Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

Great website:

Sex, the concept of "biological sex" itself rather than the fact of reproduction, functions on the presumption that there are two reproductive types of human body and that one is inferior to the other. Don't believe me? The most recent Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex for discrimination purposes describes the distinct groups

with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group.

But biology, in the conventional sense of describing the ways that organic bodies function, sustain themselves and reproduce in nature, rather than prescribing categories onto bodies for ideological reasons, does not recognise these "distinct" types nor an inherent disposition towards discrimination that flows from the body's matter. As to the question of discrimination, it has been the key objection of the feminist movement for the last century or more that women's biology does not ordain women for oppression (as shown in the badge shown at the top of this essay). To this date, no convincing argument as to why a uterus or breasts means one should be inherently disposed to second class citizenship has emerged. As to the science of sexual distinction, for decades there has been a growing scientific consensus that the category of sex is of some use for understanding reproduction generally, but which in drawing broad brush strokes fails to capture nature's diversity.

I argue here that we have already seen that this idea of sex "distinction" itself, of sexes being at odds with each other puts us at odds with understanding discrimination from a sexual diversity lens. If we can only understand "sex" in terms of absolute and universal separation between types of reproductive body we are insisting on excluding the understanding that many real world bodies do not reproduce.

Trans bodies are imposed on by the sex distinction
For the purposes of trans people this idea of sex distinction moves from the merely problematic nature of the real world overlap between men and women on many physical characteristics, into outright absurdity.

A view of the world that says, as the Supreme Court ruling says in paragraph 7, that biological sex is immutable, or as they put it:

We also use the expression “biological sex” which is used widely, including in the judgments of the Court of Session, to describe the sex of a person at birth

We have to therefore contend with the fact that this is in direct contradiction to the reality that biological bodies are dynamic bodies. In truth the Supreme Court while it was at pains to say that it was not wading into wider debates chose to talk about biological sex in a way that means it can not be changed, and it had to make that choice in order to come to the conclusions it pre-ordained when it refused to allow trans people to argue our case.

Biology, as a dynamic process, and as a field of scientific study however, does not recognise any such "immutability" of bodies. We aren't carved out of some mythical metal only forged by the gods. We are soft. Biology is the study of bodies in change. We are born. We mature. We are injured. We encounter and resist disease. We become disabled in ways that our bodies carry the scars into our future. We age. We die. We decay. The entire concept of "biological sex" as an immutable thing, formed out of this pre existing insistence on the distinction and the categorical difference of sex is an ideology being pressed on to bodies and most of all it is being pressed ideologically on to the bodies of those of us who change our sex characteristics.

The sex distinction is a border that trans people have been crossing by any means available for as early as we developed the means to do so. There is nothing in biology that indicates that we can not. In fact it is through understanding biology that we take hormones to modify these secondary sexual characteristics. We modify the quality of our voices, our fat distributions, the distribution of our facial and body hair. We remove sex organs, we surgically reconstruct different sex organs. We undergo transformations to reform our bodies into bodies we are comfortable with. None of this happens all at once. We are not infinitely malleable. Trans people know there is no sex distinction because trans people know there is no magical crossing over period where after enough HRT and surgery we are metaphysically ordained to be a different sex. Rather this process demonstrates for us the imaginary nature of this immutable wall between the sexes. We are able to modify our sex characteristics within the limits of biology itself and the techniques we have to change it. But we do modify them.

This model of sex as fixed and binary and sociologically neutral is not necessary. We have understood for many years that, for instance, race is not a biological reality, but a social one with biological/phenotypical traits that can be targeted for discrimination, but which are not themselves a coherent biological category. And yet we still understand that racial discrimination exists and that we need protections against this. We understand that disability discrimination is often targeting physiological characteristics but that there is no shared disabled body or shared biological trait necessary for disability discrimination to be addressed as a problem to be regulated against in society.

There is absolutely no need for sex to be considered special in this regard. There is no reason why sex is established to be immutable and distinct (against all the evidence that aspects of it can and do change). In fact we know that many times women are victimised not just based on their sex characteristics being part of a female norm but because the way they deviate from the stereotype of their sex, such as in the case of tall or muscular women who are targeted for bullying or hostility for being a woman who does not fit the "distinct" sexual difference expected of women. Enforcing the sex distinction on women in this manner is itself one of the most common forms of sexist abuse in the world. The insistence that women must stay in their box is the key demand of patriarchal sexist society.

