iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

reinforcing traditional gender norms. But that's not the same argument; I'm specifically saying that it's the (unsolicited) judgement and commenting on other people's somewhat gender non-conforming behavior that reinforces traditional gender norms.

200

Both tbh. Plus in many contexts it's a reaction to someone literally just not conforming 100% to traditional gender norms (e.g. cross-dressing), thus reinforcing traditional gender norms. And yeah, I know terfs have a similar argument where they claim that being trans itself is

100

Also note that it is in general just a shitty thing to do if done publicly, for the same reason that outing someone is a shitty thing.

000

I agree with them. My relation to my gender is my business, so no thanks to unsolicited advice from strangers. It's also often a form of perpetuating traditional gender, e.g., when someone tells a man that their an egg after he "admitted" to cross-dressing.

100

the mc hammer of bluesky @sopranos69420.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

It happens a lot on the internet

000

Reposted by ‫‮Sayven

we're gonna need to seriously consider What Must Be Done

1355

Un état a donc quatre pouvoir : les pouvoirs législatifs, exécutifs, judiciaires et le ZEvent.

0170

You sure are one toxic individual.

010

Damn, I forgot that's it's c r i n g e to be aware of people on the internet, my bad. And call it a joke post all you like, it doesn't read like a joke to me, plus you're defending your position.

000

Some revolutionary leftists hate Mamdani* Fixed it for you. The overwhelming majority of the left called for voting for him. Like where would you put people like @shaunvids.bsky.social politically? Calling him anything but a leftist would be absurd.

W.E.D.em Boyz @leftistwonk.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

Reposted by ‫‮Sayven

It’s somehow still more controversial to be against this than to be for it

192376661

Reposted by ‫‮Sayven

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò @olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

"Israeli soldiers in Gaza told Haaretz that the army has deliberately fired at Palestinians near aid distribution sites..." www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...

haaretz.com

IDF soldiers ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian aid

***

15128051620

Reposted by ‫‮Sayven

Rami Ismail (رامي) @ramiismail.com · 27/06/2025

This is from Haaretz, an Israeli news site. It proves that Israeli concentration camp soldiers have been ordered to deliberately shoot at unarmed Palestinians waiting for humanitarian aid. No Western media will run this story or even refer to it, because real Western journalism is mostly dead.

2924481042

There are plenty of protests against Trump, just not (directly) about Gaza. Which is kinda understandable because Trump knows that people who condemn the genocide wouldn't vote for him anyways. Also there's ICE, where protests can be effective since its a domestic issue.

000

Damn, didn't think about that. Guess we shouldn't ever protest something if there's the possibility of someone being even worse.

100

If protesting against a genocide and its enablers is "purity bullshit", then I have no problem being purist.

100

What a comeback. So just to be clear, you aren't backing the claim you're making. One post on bluesky isn't anywhere close to being a guarantee that the dnc won't try to tank him later on.

000

Let's wait and see. You can't seriously make any sort of claim based on one post on bluesky.

100

So first you bring up the Overton window, only to then say that it's actually irrelevant? "God people like you have the logic of fucking rocks." I'm ending this conversation here, because I don't think you're arguing on good faith.

210

This is the definition I'm using, in any case. Clearly then, the Overton window is influenced by "vibes", i.e., by the different sets of opinions that are expressed in public discourse.

The first sentence from the Wikipedia article: "The Overton window is the range of subjects and arguments politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time."

It's easy to see a pattern when you cherry pick your data according to a pattern (or simply put, Democrat administrations also bombed the ME)

000

Great argument. In any case, they don't have that support right now which is why they move to the right. Which is actually a problem, because of the Overton window. So in order to fight against the shift in the Overton window, there needs to be public resistance against their moving to the right.

What makes you think that?

100

Yes, there is a price to pay. But there's also an equally bad price to pay if we let democrats become republicans. Also, I hope you spend the same amount of energy on republican voters. Because there's a whole lot more of them, and they do not only not vote democrat, they vote republican.

Who cares which of the extremes is worse when the optimum is somewhere in the middle?

100

Of course there's a downside to this tactic. It's important to find a balance. Never voting Democrat will only benefit Republicans (and also doesn't result in that much pressure since you might no longer be perceived as a potential voter), but unconditionally voting Democrat also clearly has issues.

saying "these are the academic definitions, use them or u stupid" (without actually sourcing any claims should I note) will not lead to any change. All you're doing is stroking your ego.

000

"Anyone who doesn't read political philosophy and adopts their definitions even for non-academic discourse is an idiot" People use the definitions of words that are most commonly understood in the context they are communicating. Sure, what these definitions are can and should change, but just

100

I don't understand. Leftists naturally don't have this sort of influence on Republicans because it is clear that they wouldn't vote for them anyways. The people who punish Republicans in this way need to people who used to vote Republican.

If you think someone is "entitled" because their vote should be for a party that's politically reasonably close to their own position, then you don't understand democracy.

010

If there's no pressure for the Dems to do more than slightly better than the Republicans, then they won't. Voting blank or third party is partaking in politics.

230

Look them up where? Which ever resource that agrees with you I suppose. According Merriam-Webster, "liberal" can mean open-minded OR politically liberal OR socially liberal OR economically liberal. So I did as you told me and looked up one of the terms, and the result was that the term is ambiguous.

000

‫‮Sayven @sayven.bsky.social · 25/06/2025

Of course it would be great if people agreed on a set of definitions, but that's not the same thing as calling everyone with diverging definitions idiots.

000

London has fallen? Why did nobody tell me?

000

‫‮Sayven @sayven.bsky.social · 25/06/2025

You're assuming words have definite, unique definitions.

000

‫‮Sayven @sayven.bsky.social · 24/06/2025

??? WV Bill 456, as I stated pretty clearly.

000

None of what you said changes the fact that your ideology leads to laws like this. Also note that this isn't (just) about competitive sport, this is also about school sport etc.

120

This is a very real thing, see e.g., West Virginia Bill 456, which allows healthcare providers (and before the amendment pretty much anyone) to "inspect children's genitals" without the parents' consent. Similar concerns exist for other laws, e.g., for trans-athlete bans.

220

In the context of the post I'm replying to, it is pretty clear that by "prose" I mean the style of the prose, but not the story itself. Otherwise, not all of "the prose" would be lost when rephrasing, which is what the post I'm replying to implied.

000

Also, simply there is close cognitive proximity between arguing against the attack because itself is bad, and arguing against the attack due to checks and balances. This can subconsciously convince people who argue that the attack was bad because of checks and balances that the attack was bad in

220

would become much weaker if they were only arguing for checks and balances just for the sake of it. Not saying that isn't the case, but the argument leads in anyone who uses it into this corner where they have to oppose the attack as soon as someone asks why they care in the first place.

120

And it might actually work out better than directly opposing the war, since a) the argument that Trump should respect checks and balances is much easier to argue for, and b), the argument has the subtext that Dems would have voted against the attack as the argument

120

Isn't that a bit of a misrepresentation? It's their main talking point, that doesn't mean it's their main motivation. And sure, they obviously are way too much in favor, but them using the also obviously more powerful talking point doesn't have to be a bad thing.

220

Sorry for pointing out the implications of your argument, you're right, that really wasn't very nice of me.

000

So the only good thing about Dickens is the prose? Wow, you're really selling him to me.

200