A demonstration that the person is not interested in a conversation, they just want to grandstand and use rhetoric tricks to feel like they are superior and are strictly aiming to used the conversation as a way to inflate their sense of self worth at the cost of treating you like a human being.

“No way I am reading all that” on a average sized post while expounding their opinion in an equally lengthy paragraph is usually the same start of the end. These people are generally not actively trolling they are just up their own ass. If they cannot demonstrate basic intellectual mutual respect after having this pointed out to them blocking them is both for best of us.

A particular pet peeve is people who quote every bit of a post in sections to refute it. It’s lazy and I have witnessed it from people in my life who are extremely narcissistic. Writing your own brief is respectful. Essentially writing over someone else’s entire post with red pen isn’t. It’s not a block, but it’s a contributing factor

If it’s someone using very bad faith rhetoric like moving goalposts or extreme cherrypicking - basically any stuff that demonstrates obvious trolling I don’t block, I counterpunch. My goal becomes making sure you do not leave the arguement with what you come there for.

All in all I have blocked about 3 people. I believe in second chances so someone has to show no signs of improvement after about an average of 7 replies.

Hey there, kid who was diagnosed back in 1993 here…

Depending on when you were in school might not have helped at least being diagnosed. Accommodations were basically non-existent for all of my schooling career and meds, while situationally useful, were diminishing returns. The system just wasn’t designed for us in mind and from what I have seen from my friends kids current accommodation is at times lackluster and spottily applied.

Schooling is kind of designed for adults to teach rather than kids to effectively learn since even neurotypical kids have cycling attention spans that aren’t all synced up. So while it sucks we didn’t get good help you also may not have missed out as much as you would think.

It’s funny being neurodivergant and dealing with neurotypicals who really don’t get it and then finding someone who is your exact brand of neurospicy and then watching them sit back in confusion as all of a sudden they are the odd one out.

“How about we verbalize our intentions?” “Pppft! You’re the only one here who needs verbal cues. Try reading body language and not just assuming anything SUSAN.”

Conspiracies that require absolute lock tight secrecy to function at a basic level aren’t generally tenable to be sustained for longer than a handful of years at a time at most. Somebody always fucks up or basically was just lucky nobody checked for awhile. The nessesity of any large scale collaboration creates inefficiencies and potential error points in the system. Even the best of the best spy agencies fuck up and get caught rather routinely, particularly when operating on their home soil. A lot of investigative journalists accidentally trip over stuff all the time but have good faith arrangements (or in some places laws) to not disclose the active manoeuvres of the state to the public.

It’s just really hard for humans in general to accept that events that effected them or things they care about very deeply personally weren’t somehow also grand in design. Grocking sometimes it really is just random chance or stupid mishandling is not something we’re well wired to handle. Stories of all powerful conspiracies masterminding the world scratch that itch… But logistically speaking the conspiracy aspect is completely unnecessary. If someone is trying to blame a nebulous bogeymen who exists as nameless, numberless ultimately wealthy but also totally off the books super spies… chances are they are just trying to capitalize on making you feel flattered, smart and empowered by something “only you are smart enough to believe” - while feeding you bullshit they can personally profit from in some way with you none the wiser.

Then, provided this is not simply a theoretical, I wish you whatever outcome is the best for everyone in the situation you are in. May you and your partner find the most happiness whatever that outcome looks like.

And that’s fine. I do what I do because I have a mentality of non-fungibility. There aren’t simply more fish in the sea, this is my person. There’s not another one out there for me.

There isn’t anything ethically wrong with someone with a more flexible approach to romance or someone who has a hard boundry. Not everyone is down for a sacrifice at that level for another person - and that is okay, not everyone is deserving of being the recipient of that kind of sacrifice just as everyone isn’t nessisarily capable of making that kind of sacrifice. If you are only kind of happy with your relationship then that’s not enough it has to be deep. It isn’t nessisarily easy, it doesn’t get easier and it might require daily conviction. It is a vulnerable space too. If you don’t have absolute trust it’s not going to work and absolute trust comes with intense emotional risk.

