sex, it is a fetish or paraphilia

Straight people engage in kinks and fetishes too. And as these things go, those are pretty mainstream - there are far more straight people who at least occasionally engage in anal sex than gay people who exist, and it’s pretty unusual for straight people to not at least try oral these days.

If homosexuality is comparable to friendships between those of the same sex, why do they have sex?

Straight people (and for that matter, any people) with healthy relationships are usually friends with their spouses/partners. The concepts are not directly related but hardly incompatible either.

If homosexuality were as safe as heterosexuality,

In brief: “More susceptible to disease” is true in the very narrow sense of m/m reckless casual sex (because men transmit STDs more easily than women, and men are more likely to be into reckless casual sex) but this relies on a largely outdated stereotype *and* ignores lesbians. “Damaged sphincters” is not a thing for normal anal sex, and extreme stretching isn’t a common fetish regardless of sexuality. “Bug chasing” is a fetish for straight people too. “Refusing to get tested / not inform partners” is a straight people thing too. Unlike Covid, STDs aren’t airborne.

If homosexuality is a valid form of romance,

It’s not, it’s a sexual orientation. Heterosexuality isn’t a form of romance either.

…Which is an advanced-level discussion that would require too much space to cover even the basics of, so I’ll just note that the part that follows this is really invalidating to straight people who are childfree, unmarried by choice, or don’t believe that “until death do you part” is a realistic prospect for most.

If not being able to get married was a reason why homosexuals were so promiscuous before, why has it gotten worse since then,

It hasn’t.

with the degenerate mainstream media becoming more emboldened in promoting lifestyles like polyamory and cuckoldry?

You’re trying to link this with the previous statement, but it’s only tangentially related, in that being more open in showing one form of “alternative” relationship in the media tends to lead to being more open in showing others as well. Also, straight people do poly, and cuckoldry is almost entirely a straight thing.

Why do so few express interest in actually getting married, or treating it like the strict, closed relationship it is supposed to be?

Because you only hear from the ones who exclaim such views. This doesn’t make it the majority. This has been often noted on in BDSM communities: You’ll see a lot of people talking about poly (either in general or one’s own relationship), yet most BDSM people aren’t actually poly - nobody talks about being “not poly”. This creates a weirdly warped and sometimes uncomfortable perception for newbies. Also, straight people do this too.

TL;DR - OP has an overly narrow and inaccurate view of straight people, uses said view to attempt to invalidate non-straight people, also a few PRATTs, outdated stereotypes about gay men, ignores the existence of lesbians.

Etienne Charland the Emergence Guardian #crackpot #magick #ufo #conspiracy #mammon

Wiping out all money consciousness below a certain threshold (around 15) on the Hawkins scale, and gradual transmutation of the rest (15 to 200 on Hawkins scale).

Let’s just say that the “Hawkins Conscious Scale”, which goes from 0-1000, is basically new-age spirituality dressed up as pseudo-psychology. “Money Consciousness” is a real term in psychology, but it doesn’t mean what most people would expect - it refers to the degree which one opportunistically engages in unethical financial behavior (including theft) out of greed or desperation. (“Money Conscientousness” would be a better term for it, but I didn’t invent it.) A quick search also dug up a “money consciousness scale” which goes from 1-10, and seems to have something to do with the more common meaning of “consciousness”, but that leads to a rabbit hole of The Secret™ types of financial woo. Neither of these scales appear to have anything to do with each other.

This appears to be mashing two nonsensical concepts together to make something which is even more nonsensical.

Katherine Deves #transphobia

“Silence of the Lambs” and “Sleepaway Camp” are not documentaries.

Dana Loesch #wingnut

Stop assuming everyone is sick until proven healthy

The greatest spread of disease happens a bit before you appear sick. And there are people who never show clear symptoms but spread disease for weeks or months, they’re called “Typhoid Marys”. You are suggesting that we drastically reduce the effectiveness of mask use for the sake of “respecting” self-centered, reckless idiots. Nope. Such people don’t get much respect under normal conditions, why should they especially get that respect in times when it would lead them to do the most damage?