Put simply: we need to abolish sex. We need to abolish the ideological, social and environmental barriers which attempt to govern and limit the diversity of sex in the real world.

Pushing back at the idea that there exists an uncontroversial materially rooted immutable fact known to us as Biological Sex is in fact crucial because the whole point of the trans and sexual liberation argument is that this construct carries ideological barriers embedded within it that don't meet our material needs.

In fact, I will go further than pointing out the clear lie in claiming that there is an obvious meaning of biological sex that is fixed at the point of birth (as claimed in the ruling) — I'll contradict it and provide a workable meaning and definition for talking about sex. I'll start with the observation that human beings are sentient, biological beings (and while some may dispute this, I am happy to wait for such an objection and leave it as accepted otherwise as a reasonable statement of fact by you my dear reader). If there are obvious material consequences to be held about these two features of our experience, these are that:

It matters what we think and feel because we are thinking feeling beings.
We are dynamic systems of matter constantly in a process of change and metabolism until we die.

We are never able to become "immutable" in any of our characteristics unless we die. Immutability is death for anyone. The process of ceasing to meaningfully grow and change is what dying is. It's an utter nonsense and a pretence to act like these truths about the nature of life itself can just be ruled out of our awareness by a judgement that decides that "sex" is a meaningfully known and obvious quantity which is self evidently fixed at birth. The dispute about this fixity and its self evidence is the central matter of the argument specifically because transsexuals, by definition, change aspects of our sexed bodies and expression in ways that make the presumptions of sexual fixity a problem for us and actively harmful to us in our day to day lives.

Part of the problem of the claim of immutability of sex is that sex is itself not clearly defined and it never has been. The more scientists study sex, the more sex becomes a complex mash of things relating to our wider biology, psychology and so on. As to the matter of a workable definition for sex, I offer this: Sex is not clearly one thing or another but rather it is a way we label and interpret a broad range of aspects of our physiology, psychology and sociology, relating to how we reproduce as organic systems, from the chromosomal blueprints that code our protein synthesis, to our secondary sex characteristics, to pheromone production and sensory apparatus that guides us to experience sexual pleasure to the organs and gametes that communicate genetic information through heterosexual intercourse, to immunopathologic differences arising from some members of our species maintaining the capacity to host and give birth to a new life, to many other features in our existence that have some relationship with our reproductive characteristics and processes. That relationship between any "sex" characteristic and reproduction may be strongly correlated or it may be quite tenuous and speculative and it may in some cases be outright stereotype based owing to the ways over time, sexual reproduction has accumulated a huge corpus of ideological baggage naturalising the idea that the "sex" that carries pregnancies is inherently inferior to the "sex" that makes other bodies carry babies. The sexual revolution and the advent of birth control and reproductive technologies has strikingly interrupted even the idea that some bodies are for pregnancy and some bodies are for making others pregnant and new developments in uterus transplantation threaten to disrupt this apparently eternal edifice of sex even further.

Sex is not a single thing but a domain of understanding and discourse about the relation of individuals to roles, behaviours and characteristics associated with reproduction.
Sex is itself both a way that we change ourselves as biological systems and that set of characteristics which we can change. And it is intensely social. Sex is probably among the most socially salient features for most of our species because it is the feature that selects for our evolution and evolution selects for reproducing beings that care a lot about sex. The idea that it is "immutable" when random mutations over time are the entirety of why our species survives and our sexual relations define many features of how our socialisation and social structures as a society function is, to pardon the pun, fucking ridiculous. There is no law of immutability of sex like there is a law of gravity. Rather sex is part of how we mutate and every biologist on earth including the transphobic ones knows this.

In a physical sense there are very few immutable properties in the universe. The brilliant mathematician Emmy Noether showed how each of these conserved properties and physical laws arises from a universal principle of least action around mathematical symmetries in the universe. The "it's just biological sex"-ers rest on a pseudoscientific worldview that has no respect for the fact that the number of hard rules in the universe is actually very small and the discovery of these hard barriers to what can be changed was in fact remarkable for how few things genuinely can not.