But on the other hand of things if your partner is dead set on doing this, you love them in a holistic way, you’re in a stable environment and you are at any level unsure of your ability to be attracted to them… you could probably afford to try. You might actually surprise yourself with be how you are okay then you thought you would be - and you can set the expectation at the beginning of the process that you are unsure of yourself and don’t know if it’s something you can do so they know and weigh the risks as part of their transition. Not all transitions are 100%. Trans people are often very calculated about what they choose to pursue based on what they personally value out of life in a more general sense. Not everyone goes for every option and the reasons behind them are intensely personal value judgements that involve way more than just the dysphoria/euphoria hits. I think way too many people peace out of things in general before they try or fully understand something and miss out because they built molehills into mountains. The process of transition isn’t lightning fast. You have time to think, to adjust, to compromise and if it really isn’t working for you then you will be absolutely sure that it’s not for you.

It all depends on your personal estimation of the value of the relationship you have going and how open you are to the process of self exploration to test your hypothesis about yourself against an actual real life situation. Because none of us know ourselves half so well as we think we do.

As a trans masculine non-binary person it’s more of personal conversation. My partner isn’t into masculine body types so my transition ended up being purely social because my partner does more on a daily basis to contribute to my happiness then the comfort of being in a body that doesn’t make me feel like shit daily. It’s a bit like having a pet allergy but deciding that you can live with feeling like someone poured sand into your sinuses every day rather than giving up your furry best friend. For all purposes though our relationship is coded and treated as though I am my specified gender. We are effectively culturally a same sex couple. Neither of us use female terms for my junk and he doesn’t claim to be straight. We do joke he is “queer by association” however.

But what I am doing counts as a full transition.

In regards to the what you give up situation it’s all rather dependant on how adverse you are and whether someone in your relationship is able to give a little and how much you value and ultimately how non-fungible the relationship is to you… Because - just putting it out there - strap-ons do exist.

As a Socialist that subscribes more to the historical strain of Saint Simone and Robert Owen that broke out and away early from Marxism to become the Chartist movement and the history of American non-Marxist socialism … I am often tired of how one note Tankies are. They seem obsessed with a sort of internal purity which denies a rich history of socialism other than Marx and Engles. Once one of them goes off about Stalinism or Maoism I basically just disengage because at that point they are basically so enamored with the aesthetics of communism that they aren’t going to be listening to anything. They want to be devout to the ideology while whitewashing the bloodstains of past failures. I understand a collectivist mindset is more or less what Marx aims to cultivate in his work but it seems often at the cost of tolerance of any level of apostasy.

The flattening of a mass of political thought into cardboard cuttouts to snipe at and sneering at the range of Socialism hybrids with No True Scotsman flavour condescension as political ideologies simply not complete worldviews in their own right has got me rather depressed in dealing with the average Communist on here. People in general often just seem to want to find something simple and easy to hate.

Irrelevant.

Do you think that necklace makes you look sexy? Does it give you confidence to wear it out? Great! Confidence is sexy. Having something you do for yourself is sexy. Anyone who falls for you is gunna probably think that necklace is cool either because they are gunna associate it with you and it is gunna make them smile because you obviously like wearing it. Think of the accessory worn by your favorite character - that could be how someone who really likes you reacts to your accessory in the future.

If someone thinks it’s not their style or thinks it looks dumb if it’s a deal breaker they kinda shallow and you’re better off without… and if they value your feelings they are gunna think your attachment to the thing is cute.

Embrace the pendant. Life is too short to deny yourself the things you like.

Basically alcohol and the tiniest smidgen of weed. I am allergic to hops and pot as it turns out so wheezing like I am dying or throwing up doesn’t seem worth the plusses. Still figure I got off lightly though, got a buddy who can’t go into cities or near concerts because one whiff will send her into anaphylaxis.

As for everything else I just am leery. Too many elementary school buddies dead from Fentanyl and I saw a lot of really fucked up shit from my friend’s addict parents when I was a kid.

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of some inclusivity in regards to non-binary identities here.