Christopher Key #crackpot #dunning-kruger

@The_Dybbuk #123676

We do have prototypes for flying vehicles which serve a very similar function to cars, at least. Won’t be available for sale for a few years and won’t be in common use for a few decades, if they follow the usual technology trends.

Snake Baker #racist #psycho

There was a Hanna-Barbera cartoon called “Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines” AKA “Catch the Pigeon”. It features a character named Dick Dastardly (who first appeared in Wacky Races) and his sidekick Muttley, who keep trying (and failing) to stop a messenger pigeon from delivering secret messages.

Other than that, I got nothing.

Unknown Holocaust Denier #conspiracy #pratt #wingnut

After doing a quick bit of research, I’m pretty sure that they’re equivocating “shower rooms” (euphemistic) with shower rooms (like you’d find in a gym). And they’re treating hydrogen cyanide as if it could only kill if it took the form of a concentrated cloud, as if it were carbon dioxide or something. This is incorrect, it only takes around 0.1% concentration to kill a human within minutes (and 0.02% to kill a human within hours), so you don’t need huge quantities of it even though it disperses in air.

Also, “air soluble” does not appear to be an actual technical term.

Kylee Zempel #wingnut #homophobia #biphobia #transphobia

Have the “conservatives” resisting the use of the “groomer” label forgotten about the concerted effort by gender activists to host drag-queen story hours for little children in taxpayer-funded libraries or “drag-tastic” camps at museums?

I have a question. Just how many people who oppose this are sending their kids to these kinds of events, either because they were somehow tricked, or because they were socially pressured into doing so? If the answer to this is “virtually none”, then that puts a whole swath of “indoctrination” objections under suspicion. (Not that they were ever in good faith to begin with.)

Babylon Bee #transphobia #wingnut #dunning-kruger

@Spacewyrm #123490

I saw that film. The most generous thing which could be said about it is that the main character had severe mental problems which made it difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality and playing an RPG only made things worse; however, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the intended message of the film. Rather it was that engaging in fantasy too deeply itself promotes the inability to distinguish reality. It needs to be looked at in the context that, at the time the film was made, Dungeons & Dragons was still pretty new but people were already suspicious of it, and the Satanic Panic was only just getting underway, and both of those things influenced it.

If you want to see an actually good 1980s film about someone falling too deep into fantasy, I recommend Labyrinth. (Yes, I went there. 🙃)

Well, there have existed some games where there are extensive, random lookup tables for creative ideas if the player or GM doesn’t know what they want, only that they want something different than the usual. Of course one can always ignore/reroll if they don’t care for the results. There’s no reason why that couldn’t be done for gender if someone really wanted to, but I couldn’t see that appearing in any sort of standard material. Most people aren’t interested in playing an “unusual” gender identity, and most of those who do already have something in mind.

Yes, I’m responding to this with far more seriousness than it deserves. Honestly, the Bee themselves really need some random lookup tables to aid in their supposed comedy, at least that way it might be funny occasionally.

Kylee Zempel #wingnut #biphobia #transphobia #homophobia

There’s multiple different things going on which lead to this.

It’s always been true that people have the right to raise their children according to their own values (well, to a point anyway, no society is infinitely tolerant), but no one is guaranteed the privilege to raise children free of counterexamples to their values. Some people have always been told, “tough luck there buddy”, and that’s the non-asshole version (often it was more like “take this as a sign you should abandon your obviously inferior values”). After decades of relative privilege on this matter, the far-right and mid-right are increasing being told “tough luck”, and they really don’t like it.

Then there’s the matter of consent. Not just sexual consent, though sex is very often used as a gateway to a more general understanding of the concept. There are a lot of people who don’t understand it and don’t want to. The idea, for them, is that you should always just say no (except for the few areas where you should always just say yes) regardless of your desires or the circumstances, but your social superiors can simply override your no/yes. Unless you’re at the top of the heap, you decide little or nothing for yourself, you decide for the people below you instead. Outside of isolated cult communities it has never worked completely like that, but the degree to which things work like that has waxed and waned over time; currently it’s very much on the wane, and they really don’t like this either.

Due to both of the above, they’re in danger of losing their kids, whether by having the authorities taking them away (less likely) or their children becoming alienated to them (more likely). This is seen as a fundamental violation, not merely of their right to raise their kids as they see fit, but also of the social contract which they “agreed” to (more likely, were forced to “agree” to) where they give up control over their own lives in exchange for control over certain other people’s lives (often just their own children and no one else)… and how is that even fair that they might not even get the benefits which came with their sacrifice?

And of course abuse of any kind is getting harder to hide. For those who engage in it, some distractions are needed. For the non-abusers (and I use the term “non-abuser” generously here) they don’t want to confront the idea that the sexualization of children has already been normalized in some respects. And since it isn’t going away any time soon, we should prepare children to deal with it. Because it would force them to acknowledge that their worldview has been complicit in creating this situation. So they, too, need some distractions to shut down the conversation.

Steve Dragon #homophobia #psycho #fundie #crackpot

I’ve seen (thankfully very rarely) the very weird attitude that there are some people who exist solely to burn in hell. If they become whoever God created them to be, then they’re evil and deserve it, but if they don’t, then they still deserve it for disobeying God. Somehow God himself is not a monster for doing this. This view seems to be influenced by Calvinism while being worse than actual Calvinism.

So while it’s still probably just someone being all edgelordy, it would be sadly unsurprising if there were someone somewhere who held the most extreme possible version of that belief.

Various Commenters #transphobia

TERFs always start out with “Why do those undateable [insert insult/slur here] try to force people to date them? If trans women are really women, and trans men are really men, then why don’t they just date each other and leave the rest of us alone? Oh, that’s right, because even they don’t consider their own kind dateable.” When they later find out that trans people have been dating each other since forever, they change their tune: “See! They’re forced to date their own kind because nobody wants them! If they were real men/women they’d have no problem dating other people.” And then sometimes they vacillate between those two positions depending on the current conversational trends in their spaces.

The fundamental assumption here is that all trans people have fundamentally transphobic beliefs deep down “just like everyone else”, it’s just that most won’t admit to it. Though when your premises lead to two mutually incompatible conclusions, you might want to reevaluate them.

Dmitri Peskov #wingnut

I’m guessing that this is because Ukraine is currently attempting to retake the Donbas region now. “We conquered this land fair and square, no take-backsies.” (BTW, Russia has yet to actually declare war against Ukraine, Putin refuses to do so for whatever reason)

PipweedTV #psycho #ableist

Nobody “wins” arguments, unless they have a goal related to engaging the argument which the other person doesn’t necessarily share. And if your goal is to find a moment where you can say “your position doesn’t matter because you don’t matter” and be partly correct in an extremely superficial sense? Who even does that? Oh, right, a bully.

Liz Wheeler #wingnut

I could easily see someone doing something like that as a one-off, either to be silly/weird or to subtly mock the idea of announcing one’s pronouns. I’ve not personally seen anyone do that, so I’m going to echo that this is probably not a real phenomena. If it does become one, I would like to know why as well.

Benjamin Fulford #crackpot #conspiracy #racist #wingnut

So how long before those people are replaced by clones or robot doubles?

Tatsuhirocel , FallenPrime & GrimIsSlim #sexist #racist

It’s common for extreme misogynists to claim that women are no different from children. They don’t mean that women are literally children, just that they consider them both functionally close enough to treat them the same in most respects. Which can unfortunately extend to forcing their kids to share equally with the wife in the housework while doing none themselves, and also sexually abusing their underage daughters. Fortunately it’s become a lot more difficult for that type to coerce women into marriage.

