He / They
You think that family members (and let’s be honest, “ancestral genetic brothers” are not actually family members on any psychological level) only have ever killed each other over religion? Not money? Not land? Only religion and ‘culture’? Please.
Bruh, no one in modern day Israel or Gaza is fighting because of 5000 year old feuds. They’re fighting because one group displaced and started mass-murdering the other in order to establish an ethnostate.
First off, thank You for responding to my questions.
From the exclusionary christian’s point of view, no matter the identity of the CPU in question, we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that. And we should also respect whatever the CPU identifies as.
I have a few different converging thoughts, and I’ll try to lay them out separately to make sure my question’s premise is clear:
we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that.
You are forcing them to extend You that same deference, or claiming that Status for Yourself, however You prefer to view it.
But I am struggling to see how Your insistence on this particular set of pronouns does not engender a requirement of people to extend You deference You are (at least by default, demonstrably), not extending to them? (and I am not referring to the exclusionary Religious here, but fellow Beehaw users)
There is a strong debate over using neopronouns like “master/masterself”, “daddy/daddyself”, etc (certainly without auxiliaries), that may create uncomfortable power dynamics for the persons needing to use them. I think this is striking some of us as similar to that, which is I think why You are seeing this much pushback.
Yeah, this isn’t going to get any easier. Right now KSA is mostly blaming “unauthorized” pilgrims, saying that they did not have any air conditioned hotel rooms to escape the heat in, but I think given the very wide range of reported countries affected, they are just minimizing anger.
The Middle East is going to get more and more dangerously hot, and I’m worried this is going to start being more normal during Hajj.
Wrt technical question 2, I don’t personally believe this should run afoul of self promotion guidelines. This was not a monetized service, just this person’s personal thoughts.
I think this method actually works really well for having more in-depth discussions, so you can have a lot of background information in a longer form piece that lets you keep the post itself about a tighter discussion, rather than being a text dump. It’s also more useful as a method to use for reference elsewhere.
I’ve been considering doing this for some of my posts, I just don’t have a blog myself. :p
Are you seriously calling a populist uprising a “US backed coup”, implying the US had a hand in it, simply because the US ideologically supported their goals?
NATO expansion is not a justification for invading another country, especially a non-NATO one. Ukraine has the right to self-determination and freedom to associate with whomever they want, and Russia doesn’t get to tell them who they can or can’t be friends with.
I can only assume based on this that you philosophically support the Bay of Pigs operation, as the US saw Soviet expansion near them as a threat.
Putin didnt make his move on Crimea because he was trying to defend Russia, he did it because he knew that his plans to reassimilate Ukraine were threatened by the new Ukranian government. And the 2022 expansion of the invasion just proves that.
Whoa, colonialism is absolutely alive and well. Colonialist projects, Israel included, still exist today, and of course many countries that began as settler-colonialism (which is distinct from plain ‘colonialism’) still exist everywhere, and still keep their native populations marginalized and under attack.
Israel is quite practically the most textbook definition of a Settler-Colonialist state that there is, especially given that they themselves still even use the term “settlements” to describe their continued displacement of Palestinians.
Yes, obviously the US is a massive Imperialist power. I don’t want it to have those bases, or nuclear weapons, or even a military or government at all, but I sure as hell don’t want it to be replaced by an openly autocratic imperialist power that also has all those things anyways, which is what Russia is aspiring to be under Putin.
But that is a completely orthogonal discussion as to whether Force is required to stop malicious actors from imposing their will on others through violent Force themselves. That is, as an anarchist, a basic requirement of human interaction; self defense and defense of others.
What hypocrisy do you think is taking place here?
Likewise, a trans person you meet on the street isn’t benefiting from the might of the Roman church. So you’re not supporting hierarchy by using a trans person’s preferred pronouns. By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.
So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.
Worse, if you refused to use a trans man’s preferred pronouns because of this, you’d be guilty of pretty blatant transphobia. I believe refusing to use capitalised pronouns for a trans person who requests them is exactly the same bigotry.
Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected? Obviously neopronouns can be non gender-related, but the article isn’t really making clear if that is the case here or not. If anything, it is quite muddled on this point.
By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.
Wooph… The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter. Now, whether they can benefit from that dynamic in a given time and place is a different discussion, but even in places that do not afford them the systemic backing of the patriarchal system, they can still support and reify it themselves. Any person who attempts to enforce a male-dominant systemic power dynamic can be supporting patriarchy.
The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?
I think that if these are simply the neo pronouns that make someone comfortable, it is for the most part fine to request this, but the article is directly drawing the link between capitalized pronouns and religious reverence, and that is not something anyone can demand someone else extend, and not one that is inherently inappropriate not to.
There are plenty of arguments over the limits of neopronoun usage within the neopronoun-using community, but generally neopronouns like “master”, that confer or denote a power dynamic, are considered inappropriate.
This feels like this is skirting that line to me.
