That's always one of the grand "here's how good of person I am" pronouncements at the end of these screeds. "I hope you never have to experience" at which point the person describes something that everyone experiences at least some of the time. And is usually experiencing from the person saying that to them. Just that one paragraph has multiple instances of telling people what their actual beliefs are without their consent. Everyone on the internet has been called an idiot or whatever at least once without their consent. Presumably anyone who ever actually grew up around other children experienced being called something without their consent at least once. "That's different, they weren't questioning your very being." Or maybe, like you in those instances, I wasn't self-obsessed enough to think they were.
But no, it's supposed to be this incredible unprecedented suffering that others just simply don't do whatever you want. There's an entire culture of people who believe that you cannot disagree with them if you've ever experienced anything they have. So they're always lecturing us how we spend all our time having gender euphoria, or never experience anyone doubting or denying our claims just because we're white or men, or millions of other examples. You can't know what it's like to be me if you don't agree, but I know exactly what you're like and it's simple and stupid. From people who are trying to argue things like "I like long hair so I must be a girl" or "Black people can't be trusted not to be incompetent."
That article is full of assertions, including assertions about what other people actually believe, framed in a way in which you have to duty to agree the assertions are true or else you're not even allowed to participate. I assert this is how a large number of people believe you steelman an argument. You start by establishing rules and premises that are mandatory and exist purely so you can trap anyone who will try to escape in the ways only you can think of. Hence why they were convinced of the airtight logic of simply declaring they were a lesbian to get women to sleep with them.
We all knew those kids, the ones who when you played with they always attempted to construct rules or alter the rules midstream to always benefit themselves. Your play was not play on equal grounds but a bureaucratic nightmare in which one person dictated to everyone else and then threw a fit if denied. I admit I project on them because when I read them I get the "vibes" from that they were these kids. Heck, maybe some of us were even these kids at least from time to time, but at some point we recognized that this is not how a mature person attempts to manage all interactions and life itself. These people do. They're always groping around looking for some rule that can be dictated, and a higher power to enforce it, to manage everyone else for them. Era, Twitter, Bluesky, etc. often is little else than people demanding somebody make a rule about something they didn't like.
And so it simply does not compute that I can reject their premises and especially their logic when they attempt to dictate to me that evolution is not real, biology is not real, etc. and their personal misogynistic views are in fact reality. If only I experienced that I would understand and agree with them even as they're in the middle of trying to impose their wants on me as my beliefs.
But no, it's supposed to be this incredible unprecedented suffering that others just simply don't do whatever you want. There's an entire culture of people who believe that you cannot disagree with them if you've ever experienced anything they have. So they're always lecturing us how we spend all our time having gender euphoria, or never experience anyone doubting or denying our claims just because we're white or men, or millions of other examples. You can't know what it's like to be me if you don't agree, but I know exactly what you're like and it's simple and stupid. From people who are trying to argue things like "I like long hair so I must be a girl" or "Black people can't be trusted not to be incompetent."
That article is full of assertions, including assertions about what other people actually believe, framed in a way in which you have to duty to agree the assertions are true or else you're not even allowed to participate. I assert this is how a large number of people believe you steelman an argument. You start by establishing rules and premises that are mandatory and exist purely so you can trap anyone who will try to escape in the ways only you can think of. Hence why they were convinced of the airtight logic of simply declaring they were a lesbian to get women to sleep with them.
We all knew those kids, the ones who when you played with they always attempted to construct rules or alter the rules midstream to always benefit themselves. Your play was not play on equal grounds but a bureaucratic nightmare in which one person dictated to everyone else and then threw a fit if denied. I admit I project on them because when I read them I get the "vibes" from that they were these kids. Heck, maybe some of us were even these kids at least from time to time, but at some point we recognized that this is not how a mature person attempts to manage all interactions and life itself. These people do. They're always groping around looking for some rule that can be dictated, and a higher power to enforce it, to manage everyone else for them. Era, Twitter, Bluesky, etc. often is little else than people demanding somebody make a rule about something they didn't like.
And so it simply does not compute that I can reject their premises and especially their logic when they attempt to dictate to me that evolution is not real, biology is not real, etc. and their personal misogynistic views are in fact reality. If only I experienced that I would understand and agree with them even as they're in the middle of trying to impose their wants on me as my beliefs.
1 user liked this post: