Schadrach

This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?

People who support censorship always believe the censors will always side with their preferences. They never consider what happens when people they oppose control the censors, and for them merely not having allied censors in place feels like they are being silenced (see conservative Christian types who inevitably get angry any time Christian-focused language isn’t enforced [aka War on Christmas or anyone else requesting a display when there’s a public religious display on government property]).

And, since it’s a subliminal process, it’s extremely difficult to make a concious decision to not buy products you’ve seen or heard ads of.

Instead, I make a conscious decision to not buy products I remember seeing or hearing ads of. If you’re using subtle product placement to subliminally manipulate me in a way I don’t notice, good for you. If it’s obvious enough I remember you doing it then I will not buy your product unless it is already the best deal available (aka the cheapest per unit or best quality per price, excepting products I have had a bad experience with).

Right, emulators aren’t illegal but a bunch of adjacent things can be - for example system BIOS/FW/encryption keys/ROMs if you don’t dump them yourself from your own personal hardware.

What got Yuzu in the crosshairs was announcing support for Tears of the Kingdom before it released, meaning they were testing their emulator on an unreleased game and the odds that every dev and tester had legitimately gotten a copy of the game before official release is so low that they weren’t about to fight it and go through discovery (which might have identified significant additional piracy on their part). It was easier to fold and settle, and probably saved them from an immense amount of fines for piracy used for testing.

I know we have citizens united but corporations are not people lol

Citizens United didn’t make corporations people. Corporate personhood had been a thing for a very long time, largely about whether or not forming a business means you lose legal rights operating under it (Does a business entity have freedom of speech? What does freedom of the press even mean in an 18th century context if it doesn’t apply to a business [aka a newspaper]?) and whether or not regular old laws prohibiting a person from doing a thing can be applied to businesses.

Talking about being able to ride a bus in the US is comical.

Depends where you live. It’s much more doable in the densest urban areas than it is somewhere rural. I have a friend who lives in Boston for example and he doesn’t have a car, at all. Because Boston’s mass transit is good enough for his routine needs. I can’t do that here, however.

Got banned off redit for using an alt to comment on publicfreakout which I was supposedly banned from

If you were banned from a Reddit sub you’ve never posted or commented on, you won’t receive a message informing you you’ve been banned. Mostly likely cause for being banned from a sub you’ve never used is the sub using a bot to preemptively ban people it sees as “problematic” - usually but not always these bots are configured to ban anyone who has ever commented on a list of “bad” subs determined by the mod setting up the bot, regardless of content or context. There are some others, like certain porn subs will preemptively ban any account they detect that has an OnlyFans link.

The net result is if you comment on any remotely controversial sub in any context you’ve likely been banned from one or more unrelated subs, possibly without your knowledge.

This is hypothetically against the mod rules, but not enforced in any way. Mostly because of which subs tend to do it and which subs tend to be targeted.

No, no, no. Just like a tax on unrealized gains is a bad idea because of how much it would royally fuck up the stock market, including every 401(k). What they need to do instead is tax the ways used by the extremely wealthy to utilize their gains without technically realizing them, even if that sometimes means taxing debt (aka treating it as income when they borrow against it and taxing accordingly).

I think the more important factor is taking ownership over something that originated elsewhere.

This describes virtually every tool, food, piece of clothing, etc you have ever used that was invented before the 20th century. Most of them originating somewhere else and being copied, rebranded, and modified over and over for decades or centuries until they reached their current forms. The only real difference is how recently it happened and if you can wedge it into a power hierarchy in such a way as to be able to blame someone who’s an acceptable target for that blame.

As a Quebecois

You may not like it, but as a Quebecois you unfortunately remain part of Canada and thus are part of the set of Canadians and the creations and practices of Quebec are Canadian as a consequence.

To change that, you’ll need to double down on that Free Quebec stuff and cut yourselves away from your English neighbors. Though I don’t think that’s even won an opinion poll in the last twenty years, and I don’t think it’s ever been closer than the failed resolution in 1995.

…and then over the coming years, decades, or centuries adjust those things either for differences in practical use or cultural tastes and that’s where a lot of things in most cultures come from. Some things tend to independently evolve in lots of different places though because the idea is simple and the need it fills practically universal (like spears or fermented foods).

But don’t be shocked by the sheer amount of our people modified this thing that those people we traded with used who modified this other thing that some other people used, etc, etc and that’s why our cultural thing is really some ancient Babylonian thing repeatedly stolen, rebranded and iterated upon over centuries. You know, like how we measure time. Or for anyone of European ancestry, writing.

Rachael Dolezal.

Isn’t race at least as much a social construct detached from any physical or biological reality as gender is? If so, why wouldn’t transrace people be valid for essentially the same reason that transgender people are?

