From the last time this was posted.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 10
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 10
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
I read that as
"Jesus was a short, brown, skinned, jewish man"
I was right flummoxed for a moment there.
Linux @programming.dev Podcasts/Classes/Breakdowns of Use & Basic Knowledge?
I think they mean that the US would put trade pressure on countries doing any tech trade with China, not specifically preventing it punishing American companies from using Chinese chips.
Unfortunately the United States is still a big economy regardless of their politics and Manny is right that the US would throw their weight behind anti China policies to the detriment of other nations.
How successful such a move would be is up to debate.
...I don't necessarily agree with thetechnician27, however, it could be good as a "bonus panel" like what SMBC does.
THE GRAVE! Dropout sketch.
Depravity? Like moral depravity? Like swinger cruises or concert cruises with lots of drugs? Or just indulgence in general and a lack of care on environmental and local economic impacts?
I'm just so fucking pissed that Trump keeps pulling his fucking punches. He's made so many missteps only to walk them back at the last minute. Still fucking horrible, still hurting people, but avoiding the vast majority of the actual impact and lethality of his decisions.
Tariffs being example A, B, C and D.
I do NOT want prices to skyrocket, I do not want people to suffer, I do not want a fucking civil war. But holy shit. You can't play stupid chicken as the president and continuously get away with saying "oops" sorry someone else ruined the sick flip I was going to do over and over.
If he'd been forced to commit, he'd likely already be dead or out of office.
I'm so fucking exhausted.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
You’re approaching this discussion from a place of certainty, but the reality of biology, language, and human variation is more complex than the rigid model you’re presenting.
A few key points:
- If sex is strictly XX = woman and XY = man, how do you explain the people who don’t fit that?
1 in 50 people has a variation of sex development (VSD). That’s not an anomaly, but a substantial population.
Genetic chimerism, which is rarely tested for, suggests as many as 12% of people have mixed chromosomal expressions—that’s 3 in every 25 people who do not neatly fit XX or XY.
Any woman who has ever had a child is a genetic chimera, because she retains some of her child’s DNA, meaning many women carry male DNA within their bodies.
If sex were as simple as XX/XY, these biological realities wouldn’t exist. But they do, and they complicate the notion that sex is an unchangeable binary.
- If hormones don’t affect biological sex, why do they permanently alter the body?
Puberty is a hormonal process. It reshapes bodies, voices, muscle structure, brain development, and reproductive function.
If sex were truly "fixed," introducing testosterone or estrogen wouldn’t fundamentally change these same traits in adults. But it does.
So which is it? If hormones don’t influence sex, then puberty doesn’t matter either. If they do, then transitioning alters biological characteristics in ways that contradict your claims.
- If language is purely "natural evolution," why has it been deliberately changed by societies and governments throughout history?
Modern Italian was not a natural evolution—it was imposed on Italy’s diverse dialects by the state.
After WWI, German was banned in schools and public institutions in parts of the U.S.
The French government has actively tried to suppress regional languages like Breton and Occitan to enforce a singular linguistic identity.
These weren’t "organic" shifts—they were deliberate policy changes. If language only changes on its own, these documented historical events should not have been possible.
If entire nations have altered their linguistic structures through conscious intervention, why would the evolution of gendered language be any different?
- You argue that intersex people are "rare," but rarity does not erase reality.
Left-handed people make up about 10% of the population—a minority, but we don’t dismiss their existence because they aren’t the majority.
The number of people with red hair is lower than the percentage of intersex people, yet no one claims red hair is "unnatural."
Statistical frequency doesn’t determine what is real. Something doesn’t need to be common to be biologically significant.
- The pattern in your responses suggests you are more emotionally invested in this topic than you claim.
You’ve repeatedly expressed personal relief that trans people are not common in your area. That’s not a neutral scientific observation—that’s a personal bias.
You dismiss contradictory biological realities by calling them "defects" rather than engaging with what they actually mean.
You insist this discussion is about "logic," yet when presented with genetic, medical, and linguistic evidence, you shift the argument rather than addressing the inconsistencies.
If you want to engage with this topic honestly, you’ll have to account for these contradictions instead of sidestepping them. If your argument is strong, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. If it can’t, then maybe the issue isn’t with the facts—it’s with the assumptions you started with.
It's also a little like the trolley problem. Like 50% chance sounds good, but it sounds too good to be true? In a way?
Like real life is rarely, if ever, as clear and specific as the trolley problem. What works there, doesn't necessarily translate to real life.
Just with RNG, videogames, dnd and any kind of gambling is already super fucked off of really good odds. I've experienced failure on multiple dice rolls where I had a 75% chance to succeed.
It really spoils you to risk aversion.