There are a lot of grey areas that use different words very specifically. Masc and Femme for instance describe a wider range of binary and non-binary identities than “Man and Woman” as many non-binary people are closer to binary trans folks but use a different set of mental mechanisms where they don’t strictly align with the categories of “man and woman”. Masc and Femme can be used with “presenting” to specify what people tend to read someone as based on cultural dress and behaviour or but left as is to describe gender identity.

On the other pole of talking about sex rather than gender or gender presentation some have started to move away from “assigned gender at birth” and use descriptives like " male/female phenotypic (or type for short) when needing to refer to one’s physicality to describe aspects when talking strictly about lived experience regarding their body’s sexual characteristics.

The trans community particularly has a lot of very specific language regarding how different aspects of our experience impacts us. For instance a male phenotypic person will have certain aspects assumed about them because of their body independent of their gender which given certain circumstances they need to talk about in a neutral way. Talking about sex can be a bit of a landmine situation in trans circles because it’s both a touchy subject and it’s where the most dogwhistles tend to be. As such it’s a bit chaotic… As such Phenotype does not strictly mean “birth sex”. It’s more about what physical sex characteristics people perceive and react to… Trans language wise it’s something not universally adopted or liked but it is consistent with the usage in the above post where the poster is describing people perceived as at least potentially possessing some sexually male characteristics. This covers cis/ trans men/ masc non-binary people, some trans women / femme non-binary and various flavors of non-binary people.

While I can understand feeling like this is a bit much but it’s mostly that language and conventions inside the community and inclusivity forward movements changing rather rapidly to account for the way discourse changes from year to year with new dogwhistles popping up with the evolving discourse as more people become knowledgeable about the basics. Less awkward conventions of language are always being tested because universality is likely a ways away. Trying to be pedantic about it might prove to be a losing battle. Give it another decade or two and it might settle into a singular convention once there’s more concensus.

Queer TTRPG circles on the west coast got this fixed. I can never go back to playing in Completely straight TTRPG culture. Queer TTRPG tables will be like “Can I be a Merperson Paladin of like… Everything spiritual simultaneously and just have to fluidly sync with the nearest divinity while my hyper intelligent mouse sidekick who dresses in a Sherlock Holmes outfit causes random trouble? Oh and can the mermish language be a sign language? " and 9/10 times the answer is " FUCK YEAH! That’s rad! Do you want your mouse to have a tiny magnifying glass?”

Compare that with the grognards telling me sign languages are prohibited because they are " too much of an advantage" and I am just ruined.

I doubt capitalism is quite so dramatically responsible for the specific developments mentioned. While it does create incentives to develop certain technologies faster there were other structures that were developing things like medicines, sciences and so on before capitalism really took off and things like clean drinking water wasn’t really attached to capitalism except for supplying water company data that showed different companies having different death tolls to the people they serviced.

It’s important to put capitalism into context. There are a lot of ills but it’s a beast of different degrees. Someone running a business where they own the factory and equipment and pay employees for labor can be an efficient practice that can exist harmoniously in a fairly stable system and variations of capitalism are actually very old as it doesn’t strictly apply to all privately held property - just off of how labor and investment is structured in some instances. Unchecked it can be a beast that creates abuses.

False dichotomies are currently rampant with things like the philosophy of socialism being seen as anti-capitalist. It’s more accurate to say that socialism is a spectrum of interfacing with capitalism that offers a mixed system. It very rarely and only at it’s farthest end seeks to stamp out every single instance of private business ownership or investment banking. A lot of thought written aince it’s inception shows it’s more dynamic in the variable ways it puts checks on what can be considered privately owned resources. Things like offering protections of varying degrees for labour and managing resources to create public wealth are very much throughlines but total dissolution of private property isn’t really a given of the philosophy. The capitalism/libralism and socialism are often veiwed as diametrically opposed but its more useful to think of them as demi-linked on a scale that can tip from a fairly medium degree of regulated private ownership and capitalist tolerance to very public property and social ownership based structures. But basically it all still looks at resources through the lens of money and statehood existing.

