What dumb mf led to that warning label‽‽
ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works Posts 4Comments 1,555Joined 2 yr. ago
ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works
Posts
4
Comments
1,555
Joined
2 yr. ago
You're putting far too much thought into what other people mean by the phrase, particularly in the context of a joke.
Most people are not referring to several different anthropological, sociological, and feminist theories/philosophies.
When you disagree with "gender is a social construct" in a casual setting, intentionally or not, you're conveying the statement "gender is innately tied to biological sex, there are precisely two, and trans people are invalid".
It's better to take the phrase as meaning "having a vagina doesn't mean you're a hot pink wearing pretty princess, nor does a penis imply you aren't. Gender is more complicated than a binary, and we're better off raising children as little people who tell us who they are than spending too much time being concerned that they only play with plastic figurines compatible with their genitals and playacting the right chores".
It's a joke about tricking people into attending an event usually focused on baby genitals, and then instead giving them cake that isn't coded to the babies genitals with a lecture about how they don't tell you as much about who this little person will be as people think.
Results: Evidence that there is a biologic basis for gender identity primarily involves (1) data on gender identity in patients with disorders of sex development (DSDs, also known as differences of sex development) along with (2) neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity.
Conclusions: Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity.
That's not saying what you seem to be implying, and it's not contrary to what people mean when they say gender is a social construct.
Saying gender expression is not only performance is not really related to gender being a social construct.
What we define the genders to be is what is a social construct. The masculine gender encompasses a wide array of behaviours and expressions, as does the feminine. The behaviours and attitudes we assign to each gender is what's socially constructed. People tend to have a gender identity that matches their biological sex, and through acculturation we teach them the behaviors associated with each gender in our culture. Some people later realize that they're most comfortable conforming to a different gender than what matches their sex.
The fun bit is that the word gender was pulled from linguistics into sociology exactly to try to make a less ambiguous situation.
It literally went "what if we talked about people having gender like the French talk about objects?” Much like people, a table is feminine in French regardless of if it has a penis or not.
Later, people decided to use gender as a synonym for sex and complain about using the word gender in a way that's ambiguous with sex.
I feel like if we get to that point, we've given up on the constitution. "He can't run for president because he's term limited, but he's still eligible to be president, therefore we can make him vice president so the president can resign and he can be president" is such an abuse of the term "eligible" where you turn "cannot be elected but otherwise good to go" into "eligible to be in the highest elected office in a Democratic government".
If the way it's written isn't clear cut enough then the court would find a way to say anything wasn't clear cut.
D'oh. I only thought the rest of the comment and then submitted as it was because I needed to go find the text to copy.
And from the 12th amendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
You can only be elected president twice. If you serve more than two years of someone else's term you can only be elected once. If you can't be president you can't be vice president.
So if you're elected once, then serve as VP and the president goes away and you serve as president for 2 years and a day, you've already been elected once so you can't run again, and you can't be VP because you can't be the president.
If you've been elected twice you can't be VP, so you can't get any extra time that way.
His argument has legal inconsistencies. It's been soundly rejected by every authority with any say in the matter, so ... You're entirely correct. If his argument were to be accepted, then he couldn't be president.
A legal argument being rejected also rejects the parts that would harm the person making it, as well as the parts that would help them.
It's like a person in prison yelling that they're innocent. You can say what you want, but the decision has already been made.
It actually does.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
(Edited to add) And from the 12th amendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
You can be elected twice and you can serve for no more than 10 years total.
Paranoia in the sense of being concerned with the ill intent of others, not the sense of an irrational worry about about persecution. Much like how the intelligence community itself is said to have institutional paranoia.
While they created a set of patches that would implement the security features that selinux provides, what was actually merged was the result of several years of open collaboration and development towards implementing those features.
There's general agreement that the idea that the NSA proposed is good and an improvement, but there was, and still is, disagreement about the specific implementation approaches.
