TTRPG enthusiast and lifelong DM. Very gay 🏳️‍🌈.

“Yes, yes. Aim for the sun. That way if you miss, at least your arrow will fall far away, and the person it kills will likely be someone you don’t know.”

- Hoid

  • 0 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月1日

help-circle



  • Nothing irks me more than the “sharing your unasked for opinion at any time is just telling the truth” crowd. Come on. You must know the difference between honesty and integrity for the sake of good communication and being insensitive because it’s “the truth.” You’re not being honest, regardless of the truth of your beliefs, you’re being a dick if you tell someone they’re not attractive without being asked.

    If someone asks, “Am I attractive,” not fishing for compliments but asking for an opinion, you wouldn’t be a dick for saying “I wouldn’t describe you as conventionally attractive,” or “you aren’t my type, so not to me.” You would still be a dick for saying either of those things to someone who didn’t ask, or delivering your answer in an inconsiderate manner. Truth doesn’t make your words right. You can be correct and still very wrong.



  • If you could look at a 6 year old and call them “born bad” for any level of mistake, it would make you an asshole. Why would you treat your child self like that?

    No action a 6 year old takes is indicative of anything but their immediate environment. If you did something “terrible” when you were 6, maybe think about what that says about who was raising you, and why you’ve been made to think that it’s “terrible.” You desperately need to work through your childhood trauma with a professional.

    Would you treat a random 6 year old how you’re treating yourself? Why or why not?




  • For context I guess, here’s my views on the list you posted, as someone who is very much not religious and dated plenty before finding my fiancee:

    • Marriage might be awesome for some, but it’s also not for everyone, and there are far too many bad marriages that could’ve been good casual relationships

    • Standards are definitely good to have, but I guarantee mine are very different than the average Catholic

    • No shame in being single. Better to be single than in a toxic relationship just for the sake of a relationship.

    • I probably couldn’t see myself marrying a religious person, but if their beliefs don’t infringe on other’s rights then I guess they can do them.

    • Sex is just sex, cohabitation is convenient, cheaper, and pleasant. I’ve never been married and I’ve lived more of my adult life with a roommate or partner than not. I also don’t believe sex needs to be confined within the boundaries of a relationship either, and I have sex with people that aren’t my fiancee, both with and without her, though that’s definitely uncommon and always done with the full consent of all parties.

    • Dating could be for finding a future spouse. It could also just be for fun, or for a casual relationship, or a long term relationship with no intent to marry.

    • Relatively wide variety in how long people date before marriage, if ever. I never planned on it for years, but I met my fiancee and changed my mind. We dated for a year before getting engaged.

    • Normal to date in highschool.

    Obviously this is only my perspective. No judgement, to each their own. Other than the views on polyamory (though more accurately, just sex. Open relationship? I don’t have a label for it), these opinions seem very common among the average dating population. My sample may be skewed since I’m bisexual and over half my relationships have been gay.



  • Look it up. It’s not my job to educate you. Facing danger in real life is a real problem, having every conservative politician focusing on banning your healthcare and reducing your rights is a real problem. I have to believe you’re an empathy lacking troll or a bigot, and likely both. Discrimination is a "real problem,’ and even if pedophilia was the number one political issue in our country, extrajudicial violence isn’t going to solve it. And I block bigots, because I’m not going to debate someone who acts in bad faith and says something like

    there are people with real problems at the moment

    Insane thing to say.


  • Right. My lived experience doesn’t matter, nor the statistics. I’m not seeking attention, I, like the majority of people reading this, am alarmed. I’m seeing people I care about and the community around me hurt every day, and you think “gender rules my life.” Not a person worth listening to. When was the last time you got harassed in public for something intrinsic to yourself? For my trans wife, it was today. If you seriously think that trans people aren’t currently at the front of the culture war, you’re deaf, ignorant, or lying. Watch literally any pundit speak, any newscast, or any political debate around the country. Then tell me trans people shouldn’t be concerned about violent rhetoric aimed at people they’re increasingly being lumped in with. Bigot or stupid, I won’t debate you on the reality plain around me daily.


  • Likely, or are likely to mistakenly target a trans person who happens to be around while they’re hunting the person they cat fished. The people who are okay with extrajudicial violence are mostly conservatives. What’s to say the people willing to go to such lengths to hurt someone wouldn’t take the opportunity when they see someone they believe is a groomer and pedophile simply for being trans? It’s easy to expand the definition, and we’ve seen it happen in the past. It’s happening right now in rhetoric. Violence against trans people is already statistically high.






  • Jargon was an example from an analogous situation, that of someone knowledgeable explaining to a beginner. OP didn’t understand you. My contribution explained it to them. You care more about pedantry than effective communication. I don’t know what else to tell you. Seriously, find me anyone doing science communication that uses technical language rather than general. I’d love to provide as many counter examples as you need. My point is that your communication wasn’t as effective as it could be, and rather than accepting a helpful addition to the conversation, you made it defensive. Again, I’m not suggesting you are using jargon. What you are doing, assuming meaning from a beginner’s usage of general speech, is the same as an expert choosing jargon when interfacing with a member of the general public. In good communication, it just doesn’t happen.

    If the group chat thinks absolute specificity is more important than effective communication, that is, communication that the other party understands, then they can be wrong too. OP did not understand you. My followup with them confirms this. This is a waste of my time.


  • You’re being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. Are you seriously trying to suggest that science educators use jargon? Watch a TED talk. Attend an open lecture. Open youtube or your preferred equivalent. You’re so wrong it’s funny. Good communicators reach their audience where they are.

    Additionally, it’s pedantry to the extreme to pretend that me saying “I use deepseek,” referring to my self-hosted solution, is incorrect, when it absolutely is deepseek. Yes, you could be more specific, but it absolutely is correct to refer to deepseek in any of its forms as deepseek. Chat-GPT is Chat-GPT, regardless of version. You’ve made up rules you’re expecting others to follow, and the rules themselves are inconsistent with how people speak.

    You care so much about being right that you’ll move any number of goalposts and define things any way you like just to be absolutely, technically correct. The idea of saying, “You know what, I didn’t think about that. I could’ve been more nuanced,” must be a nightmare to you.