This is similar - “all Jews are parasites, all women are parasites, therefore they’re interchangeable in most respects”. Except they typically frame it like women aren’t part of their lives at all, and the fact that they can’t parasitize them is bad? And they want to be overlords like the (((Jooooz))) and it’s bad that they can’t? It’s kind of like “only I’m allowed to be evil unhindered, and it’s bad that this is not reality”?

Candace Owens #conspiracy #wingnut

@Vanto #122739
Not in their news bubble. Fauci was barely mentioned at all, and treated as a minor and forgettable side character in the pandemic drama, until a few months after Floyd was murdered. The FOX / OAN / Newsmax coverage of the early pandemic was rather different than what you would have seen elsewhere, and also rather different from what they’re saying now.

That being said, their narratives to explain “sinister” (not usually actually sinister) ongoings in the government, particularly when Democrats are involved, often don’t follow the chronological order of events. Given how prevalent this was during the Obama years, the phenomenon is sometimes mocked as “Obama’s time machine”. Or someone borrowing it.

Charlie Kirk #crackpot #wingnut

@Vanto #122737
It’s probably more accurate to say that Trump was a Democrat once. He’s a Republican now because pandering to Republicans was seen as a better path to power and real wealth (not the largely illusionary wealth created by his borrow-and-bankruptcy cycle). His political beliefs, if he even has any, aren’t coherent or consistent enough to be meaningfully classified on a liberal-to-conservative scale.

Candace Owens #conspiracy #wingnut

Charlie Kirk #dunning-kruger #pratt #transphobia #fundie #wingnut

@Sasha #122725
So the obvious question is, how prevalent was transgenderism in 1778 and 1917?

That depends on what you mean by “transgenderism”, really. If you mean “number of trans people in the population”, then the answer, realistically, is “somewhat less than today, due to the larger numbers of suicides and murders”. If you mean “number of people who are openly trans” or “number of people openly espousing a pro-trans ideology” then the answer is “a lot less than today, and depending on how you define ‘pro-trans ideology’ probably nonexistent as of 1778”. That being said, there was a spike in general pro-LGBT attitudes after World War I (which ended in 1918), which largely ended around the Great Depression, for whatever that matters to the argument.

I say “realistically” because we can’t objectively know that trans people didn’t exist in the West prior to the mid-19th century* when what passed for medical science at the time started vaguely paying attention to them, outside of a handful of known or suspected historical examples. It’s just ludicrous to assume they didn’t, based on what we currently know.

*I’m not getting into non-western concepts of gender variance, but basically, the first recorded trans rights movement was in western Europe in 1861, when trans folk were referred to as “male women” and “female men”. The term “transsexual” didn’t exist until 1880, but remained unknown to the general public and obscure even in psychiatry and medicine; there was no recorded usage of the word in English until 1949, when it was used to refer to British trans woman Rita Cowell. The first recorded use of the word “transgender” wasn’t until 1971.

There are no “laws of economics”, at least not on the level of rigor of “laws of science” - there are “theories” (in the sense of commonly-used models) but none of them are currently much better than “sometimes useful, never reliable”. That being said, economics isn’t really treated as a science; and if it was, it would be the softest of sciences in its current state.

People who think in terms of “laws of economics” tend to be all about supply, demand, rational actors, etc. But most people aren’t rational actors, even in the economic sense of the term - advertising very much relies on people not being so. Major corporations can and do manipulate supply and demand for their own benefit. Responsible governments regulate their economy to minimize destructive boom-bust cycles which harm everyone. Clearly, this is not like a law of physics - it’s not like someone could, say, throttle gravity just because it’s inconvenient.

Trans people’s issues for the most part fall under sociology, with a bit of biology tossed in, and sociology is at least as mutable as economics (perhaps even more so, as we do not yet know exactly how mutable economics is). Conservatives like to make it all about biology so they can bypass the sociological aspects of it. Otherwise they’re just left with theology, which isn’t an acceptable argument for much of anything anymore. But even reduced purely to biology, biology itself isn’t immutable to the same degree that physics is; farming, medicine, and biotech all rely on it being not so.