You can go down the rest of the radqueer rabbit hole from there, since most of their positions are just taking positions related to mainstream LGBTQ identities and extending them to ones less accepted by the mainstream LGBQ community, like xenogenders and being trans-things-other-than-gender.

I was just assuming it was just Power Word: Shit and would effect anyone up to however many hit dice.

To be fair, the president elected two months ago is the oldest asshole to have ever won the office.

Every couple of years Chinese make a new Sun Wukong move, TV show, or videogame.

Let’s not forget that in the same way you can trace a huge amount of things you see in Western stories to the Greek epics and Gilgamesh you can trace a huge amount of things you see in anime/manga to the Journey to the West.

You’re actually demonstrating my point - I said “a common noun” for one and “a term” for the other. The whole point is that any “acceptable” language for those notions (a person of the sort who possesses female genitals and potentially has ova that she could hypothetically carry to term and identifies as a woman and a person attracted to the sort of person they might hypothetically be able to reproduce with) has to have at the very minimum an adjective if not an entire phrase attached to it.

For example, imagine someone tried to re-popularize the old English words to refer to cis folks, using wifmen for cis women in this example. That would immediately be deemed transphobic, specifically because it’s a common noun to refer specifically to cis women and not a shared category you have to use an adjective or phrase to differentiate from.

Same thing applies to orientation - we have a lot of words for sexual orientations. But a word for a person who is attracted to cis people of a given sex relative to one’s own is unacceptable - the very idea that there could be a term for it is transphobic. Despite sexual attraction being one of those rare cases where what genitals you have and whether or not they’re the original equipment is actually relevant.

Also wouldn’t “gynephile” meaning one who has an attraction to women still not be precise enough, since women includes trans women by definition, at least the feminine ones?

Let’s say yes, since we’re in a hypothetical. Breeding fetish, perhaps? Maybe just someone who’s specifically looking for a long term relationship leading into children?

Except “woman” doesn’t mean “female person” anymore, it means “anyone who identifies as a woman” because attaching any common noun at all for people based on sex rather than gender would be accused of transphobia.

It’s kind of like if someone asked what the term for the sexual orientation of someone who is interested in partners they could hypothetically reproduce with is, the answer is there isn’t one and suggesting there should be will get called transphobic.

I mean the point of all rating systems in the US was fear of government regulation of content and having to fight that particular legal battle. It basically exists because moral busybodies were upset about Night Trap, Mortal Kombat and Doom.

All of this is framed from a US perspective, I apologize to the extent that it’s relevant.

getting paid less for the same work

Essentially not a real thing, and if it is happening at a particular employer it’s illegal and time to sue. The wage gap that’s published is measured as the difference in median total earnings for full time year round workers by sex, and any attempt to constrain it further to be “for the same work” (like adjusting for industry, role, hours worked, experience, etc) rapidly causes it to diminish. It is at it’s heart an artifact of differences in the average life path of men and women - to the point that young, childless, urban, educated women actually earn more than similar men.

and not at all for all the work that isn’t considered work by men like raising kids and running a home

Taking care of one’s home/family isn’t paid work for anyone, regardless of sex. Men aren’t paid for more stereotypically male housework either, like lawn maintenance, cleaning gutters, dealing with pests, plumbing or electrical, that sort of thing. If you do domestic work for another household, generally you do get paid for it.

Also, there’s no third party mandating anything about how your household divides the tasks necessary to keep things going - you negotiate your own division of household labor with any partner(s) or roommate(s). For example in my household my wife and I both work full time, and for most “departments” of stuff that need done we each take a role. She does the laundry, I fold and put away (because her clothes have more complicated cleaning directions, and it’s harder for her to lift and haul stuff around). Whoever cooked doesn’t do dishes. I bring in groceries, she puts them up (the steps and heavy lifting are easier for me). Etc, etc.

again, statistically it’s pretty much all women

Dig deeper into those stats. Specifically, look at the differences in numbers that measure recent victimization versus longer periods. What you tend to see is the more “fresh” the experience is (looking at recent months or years rather than lifetime) the more likely men are to report it (almost as though men are repeatedly told by society that they can’t be victims of sexual assault and doubly can’t be the victim of a woman until they internalize it so they mentally file those experiences away as something else [if you can’t be a victim then what happened can’t be a violation]- I’m speaking from experience on that one) and previous 12 month numbers fare closer to like a 60/40 split presuming you don’t also do some trickery of categorization where (for example) ways a woman are likely to sexually assault a man get filed into a subcategory of “other” to make the comparison less obvious, with women being a majority of perpetrators against men (ignoring the incarcerated of course because then men are a large majority of both perpetrators and victims - there’s a reason term “rape culture” was originally coined to describe prison).

Yes, it’s harder to be a woman.

Depends heavily on context. For example, for virtually anything involving the criminal justice system it’s easier to be a woman. In some careers it’s easier to be a woman (for example, anything to do with children). I could come up with more examples if you want.