To avoid issues, an approach was taken to create a more generic system that selinux would then take advantage of. That's why selinux, app armor and others can live side by without it being a constant maintenance and security nightmare. Each one lives in their little self contained auditable boxes, and the kernel just makes the "check authorization" function call and it flows into the right module by configuration.
The Linux community was pretty paranoid about the NSA in 2000, so the code definitely got a lot more scrutiny than the typical proposal.
A much easier way to introduce a backdoor would be to start a tiny company that produces some arbitrary piece of hardware which you then add kernel support for.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/drivers/input/keyboard - that's just the keyboard drivers.
Now you're adding code to the kernel and with the right driver and development ability you can plausibly make changes that have non-obvious impacts, and as a bonus if someone notices, you can just say "oops!" And not be "the god-damned NSA" who everyone expects to be up to something, and instead be 4 humble keyboard enthusiasts with an esoteric set of lighting and input opinions like are a dime a dozen on Kickstarter.
You wouldn't phrase it like that. Android is based on Linux, and selinux is part of the Linux security subsystem. Android makes use of selinux features, among others, for security sandboxing.
I think part of it's that not all propaganda is bad.
There's probably a term for it, but I'd draw a distinction between "opinion" propaganda and "aspirational" propaganda.
One tries to change your opinion of something, like "cops are good noble and always do the right thing".
The other encourages the viewer to live up to some ideal. It's entirely possible for that ideal to also not be great, but even then "I should be" is better than "they are".
A lot of PSAs and things from the ad council fall in the later category. Like the billboards that basically say "real men are present and emotionally available fathers to their children" or "good parents teach their kids healthy diet and exercise by example”.
They're openly cases of the government trying to change public opinions or attitudes (which arguably makes them better examples of propaganda than a lot of commercial television), but they don't feel as objectionable.
"This honest and kind man who always tries to do good and help those around him to the point that it overshadows him being a physically perfect human is the embodiment of the emblematic American man" is more in that aspirational category.
Where have Democrats called Republicans "evil", or "the enemy within", or made allusions to having them arrested for political disagreement?
Also, I like how you dismiss a five star general and people who have actually worked with the man as biased, while also ignoring the whole "historians and political scientists who agree with them".
I stopped reading when you started assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you about trump must just be unfamiliar with his supporters and only reading biased news. Don't be an ass and assume you know the background of the person you're talking to.
As far as I can tell, you're a vocal centrist who won't believe someone has bad intentions just because they tell you what they are. Surrounding themselves with Christian nationalists and detailing their plan to do those things could just be for show, right?
Do you actually know what a fascist is or do you think it's just a synonym for Nazi?
Harris has never advocated for the communal ownership of the means of production.
People who worked with her don't describe her as a communist.
There isn't serious debate about if she's actually a communist or if she just gets really close to the definition.
a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterised by a dictatorial leader, centralised autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy
Is that the definition of fascism, or trumps former chief of staff explaining why he thinks trump is a fascist?
I trust the former head of the joint chiefs of staff, Trump's former chief of staff, and any number of academics to know what fascism is than I trust you, a person who's worried about being uncivil to someone who wants to put people in camps.
Like, take a step back and think about what you're doing. You're saying it's insulting and wrong to call a far right populist leader who attempted a coup to stay in power, who has threatened to use the military to bring places that disagree with him into line, who calls his political opponents "the enemy from within" and who calls them evil and their criticism of him illegal a fascist. Even if you don't see how just that snippet of his behavior warrants the label, why on earth would you care if someone like that was insulted?
We were discussing how he could use his position for good. He could fucking fail at everything he tries to do and leave the country no better and no worse than it is today.
I'm not gonna sit here and jerk the guy off in the hope that he fails at fascism so hard that he somehow deports musk and enacts MAGA-care for all to spite Obama.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna175198
https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/thought-leadership/2024/10/is-trump-a-fascist/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/dispatches/what-does-it-mean-that-donald-trump-is-a-fascist
My eyes rolled so hard they literally flew out of my head and knocked a wall off the back of my house when I saw your example to justify "hundreds of billions of dollars of waste" was an opinion piece on the $500 toilet seat from 1986.