Gender Critical Beliefs have had a relatively tidy description set in law. That is, the gender critical ideologue believes that:

sex is biological and immutable,
people cannot change their sex and,
sex is distinct from gender-identity

However, what I discover when I find time to argue with GCs, is that it’s not simply that “trans women are men”. Rather for them, frequently instead when it comes to subjects like trans inclusion in sports, sex-segregated spaces, or other endeavours, the GC believes most of all that trans women ought be regarded and treated as if we were men, and it follows on from this that it is necessary to ignore documented facts where they might trouble this obligation.

That is to say, so far as I can tell, Gender Critical Beliefs are less a set of beliefs than a practice obliged by the need to redefine trans people, our rights and human dignity out of the conversation.

...


Let’s ignore the philosophical question over what a man or a woman is because it doesn’t matter as much as not subjecting any group to disproportionate harms vindictively. What we have in practice if we look at the evidence here is a bloody minded social movement that is insistent on continuing to do harm to trans women by APPLYING male norms to us in full knowledge that they do not fit. This bears a striking resemblance to the ways that biases towards catering to the male norm have negatively affected women throughout history, causing fatal risks in cars, hostile environments in workplaces, and pushing women out of numerous social endeavours.

I don’t especially care one way or another for the argument that trans women are or aren’t women. I care that trans women are hurt by the assumption that we are, and should be regarded as men. This has been found numerous times to have a harmful effect on us in discrimination cases around the world where people have tried to defend anti-trans discrimination on the basis that “we just treat all males the same way” resulting in an identifiable negative effect that only affects trans women (and more broadly transfeminine people assigned male at birth who also aren’t cisgender men, see Taylor v JLR).

GC beliefs focus on definitions of what people ARE categorically in a question begging philosophical exercise about whether meaningful discrete sex categories exist in a species with so much range in overlapping sex characteristics. They do this because doing this is an important distraction from looking that the practical realities of what happens to trans women when that belief about what “is” is transformed into an “ought” in the form of law or policy. Questions of how to define a group of people do not need tight formal boundaries on them in order to have practical utility in any other circumstance, and in any other circumstance, people will generally agree that any definition of categories ought to meet the needs of those affected by categorisation. It’s because of this that categories are in natural language far from immutable and are instead regularly subject to cultural and social changes to suit the needs and norms of the culture creating them.

A consequence of understanding this is we shouldn’t be arguing from categories at all. We should instead argue from human needs, welfare, civil rights and liberties, and the basic common principle that everyone has needs that must be met and a just society is one that broadly works to balance everyone’s needs. Where we create categories in language to denote particular groups we should do this in a way that is compatible with the dignity and rights of those involved. Where we allocate resources in society to different groups which we have labelled any given way, we should do so in a way that’s compatibel with the dignity and rights of those involved.

This seems like a really simple basic, frankly liberal ethical norm rather than a radical demand. And yet it seems to be radical by present day standards where it people take this seriously as a philosophical debate between the merits of gender Platonism vs Social Constructivism or whatever while trans people are going hungry, getting raped, abused by partners, or being killed.

A topic of significant discussion in the UK during the last week has been “why can’t biological women have something for themselves?”

Ask yourself this: Why does the UK not officially allow men to set up clubs that exclude women? Why does this country not allow white supremacists to set up white only parties?

All of our equality legislation is designed around preventing the exclusion of marginalised groups in society through discrimination. Banning a group of people from a space is not automatically acceptable in any circumstance. What we have instead is a system where by default all discrimination is illegal, but some protected groups of people are allowed, under limited circumstances to exclude the dominant social group. That has a test attached — this discrimination has to be proportionate and it has to be for a legitimate aim. For instance a women’s domestic violence group therapy session has the legitimate aim of providing a space where women can share their vulnerability together after violence from men, and that can’t happen freely if their abusers are able to sit in on the session. That’s a legitimate aim. The proportionality test is achieved by proving that there isn’t a different less severe form of discrimination that balances the rights of those involved.

...

When this comes back to trans people in women’s spaces, the question you really should be asking yourself is not “can’t we get a space that’s free for non trans people” but on what planet are you from that trans people are somehow so dominant that you can’t escape us anywhere? On what planet are trans people doing so much violence that you need a trans free space to recover and feel safe? At the root of this demand for trans exclusion is a lie — the lie that trans women are somehow dominating society, controlling everyone and everything. It doesn’t get stated so explicitly as that most of the time but it underpins the logic of the question of our removal in the first place.