TL;DR it’s not useful to compare physics, economics, and social issues to each other.

Charlie Kirk #crackpot #wingnut

It’s certainly true that there’s a correlation between large quantities of steel and concrete in your general vicinity, and conceptual/emotional disconnection to your food supply. That’s not direct causation, but still strongly related - we tend to put steel and concrete structures in the places most disconnected from the food supply. But. Rural areas tend to be only moderately conservative; the real conservative strongholds are the suburbs and exurbs for the most part. At minimum that’s not a single-factor correlation. And I have yet to see anyone establish an argument for causation along those lines.

(The strongest actual correlation appears to be population homogeneity; suburbs and exurbs tend to be split into culturally and racially near-homogeneous neighborhoods, which is a totally on purpose “accident” of history in most places.)

Various Commenters #sexist

This is something which has long been said by many feminist groups, albeit usually without the “demonizing men is okay, actually” take. It was probably moderately useful once, but I’m not really convinced that it is anymore.

First, the problem with the idea of “men on one side of the line, women on the other, each of you take care of your own shit” is that, after the very basic stuff, both sides are going to come up with solutions which interfere with each other’s solutions. *Some* degree of crossover cooperation and agreement is necessary, otherwise you’ve got two groups playing different games with different rules on the same field and constantly punishing each other for following the “wrong” rules, leading to an almost literal “battle of the sexes”. That’s not to say that women shouldn’t primarily focus on women’s issues, and men should just continue to largely ignore men’s issues, but unless you plan to live on a separatist commune with like-minded people on Mars or Luna, you still have to live within the larger society - and if you are planning to do that anyway, why even bother with men’s/women’s issues?

And then, more to the point, the type of people who we *do* see calling for this? Virtually always gender essentialists. They’re not just men on the left, women on the right; they’re also tr*nnies on the side of your birth sex, enbies stop pretending you’re different/better than us. Or alternately, non-cishets, form your own tiny groups, and also if the two big groups are stomping all over you, you’re on your own. And then there’s the fact that a lot of them don’t care about how their solutions impact the poorest and/or racial minorities; such people don’t have anything to say about the “typical” male/female experience in their eyes and thus don’t matter. So even if it *was* a good idea, the kind of people who would likely end up controlling the conversation are the ones who absolutely shouldn’t be.

It’s hardly hopeless, but it could also never be so simple.

Andrew Anglin #homophobia #transphobia

Sometimes I wonder if Andy just keeps desperately shitposting about current “culture war” trends in order to stay relevant. And then I remember, no, he really was like that before he went on the run.

nosubject and Submissive_Lucy #sexist #psycho

@Skyknight #122456
He clearly thinks a double X chromosome makes for an absolute masochist, somehow.

As a practicing BDSMer: and that’s not even how most masochists work.

RHODA WILSON #conspiracy #racist #wingnut #crackpot #fundie

Wasn’t Goliath the last of those with Nephilim blood*? Did they get unextincted somehow?

*Nephilim were giants who were half-human and half-angel; their descendants were considered human, albeit unusually large ones. It’s a common belief (among those who care about such things) that Goliath was the last of the Nephilim-descended and that this was the reason why David had to un-alive him, despite not being biblical canon (the actual canon is vague on the reason, and never even mentions the Nephilim themselves beyond a single throwaway line about “giants” in a different part of the bible entirely). Regardless, the Nephilim were considered to be long dead by that point, and their descendants exterminated.**

**I suspect that none of this matters anyway because they’re apparently using the N-word*** to mean something entirely different which bears little resemblance to the Judaeo-Christian use of the term.

***I apologize for the dumb joke.

Donald Trump #god-complex #pratt #dunning-kruger

Probably true, in an utterly warped sense. Impulsive words flow into his brain, and for a minute or two, he believes them utterly; why would he not, as they are words which exist in the brain of a superior person like himself? And then the words fly out of his mouth, leaving him just as utterly; what was he thinking about, again? Eh, must not have been important.

