SaltSong @ SaltSong @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

572

Joined

5 mo. ago

Would you claim that the soap box failed of no-one spoke against him?

Would you claim the jury box failed if he was never brought to trial?

Well, that's technically a more reputable source.

Can we move a few notches up the ladder, though?

What liberty are you talking about? The liberty of approved leaders? It's a failure because we voted for a bad leader?

We got the leader we voted for. The failure is in the people.

Has there been any confirmation of this cease fire from any more reputable source?

I realize that's a low bar.

That's not my idea of liberty at all. But you can't say the ballot box failed, just because the people elected the worst president in the history of people in suits.

So, you propose to enforce liberty by not letting us choose our own leaders? Democracy, as long as your approve our choices?

Wal-Mart effect. I don't know if they pioneered it, but that's what it is.

the only time I was ever hesitant about a vaccine was the smallpox vaccine that they brought out just as I was enlisting. It was widly reported that it was risky to take, as it contained actual virus, rather than just the recognition bits.

In retrospect, I have no idea if the reporting was accurate, misinformed, or fearmongering. But at the time, it worried me.

Disagree. The DM should provide some sort of reason for the party to come together. Some sort of external influence, to bring in any characters that don't start the game together.

But it is the duty of the player to roll with it. Don't fight the plot hook. What's the point?

This is an abomination.

Put it in the pile with the others.

Is there some reason we want brands to join the conversation?

Working my way through Master and Commander again. I'm up to Truelove.

Oh, you're gonna have a good time.

It's not flawless, (what is, after all) but it's quite good.

More or less. No bonus points for me, I guess.

You need some kind of cue to keep in step. If you can see the other guys feet, that helps, but often tinted you can't. The sound of yourself matching helps, but without some occasional cadence, or other governing factor, the speed of the match tends to change in a collective sort of way. My BMT platoon would get faster as we marched, unless the DI shouted at us occasionally.

Realistically, by way of being the political equivalent of a fleet-in-being.

Mostly, though, by way of ducking up anyone who looks like challenging our putative superiority.

Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.

I'll think about it.

using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.

What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?

• "Woman" seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.
• I don't want to say "natural" women, or "real" women, as even someone as thick as me can see that's insulting.
• It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.

What do you think world be more appropriate?

it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.

But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.

Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)

I can't think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I'm never happy with the answer "because this one is right, and that one is wrong." There needs to be reasons why.

maybe stop comparing race and gender then.

Isn't the entire premise of the post that someone is seeing parallels here, and would like to understand why the similarities are not meaningful? As I said, I agree that transracial people are being silly, but I haven't seen an argument here that can't be used against transgender people.

trans women only pass because we’re women.

But there are plenty of transwomen who don't "pass" despite being women. But they should still be treated as women. Hell, there have been at least a few reports of ciswomen who couldn't pass as women, at least to sufficiently assholish observers. On that basis, I don't think we can use "passing" as a factor to determine people's identity.

I'm advised that there is no scientific or genetic basis for race. I'm a little unclear on how "ethnicity" is different from "race."

All of them seem to be social constructs.