I’m frustrated with the "sex is a natural kind" side. They foolishly throw around population ideas around sex being a bimodal cluster concept with only two kinds and jump to a claim that every human being fits immutably into one of the two, while refusing the obvious knowledge of ambiguity in population data and that modifying such traits that make the clusters up is the fundamental observable natural reality of transition. They also routinely ignore that such observations at a population scale lose meaningful information as you change your scale to the individual , a single data point within the population. They also ignore that choosing to talk about various groups within the whole changes your frame of reference, in the same way that gerrymandering does, creating a perspective where the bimodal population observation is no longer rational over your observed sample group.

Capitalism is a system which maximises wealth extraction via labour value. It’s a machine which is intrinsically hostile to most people’s rights and existence, but the ways this plays out is different for different types of people. The trans community is very small and therefore cheap in terms of pinkwashing capitalism. So superficial trans rights reforms are a common way of buying good publicity for the ruling class.

Of course these don’t help most trans people (especially those who are still exploited under capitalism in various ways), but our mainstream charities aren’t in a position to acknowledge that, because that would put fundraising via the state or via wealthy philanthropists at risk.

...

Fundamentally the things that trans people really urgently need are things that Capitalism is systematically failing to provide or undermining for a lot of people:

radical improvements to the NHS,
better social housing availability,
protection in education environments and support,
labour rights/protection,
refunding specialist DV/SV support.

These things were not on the cards for trans rights reform because they hurt the extraction capabilities of the ruling class, requiring taxation and funding or wide scale restructuring of property (housing for instance). That’s the extent to which capitalism is hostile to trans rights and existence.

It occurred to me today that JK Rowling really has still not apologised at any point for spreading age old blatantly antisemitic stereotypes of greedy hook nosed bankers to children. At least I certainly can’t find it if she has apologised publicly for this.

In the Trump Era, there seems to be an endless array of instances in public life of the powerful just refusing to recognise harm they’ve done to minority groups at all. Sometimes they will play act as if they care (as Rowling has at points over Labour antisemitism), while nevertheless also refusing to acknowledge or make any sort of amends or enter into accountability for their own behaviour and actions.

JK Rowling’s work is littered with antisemitic and racist tropes, and the reactionary anti-LGBTQ movement she has aligned herself with have a big track record of trafficking in similar, from the American conservatives and their previous poster-girl Maggie Berns baiting around George Soros, to virtually identical rhetoric and propaganda from East European Christian Nationalists.

...

I’ve tried to raise awareness of this seminal talk by Jewish Polish Feminist Agnieszka Graff before, but for various reasons I suspect many who follow my research work will not have watched it. It’s very long and the audio isn’t fantastic and it is hard to read the slides. But I think it is really important as an early canary in the coal mine from another locale dealing with the same reactionary panic over “Gender Ideology” as we are presently in the UK. It’s an important part, I think, of both of recognising the shapes of the issues that are appearing and understanding them adequately to organise against them. One of the important characteristics raised in in point two of the slide from where the link provided above jumps into the talk: The threat to the child, and the idea of child sacrifice. Agnieszka Graff says

“This has a history, and this is the history of ethnic cleansing campaigns”.
I should add at this point, Agnieszka Graff at this point had had explosives thrown in her lectures. She’s not exagerrating, the reactionary violence had already reached an elevated level.

It’s important for me to say, this goes beyond JK Rowling because this isn’t just about one rich woman. This talk happened long before JK Rowling even stepped into this arena. What I’m trying to draw attention to is instead a matter of conservative forces coalescing around and behind a movement which is founded on tropes heavily rooted in antisemitism and fascist activity.

One of the ideas put forward by Agnieszka Graff (quoting Zuzanna Radzik) is that “Gender has replaced the Jews” — that “Gender Ideology” itself is the latest reincarnation of antisemitic conspiracy theories — a “Cultural Bolshevism” scare for the present day.

In her chapter with Elżbieta Korolczuk in the book “Anti Gender Campaigns in Europe: Mobilising Against Equality”, Graff argues anti-genderism is a “new version of an old polarization … at the root of the present trend: ‘gender’, claims Radzik, has simply replaced Jews and homosexuals in their role of the demonized enemy of the illiberal wing of the Polish Catholic Church.”