I mean, I’ve seen him bring up talking points invented by FOX news, and then talk himself out of believing in them in the middle of the speech, then jump right back to supporting those same talking points as if he hadn’t just convinced himself they were nonsense. The man ain’t right.

BettERtoreigninhell #sexist #psycho

where according to them rapes happens anytime and anywhere,

That’s not what rape culture means. That’s what people who are dismissive of the idea incorrectly claim it means. And even if it did mean that, it would be very strange if it existed in any society where violent retaliation against rapists was the norm.

Ron DeSantis #racist #wingnut

I’m not sure how you even imagine that would work, DeSatan, but in the unlikely chance it somehow happens… you started it.

Tatsuhirocel & chudur-budur #biphobia #sexist #homophobia

When you don’t understand those unlike yourself, and you subscribe to an ideology which requires you to frame other people’s actions and motivations in certain ways in order to justify said ideology, this is the kind of idiocy which results.

Megan Fox #dunning-kruger #transphobia #homophobia

** Claims that we’re objecting to something which is inoffensive (though often still has unintended consequences)

“That’s not what we’re objecting to. [This] is what we’re objecting to.”

** Claims that the actual objection makes no sense, and is just a cover for the inoffensive thing

(Explanation why we object to the actual thing we object to)

** ”No one would ever believe in / think like that, therefore you are objecting to the inoffensive thing for super nefarious reasons”

“Welp, we tried” — Part eleventy billion

Massresistance #transphobia #ableist

the counselor called the girl “Al” – a boy’s name

This feels a bit weird. There are multiple female and neuter names starting with “Al”, and while the most common nickname versions of these (when applied to girls/women) are “Allie” or “Alex”, it’s not unheard of to call a woman “Al”, especially if she’s a bit on the butch side. Not that this matters much since this is either a nonbinary child or a trans boy, I just find the presumption that “Al” is an exclusively male nickname to be a bit odd.

Oklahoma House republicans #sexist

<@Why?> #121662
If nothing changes it’s going to be “All Americans have a right to abortion! Though if you live in a Red State, there’s no abortion providers available, and you’re forbidden to travel while knowingly pregnant, but you still technically have the right!”

IrishTheFrenchie #transphobia

I’m guessing that this is supposed to be ordered from “superficially positive” (from their perspective) to “utter horror”? In which case I’m baffled by the placement of some of these. Why, for example, is “younger trans women currently have a thing for kneesocks” on the same level as “cosmetic mastectomies (teetus deletus)”? And for that matter, why do kneesocks in particular matter, and not, say, catgirl hairbands, or blåhaj? Why are fujoshis supposedly so scary? I mean I’ve read m/m erotica and it didn’t turn me into a transman, it’s mostly a straight woman thing as far as I know. Why is “male rapists in women’s prison” (ignoring the incorrectness of this) higher on the list and not on one of the bottom two layers? And so on.

Though I do find it amusing is one of the most horrifying things of all is people who thoroughly reject the concept of gender altogether, at least for themselves (neutrois, listed as “gender nullification surgery”).

Judy Byington/Nick Fleming #crackpot #wingnut #conspiracy #mammon

But the “law of the land” is created and enforced by the government, so isn’t that a paradox?

I know, I know, they’re probably thinking that there’s some sort of “natural law” which supersedes government law, but nobody can even agree on what that means. Also, that would be something like “the law of land” not “law of the land”, assuming they’re referring to property rights or distinguishing it from a law of sea. Wait, that’s it, isn’t it? Thanks to that “Admiralty Flag” nonsense common to Sovereign Citizens, they think that governments are fraudulently enforcing the “law of the sea” on land-based territories?

Definitely not taking economic predictions seriously from someone who doesn’t even know how regular language works, let alone economic or legal language.