There is something very uncomfortable to me about demanding the use of a deferential title, while also insisting that not to do so is a moral wrong, while also claiming not to support hierarchy of peoples… which the creation of distinct and deferential titles would seem to contradict.
Cloudflare is a “potential” MITM: they claim not to read the traffic… but as a TLS terminator, they get the ability to read it without anyone’s knowledge.
Yes, and this is also true for AWS ALBs and any other hosted reverse-proxies that do SSL offloading/ termination. Hell, it’s even worse for AWS in general, since they also have potential access to your databases and instances, nevermind SecretsManager info that you just directly give them. It’s just such a weird thing to specifically only harp on Cloudflare like that site is.
Besides, the only real threat actor I can see them being worried about with CF is the USFG, since they’re the only ones I could see being able to compel CF to break their customer contracts like this. And if the USFG is your presumed threat actor, and you’re in the US, you’re not going to “out-security” them by avoiding Cloudflare.
deleted by creator
Certain British accents (like a London accent) have an ‘aw’ in particular sound like ‘or’. Not sure about Australian.
A lot of people have issues with Cloudflare, some more justified (e.g. their shitty and aggressive “sales” tactics that skirt the line with extortion), and some not so much.
I checked their comments in another thread where they were discussing Cloudflare, and they linked to a site with some false information about CF, like claiming that Cloudflare blocks VPN traffic to sites hosted on or tunneled through them (they don’t, and I just tested this to verify I wasn’t crazy, because I’ve been hitting CF-tunneled sites through VPNs for years), or very misleading information (like seemingly trying to conflate CF blocking some CGNAT IPs, which could have blocked innocent users behind those addresses, into claiming that they block all CGNAT IPs… which they don’t).
There are also a lot of people who like to say that Cloudflare is a MITM (by ignoring the “unknown to the communicating parties” part of the definition of MITM), but honestly, as someone whose job is information security, this mostly strikes me as overfocusing on one part of a large chain that you have very little control over, to feel more in-control.
Once traffic leaves your home network, you are trusting a lot of different groups with your data, whether you like it or not. You’re trusting the DNS provider to send you to the right IP. You’re trusting the AS operators to properly and honestly maintain their BGP routes to take you to the legitimate owner of that IP. If a site is being served on a VPS, you’re trusting the VPS provider not to be reading or altering the traffic. If it’s SSL-encrypted, you’re trusting the CertificateAuthorities involved not to be issuing malicious certs, etc etc…
Fire is not sentient. It doesn’t strategize. It can’t use your feelings about wanting to minimize it’s damage against you. Humans can, and do.
You don’t get fewer war machines by rewarding aggressors for their invasions. You shut them down swiftly, and make it clear that war isn’t an acceptable means to resolve conflicts.
“If you invade us, we’ll try to sue for peace as quickly and obsequiously as possible to end the war so there are fewer wars” just encourages imperialist aggression.
That entire motto is a distraction, so that corporations can whinge about consumers not doing “their part”.
And don’t forget, corporations are also encouraging people not to reduce purchases, and designing their products such that reusing is either impossible (good luck reusing a torn potato chip bag), infeasible, or even dangerous.
Recycle is just the final, catch-all lie at the end. It only works for very specific types of plastics, and even then usually can only be done an astonishingly few number of times.
As the article notes,
the recycling push has encouraged consumers to accept wasteful packaging, particularly plastics, when forcing the use of more biodegradable material would have been a less damaging course of action.
Mostly a really good article. Even when it’s very obvious that all groups of people will have (edit:) members who compete for acceptance by white supremacy hierarchy, it’s still sad to see it (and is another reminder why I abandoned the bird site).
Random peeve of mine, but I immensely dislike the emergence of “petty bourgeois” instead of “petit” or “petite”. There is a lot of meaning behind them being the “little” bourgeois, versus being “petty”, which carries a connotation of being insignificant or unimportant, when in fact they are an incredibly important component of class struggle. It feels like dismissing millionaires (and other petit bourgeois) as “temporarily embarrassed billionaires”, sort of belying the very dangerous function they fulfill in countering proletariat power.
They’re not “ineffective wannabe bourgeois”, they are mini-bourgeois; aligned in interest with their bigger bourgeois counterparts, but far greater in number, and far less easy to identify.
Dang, this is really serious. You don’t call in leadership from Boeing and NASA unless there are some serious issues to hammer out, that go beyond engineering.
We know by now that the economy doing well won’t translate into helping us. And any minor benefits we do see will then be hoovered up by landlords, businesses that gatekeep essential goods, and legally-required expenditures like insurance, before we even have any chance to decide for ourselves how to allocate it.
“Hey, SF raised minimum wages by 2.50? Great! That means I can bump the rent on my non rent-controlled properties by a couple hundred bucks next lease! Thanks, SF!”
China is not Socialist, it’s State Capitalist.
Firing older employees in order to pay less to newer employees to pad the bottom line is Capitalism 101, unless someone thinks all the big US companies (Microsoft, Cisco, Meta, Tesla, etc) that have been doing this same thing this past year are all Socialist.