...

It is often noted that the most common “Nazi book burning” image shared as a symbol of early fascist ravages against free speech is in fact the burning of the library from Magnus Hirschfeld’s Sexual Research Institute where he catalogued data on transgender and homosexual life and organised a very early civil rights movement for the freedom of LGBT people. And it is not noted often enough that this book burning was also due to the fact that Magnus Hirschfeld was Jewish, and this was not just an attack on the records of the early LGBT movement but on what was demonised as “Jewish science”.

We need to never forget that these things, our struggles, are not separate but integrally related to each other.

So much to shut up, listen and learn.

[D3RANG3D]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[Daffy Duck]

Civil war is upon us

This thread is really making me wonder why era is allowing right wing sexist losers to just hang out here. Never used to be the case

https://www.resetera.com/threads/andy-weir-author-of-project-hail-mary-does-interview-with-right-wing-content-creator-shitbag-the-critical-drinker-to-promote-the-film-adaptation.1475038/page-5#post-153171619

[Daffy Duck]

Why do people feel the need to act like the books/materials were never good and never enjoyable for anyone whenever something like this comes out for anyone? As if people who like it are low brow and not well read.

People clearly enjoy his stories because of the world building and the science stuff, which he *is* very good at and why he's highly regarded in modern sci fi.

Different writers are good at different things. You wouldn't be looking at Tolkien to search for GRRM style character writing, nor would you expect GRRM to have world building like Tolkien. In the realm of sci fi, Herbert was never good at world building like Asimov was, and Asimov's stories always lacked characters that Herbert had. Weir's stories are entertainment first and on the same level as The Expanse books, which too are also considered great modern sci fi works even if they don't have amazing writing like the greats from the past, and that's perfectly fine.

Point I'm making is, the discussion should be on topic of him going on Critical Drinker's channel and his libertarian views (which honestly isn't some new news) rather than resorting to mocking his books and adaptions that people clearly have enjoyed (Atleast The Martian and PHM), and as such indirectly mocking those people who have enjoyed it.

Sounds like a whole lot of dismissing concerns

[Nintex]

Good news Pokopians it's infrastructure week. We're building a river.

[Daffy Duck]

From that hail Mary thread

Arkady Martine and Ann Leckie. Catherine Webb is non-binaryand Slow Gods, their latest book under their pseudonym of Claire North, is excellent.

Non binary but chooses a pseudonym of a woman’s name, let’s look at Wikipedia 

In a 2025 interview with The Fantasy Hive, Webb stated that they are non-binary and use "she/they" pronouns with a preference for "they". Webb is autistic.[6]

FFS, it’s an utter joke these days, just whack “/they” in your pronouns and boom your non binary…also lmao at being autistic, it just goes hand in hand.

[HaughtyFrank]

l

Also praised a Disney-related celebrity for hating women (and admitting to piracy?):

As people have pointed out, Garfield happily made a movie with Mel Gibson 

[HaughtyFrank]

Andy references the chud YouTube reviewer Jeremy Jahns at the very start: "All science fiction TV shows are inspired by Star Trek except for the current Star Trek". And there are plenty more dog whistles.

Is he wrong though?

[Potato]

So I just got back home after getting some breakfast with my wife. I had a road rage encounter. I was driving down a small street that runs through some residentials and even a school. A woman walking her dog was crossing the street at an intersection but did not have marked crosswalks. She's almost in the middle of the street, so I decide to stop and let her completely cross. I didn't even have to brake hard, mind you. I hear a honk behind me, I gesture that there's a pedestrian crossing. So we get on our way, guy decides to race past me in the center lane that's reserved for turning and cut me off and brakes hard in front of me. I brake pretty hard to avoid hitting him. He gets out of his car and starts walking to my car throwing racial slurs at me. I'm like, ok, I was like there was a pedestrian. He's like, that's not what you do you fucking [racial slur, racial slur, racial slur]. I'm like, alright let's fucking get going. So he drives off, I'm behind him. We get to a light a couple streets later where I have to make a left and he's stopped at the light, so I pass him to get into the left turn lane. Light eventually turns green when he honks at me to get my attention as he's passing on the passenger side to show me that he typed out the racial slur again on his phone in bold letters to show me. Been awhile since I had this kinda racism hurled at me and I'm usually a pretty chill guy. My wife is going insane, lol. I'm like ok, shrug it off, but now that I'm home, it's kinda sticking with me and reminds me that racists are emboldened these days to just let their flag fly where ever they are. I miss old racism when it was badly hidden, lol.