Incels Wiki #dunning-kruger #racist #sexist

Uh… you can’t convince any woman to have sex with you, so how are you convincing said cousin?

Incels Wiki #sexist #crackpot #dunning-kruger

@Timjer #120815
Every subculture and cult has their own alternative wiki or two nowdays, at least for subjects which they disagree with the supposed neutrality of Wikipedia (and to be fair, occasionally Wikipedia either isn’t quite as neutral as they think they are, or neutrality is a bad approach for the subject in question). The vast majority of them are obscure trash. Conservapedia (one of the few non-obscure ones) has appeared on this site a number of times before. I doubt you’d find a whole lot worse in them than already appears here.

N/A #transphobia #sexist

I’ve never even watched Dr. Who, yet I know it’s been canon since even before the show’s revival that Time Lords occasionally change sex upon regenerating. You are a *bad* fan.

Kevin Einstein #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger #racist

So you’re confusing race with culture, resulting in a weirdly backhanded form of racism against white people? Okay then.

BeardedLuckDragon #dunning-kruger #crackpot #kinkshaming #sexist #wingnut

I heard a statistic once which indicated 50% of the time you are murdered, and 50% of the time you murder someone else, one or both parties were under the influence of alcohol.

While this is probably at least essentially true (I don’t know the actual stats), a much bigger determination in murder and rape when drugs/alcohol are involved is the absence of meaningful consequences (afterward in the case of rape, during the buildup/escalation in the case of murder) - and the presence of dangerous weapons helps as well. It doesn’t just happen randomly, excepting maybe occasionally with PCP. In the vast majority of cases it just causes someone already on the edge of raping/murdering to take the opportunity, either because their judgment is seriously impaired, or their victim is. In most cases it would’ve happened anyway, just taken longer to reach that point (and not necessarily with the same victim in the case of opportunistic rape).

I really don’t think prohibition and gender apartheid is an answer, though. Aside from the fact that the results don’t seem to have been any better when those were tried, it doesn’t address the underlying problems and sounds like a generally unfun world to live in.

Durham Francis #conspiracy

I hold a doctorate in Meteorological Studies, obtained from the most prestigious institution on the planet Earth, so I know everything there is to know about the weather! I have nine black belts, for nine different forms of elite martial arts, which means I am undefeatable!!!!

The rest of this, despite being ungodly stupid, is something I could sadly see someone believing. This part, however, makes me 95% certain they’re trolling.

Billy Crone #fundie

UFOs are real in the sense that occasionally, unidentified phenomena occur in the sky. It doesn’t necessarily mean “aliens” (and it’s almost certainly never aliens), and people who immediately jump to that conclusion are not the sort of people who you should be talking about evolution with. And regardless, the existence or nonexistence of aliens would say no more or less about evolution than living things on Earth already say.

Steve Sailer #transphobia

Floating a couple possibilities here:

Some people got unreasonably weird with the phrase “trigger warning”, and even that phrase becoming common use didn’t help much. That died down after it was mostly replaced with “content warning”. In that vein, perhaps replacing it with something like “those who are pregnant” or “one/anyone/someone/somebody who is pregnant” might help? And use only “pregnant person/people” only if talking about nonbinary people specifically or it would be otherwise cumbersome, and maybe still use “pregnant man/woman” when talking about a specific, known person of binary gender? That’s a bit more complicated but more subtle, and less likely to raise the hackles of cis women whose identity as a woman is strongly tied to their “exclusive” breeding capabilities (some fundies and most TERFs). It might simply be the wrong turn of phrase for this time, even if the reasons for this are petty reactionary ones.

Alternately: Throw it back in their faces. “Yes, once they become pregnant women stop being people and become baby vessels” (or “meat sacks” if you want to be particularly mean). Might get some to reconsider just a tiny bit, though don’t be surprised if they sometimes agree. “When you become pregnant, your life is no longer your own” is a common refrain among anti-abortionists, after all.