Spoiler alert: if you read the next few years of news it's revealed that those stories are almost uniformly exaggerations and misrepresentations driven by Reagan era people who wanted to starve the beast.
Political lies drummed up to justify cutting vital services under the pretenses of "fighting waste".
You can do whatever you want. I won't be caught dead cheering for a fascist who wants to rollback civil rights just to give him a fair shot in case he makes a prudent budget cut. Which he won't, because his platform has openly covered that they want to cut education, healthcare, and science.
But hey, at least you gave the fascists a fair shot despite their open plans for evil, right?
I can think of two billionaires that I'm tentatively okay with. One sold a software service for a dollar a year to a couple billion people, and the other is a musician with an extremely valuable musical portfolio and popular live shows.
The key part being that they almost entirely made their money by actually producing something themselves, not just leveraging money to make money or leeching off the work of others, and what they made actually provides value. $1 a year for communication services is a fair value, and the musician has easily provided more than a billion hours of enjoyment.
I can't think of anyone else that it seems reasonable to have that much money that actually has that much money.
and tasted normally
I agree we should eat the rich, but I'll also admit that it's a rare treat, so worth going all out on the seasoning and dining experience. At the least some fresh herbs and butter basted. :P
I'd cap it high enough so that you can obviously retire with a life of luxury, leave your children unquestionably provided for, and start a few odd businesses without realistically risking the previous points.
"Solving" you and your families material needs is sort of the endgame for wealth. The extra for random business ventures is because society actually benefits from people with safety nets taking risks to see if something makes money. It works better if we had a society wide safety net so failure doesn't kill you, but even a limited form still has a benefit.
Anything leftover shouldn't go to charity, it should go back to the society that helped them get the money in the first place. Charity is good, but it's ultimately a bandaid on social problems, and too often isn't distributed evenly or without condition to those who need it. Taxes and entitlement programs won't require a religious sermon to get food,
I want what's best for the country, specifically the people in it, and the world as a whole.
I hope that trump fails because his stated objectives are abhorrent to common decency, fiscal prudence, and functional governance.
What he calls waste I don't believe for a second is actually waste. He has done nothing to earn my trust in that or any other regard, and so I don't. Certainly not enough to trust them with something as broad as "waste", if the fools who think that any scientific research they don't see the point of is "waste" like so many of the examples have been.
Listening and judging a politician based on their words and actions isn't being "partisan". The electorate can't even be "partisan hacks", they're the one's whose interests and opinions are supposed to be being represented.
It's not up to the American people to live up to the expectations of politicians. It's literally a politicians entire job to live up to ours, and do things that benefit us. If the politicians goal is contrary to that end, I hope they fail.
I'm not gonna wish someone who wants to harm me, my family and my friends luck just so that they might not want to in the future. They need to earn my trust, not the other way around.
If they do nothing for four years and things remain exactly the same as today, I'll count that as a win. If they yell "psych!" and actually do something good I'll eat a hat.
There's a difference between screaming into the echo chamber and support.
And in any case, I would disagree that we should just not talk about politics. If nothing else, there doesn't have to be a greater benefit to calling the president a shitheel for it to be worth doing if you think that.
I'm not honestly sure that we should. Sometimes supporting and wanting what's best for the country means earnestly hoping the president utterly fails.
I sincerely hope this trump administration accomplishes less than they did last time, ideally nothing.
Just for pedentasim, most wealth held by the extremely rich is in the form of assets that aren't covered by the estate taxes. This is often by design.
This doesn't even seem like the most egregious "weird warning".
Thinking you can use a pet urine cleaner for fibres on a shaggy dog isn't madness, it's just "nope, actually a skin irritant".