If even half that is true, fuck that other cunt. The reeee should have run the cunt off the road.

[Potato]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

I found potato's emote slash spirit animal!

Do it Benji. Be good cunt, not a shit cunt.

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/icymi-hbo-max-is-finally-coming-to-the-uk-this-thursday.1470328/

Not much of an ally are you doops?

So easy to buckle. Looks like you'll be funding Rowling just like the rest of us. Got to have that DC slop huh?  

[Potato]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/thieves-break-off-with-12-tonnes-of-kitkat-in-heist.1476349/page-2#post-153162907

Is black market chocolate really that lucrative? Seems like a lot of risk for candy. Unless this is some false flag thing and Nestle stole the truck, gets the insurance and sells the candy elsewhere

You don't get to be the world's largest food company without knowing how to do petty insurance fraud for less than $1 million of product. (~400,000 bars according to the story, which sell for ~$1.50 each at retail so I'm already massively inflating the value to Nestle themselves)

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Presumably the thieves were not aware the truck was full of KitKat's and targeted it for this reason. You'd have to get all the chocolate off 400,000 bars to use it as black market chocolate, it's mostly a wafer.  

Once again these fuckers illustrating that they are unable to fathom how the we world works and their economic understanding consists of managing a simple personal budget.

[Potato]

 We need to turn this around soon because pushing humans out of the humanities is sole real fascist project shit.

Going to need someone to walk me through this one.

I think "sole" was actually intended to be "some".

Other than that, WTF?

[killamajig]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/it-sucks-when-you-dislike-media-for-normal-reasons-but-it-gets-hated-by-weirdos-so-much-you-cant-even-say-that-without-a-thousand-qualifiers-first.1473163/#post-153019348

(For the sake of tone coming across over text, this is a petty minor complaint that doesn't happen super often, and it's a lot better now than a few years ago. I'm just venting and exaggerating for comedic purpsoes. If anything, this is more of a me issue where I'm overly concerned about something that hardly ever comes up nowadays. I'm including this here but still fully expect someone to respond to the title and respond to a rant I did not in fact write.)

I don't like Last Jedi and Last of Us 2.

And like, that's a sentence that even nowadays earns you some "HMMMMM" and honestly I'm not even mad about that, it's just the way things are. I get why people narrow their eyes at either of those statements, and doubly so in tandem.

But the reasons I dislike them are just my personal preference over what I was in the mood for when watching/playing them rather than...you know, the usual criticism. For Jedi, I dislike it because I was really bummed out it didn't follow up on what I felt like the first movie was setting up for Finn, and while the movie does what it wants to do very well - it's just not what I generally watch Star Wars for, so I came out of it like "Man this is fantastically done, but honestly not really what I wanted. Great job, not for me, but it doesn't have to be."

And for Last of Us 2, I knew I'd dislike it just because it's a sequel. The sudden "stop" without answering anything at the end of the first game is what made it so memorable for me, so I knew I'd dislike it because it would "take away" what was one of my favorite game endings ever. The actual game and story are fantastic (I feel like a third person shooter is not really the medium for the story it wanted to tell, but I can suspend my disbelief for gameplay purposes so it didn't bother me) it just didn't vibe with me. Doesn't make it a bad game by any means, just not one I liked. Which is totally okay! Just because I can tell something is good at what it's trying to do doesn't mean I have to personally enjoy it.

And conversely, disliking a game doesn't mean I'm claiming it's bad.

YOU SEE THE ISSUE HERE?

EVEN WITH THE QUALIFIER UP TOP I STILL AUTOMATICALLY STARTED ADDING A LOT MORE QUALIFIERS TO BE LIKE "THOSE TWO ARE GREAT, I'M THE ISSUE" TO PREEMPT WEIRD ACCUSATIONS

It's just the absolute worst when you want to engage in an argument about a piece of media completely honestly and without bad intentions because when certain groups latch on to that, it usually turns out like...

"Frankly, I think that anyone who dislikes TLJ is probably a sexist insane person."

"Now, that's not very fair of you to say. That puts me in a position where I'm forced to enjoy a movie or have a moral judgment passed on my character, and I sincerely just didn't enjoy a sci-fi movie. I think that -"

And at that point you feel a tap on your shoulder. You turn around and see a chinless creature that somehow crept up behind you nodding along enthusiastically and saying, "FUCK YEEEEEEEEAH MY DUUUUUUUDE! NO ONE IS MORE OPPRESSED THAN THE WHITE GAMER! TELL THEM ABOUT THE WOKE GARBAGE!"

You blink twice, perhaps wondering if that particular weirdo is even aware you aren't white and just sort of pass a little. Then you shake your head, reluctantly turn around to look again at the TLJ fan, sigh, and are forced to say "...Okay if those are my only two options, sure, it's a masterpiece or something, yeah."

WHY ARE THOSE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS THOUGH GODDAMN IT

(The answer, if I can stop joking for a moment, is that it's a very useful strategy for certain bad actors to attach their messages to disliking a piece of media to propagate those messages or falsify consensus. That's a pretty complex topic that I think someone else more qualified than me can speak better about)

TL;DR: I haven't slept in 38 hours because I have a sleep disorder and also had to spend 30 minutes in a work meeting explaining that not enjoying a star wars movie isn't reflective of politics. I am just venting lmao it's not a big deal also work thing ended up great and it was very funny in the end, I was just frustrated

Realistically, if you're talking to people who need a thousand qualifiers before having a level-headed conversation about a piece of media, you're talking to dummies and are probably wasting your time anyway.

Yet you post on ResetEra 

Bonus:

I'm pretty sure I still have PTSD from moderating TLJ threads...

You can't make a joke about Trump having dementia without getting banned but It's fine to joke about having PTSD from moderating Star Wars threads.🤡

[Daffy Duck]

Nothing better than tearing down a PoC, especially when they’re a woman too

https://www.resetera.com/threads/chilli-from-tlc-is-proabably-maga-donations-to-trump-found.1476715/

Damn, we lost one.

She's been posting and liking suspect stuff online for a bit so this is not a total surprise apparently.

She's touring with T-Boz as TLC with En Vogue as well. Some fans on social media want a refund lol.

The donations discovery comes as social media users on Threads found a screenshot of Thomas' Instagram account, which shared a debunked post claiming that former First Lady Michelle Obama was a transgender man who was registered to vote in elections in Illinois in 1994.

Damn, for a Black woman this is nasty fucking work. That whole conspiracy is built off Black woman being seen as 'masculine'.

Apparently she denies this in a recent social media posts. She said it was a fat finger and that she admires Michelle Obama.

So she's denying it. Saying she didn't know the SuperPAC was Trump affiliated.

Cancel culture don’t exist tho

[JoeBoy101]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/star-of-the-animal-and-duece-bigalow-rob-schneider-calls-on-draft-to-be-reinstated-and-make-service-mandatory.1476532/#post-153157999

If BCT had any balls, they’d come out en force for this post.

[Daffy Duck]

Fucking A, I *just* bought tickets to the TLC/En Vouge/Salt N' Pepa show in Toronto. I'm still excited since she's not the only part of that, but that's definitely excitement-dampening. :/

This incidental mention of her performing with Salt-N-Pepa has me worried (no connection to this, just brings them to mind). I haven't updated myself on them for a long time. Please let them still be good.

Jesus fucking Christ, just fucking enjoy what you fucking enjoy

Honestly I can buy the fat fingers excuse, but then the question becomes, why is that shit on your feed in the first place?

Ask the people in your community the same question

[HaughtyFrank]

Thought this was parody at first. People are crazy

Edit:

J.K. Rowling has made it abundantly clear that she will continue using her fortune to harm trangender people.

Typo or new inclusive word? Who knows

[BIONIC]

My favorite trangender

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wkd-box-office-%E2%80%A2-03-27-29-26-%E2%80%A2-project-hail-satan.1476793/#post-153178828

Project Hail Hitler

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wkd-box-office-%E2%80%A2-03-27-29-26-%E2%80%A2-project-hail-satan.1476793/#post-153178984

I'm referencing this

Equating anything he said during that interview to "Heil Hitler" is insanely tasteless.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wkd-box-office-%E2%80%A2-03-27-29-26-%E2%80%A2-project-hail-satan.1476793/#post-153179626

Folks are wanting to cancel the author of the book now

I mean he is a big fan of a nazi, so it's fair for people to be done with him and his works.

Cancel is hyperbole. Rich white folks don't get cancelled. You're a fan of Critical Drinker? Cause Andy Weir is a huge fan of that alt right shithead.

[simiansmarts]

Cancel is hyperbole. Rich white folks don't get cancelled. You're a fan of Critical Drinker? Cause Andy Weir is a huge fan of that alt right shithead.

chuds among us!? CAST OUT THE LEPERS!!! 

[malfoyking]

Bodied their stupid asses. Cry more Vitches.

[HaughtyFrank]

Folks are wanting to cancel the author of the book now

I mean he is a big fan of a nazi, so it's fair for people to be done with him and his works.

But critical drinker isn't a nazi either. Misogynist, shithead, whatever, but nazi actually means something

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/2026-us-and-israel-launches-strike-on-iran-khamenei-killed-israel-invades-lebanon.1449391/page-295#post-153165649

That'll buff right out.



Australia has one E-7 deployed to the area, supposedly based at Al Minhad Airbase in the UAE. Not sure about the latter, but it's a base that has also been attacked.

that was still able to land??

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wkd-box-office-%E2%80%A2-03-27-29-26-%E2%80%A2-project-hail-satan.1476793/#post-153179626

Cancel is hyperbole. Rich white folks don't get cancelled. You're a fan of Critical Drinker? Cause Andy Weir is a huge fan of that alt right shithead.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-serfs-we-need-to-talk-about-andrew-callaghan-channel-5-all-gas-no-brakes.1476832/

Him interviewing Shia LaBeouf while he's been going on a violent and bigoted tirade is quite exploitative, and people need to be reminded about Andrew, now that he's back.



While he's interviewing the son of the President and future hopefuls like Pete Buttigieg the entire internet seems to have forgotten what happened with Channel 5's Andrew Callaghan.
...
If I'm going to be accused of virtue signaling no matter what I do in this video, then let me signal my virtue. We owe it to the victims of sexual abuse and violence to stop giving a pass to unapologetic serial rapists. In this case, it's as easy as saying, "I'm not going to fuck with this person anymore". And why should I? He doesn't respect his audience or fans or me or you. If you have friends who like him, that doesn't inherently make them bad people. But if one of them sent me one of his videos, I'm going to tell him, "Here's why I don't fuck with him."
...
Completely erasing multiple victim's stories or having them harassed into silence while pretending like nothing happened makes each and every one of us complicit. Andrew Callaghan has to answer for what he's done. And until he does, this will be the last time I ever watch Channel 5 again.

Edit:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/channel-5-with-andrew-callaghan-interviews-clavicular.1476826/#post-153180424

interesting we are still platforming Andrew Callaghan...

[Besticus Maximus]

Callaghan is absolutely an unfuckable loser but he was never accused of being a serial rapist he was accused of banging his fans and sliding due to his magic powers (read being famous online)

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/andy-weir-author-of-project-hail-mary-does-interview-with-right-wing-content-creator-shitbag-the-critical-drinker-to-promote-the-film-adaptation.1475038/page-6#post-153181309

Is there some controversy about Jeremy that's widely known? Google's drawing blanks for me outside of reviewing one particular movie.

I see his movie reviews in my YouTube feed from time to time but they generally seem like surface level commentary at most.

He gave a glowing review of Matt Walsh's "An I racist?"

[Hap Shaughnessy]

Could you imagine putting in the effort to memorize a bunch of weirdos and all stupid things they've said.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[filler]

Could you imagine putting in the effort to memorize a bunch of weirdos and all stupid things they've said.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

benji? 

[Superstar]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wkd-box-office-%E2%80%A2-03-27-29-26-%E2%80%A2-project-hail-satan.1476793/#post-153178984

I'm referencing this

Equating anything he said during that interview to "Heil Hitler" is insanely tasteless.

As opposed to all the other times we carefully consider the weight of calling someone a Nazi or Hitler.