Communism is more strictly anti-capitalist as it veiws all aspects of private property rights, businesses ownership, investment banking and even currency as things to move beyond. Things capitalism requires to function.

Individual property rights aren’t strictly capitalism based. A lot of our modern issues are bases around free market ideas but that is more traceable to the ideas of high individual property focused libralism… Which also isn’t historically all bad. At one point libralism was key to creating a more secular society based less off of privileges of patrelinieal titles… But left unchecked it creates a very misanthropic society that keeps claiming things as personal property which were once collective resources, pushing colonialism and creating new power structures just based off different metrics.

It’s important I think to retain a good solid idea of where the boundaries of different ideological sources and their historical precedents actually are and not nessisarily be too quick to state one or the other is all bad. The tendency has become that to be considered that ideology every example must be stretched to it’s utter extremes to be considered that ideology. There are shallow ends and deep ends of individual systems.

The history of capitalism in a more general sense is often more responsible for creating incentive to hurrying people to an early grave in the history of predatory patent medicine than it strictly is saving people. A lot of the history of scientific and technological development wasn’t and still isn’t driven strictly by capitalism from a funding and motive standpoint. Public money actually underlies a lot more of the significant developments… But capitalism does have a habit of driving underlying resource chains and more or less the profit driven arm of distribution - which while efficient generally causes a lot of social problems and damages.

Religion also is also not really connected directly with capitalism any more than anything else is. You can very easily have a theocratic capitalist society and generally speaking that was the norm for the early history of capitalism.

Not the op but a medieval history nerd all the same.

Monasteries actually were kind of technological powerhouses in their day. Cistercians for instance transmitted technologies, forging techniques, farming and cultivation advances and medical knowledge across Europe because basically you had a sort of “franchise” where every church they made was built and run to a regimented standard. They had the study of latin and a sort of sign language that meant travelling monks could all understand each other and since travel was fairly dangerous and rare it facilitated the transmission of scientific and philosophical thought.

It was fairly common for monasteries to provide state of the art medical care for their time which was actually fairly sophisticated in basic exchange for experimentation, the honing and propagating the research. You see the lingering effect of this in our languages. Clock comes from the word for “bells” because the mechanisms were developed originally to automatically ring the tower bells at the monestaries. Gutenberg likely got his early education in the hopes of pursuing a religious career and yhe printing press was originally to copy bibles. Latin is so entangled with modern science because those systems have their origins in monastic studies that veiwed the study of “natural philosophy” as a sort of religious observance of God’s creation.

Similar situations were actually happening in parallel in other places. Religions of various sorts held a very “glue of logistical and technological ties” role in the past. Like the Muslim faith was very key in the developments of maths. Astronomy, medicine, metalworking, farming, the skills required to produce art…you track these developments in the religious temple structures of the Aztecs, Buddhists , Taoists, the Babaloynians, Greek and Romans, Egyptians and so on. Secularism taking over that role is actually all told a very new development in the grand scheme.

There is something of a line between self-care and self-coddling. This is an example of active self care. Sometimes feeling better is a matter of building resistance to the desire to administer convenient but less enduring instant self gratification.

Maybe conceive of it as refusing to spoil your inner child who operates emotionally and not logically?

Not fully defanged yet. Queer can still be used as a pejorative just like if someone said “That’s so gay!” in the 90’s schoolyard usage to synonym for dumb, uncool or bad… We did however make it kind of harder to pull off as a lot of the time unless you make your tone or context explicitly negative it just comes across as using it in a neutral way.

Yeah a lot of cis people really reject the term. Some don’t like the way it sounds and wants to self identify with a word that they like more… A certain number stick to their guns in wanting to make sure that there is no word that is used for people who are not trans.

Sometimes they opt for wanting to be called “normal” without realizing that there is a value judgement implicit in that word. If you have a “normal man” and a “trans man” you are saying that transness is abnormal, pathologizing gender. You reach the same effect by omission of a word. If there is a man and a trans man then one of these things is assumed standard and the other the deviation.

Of course they don’t see a problem with this because under that model they personally don’t take on the psychological burden of constantly having to referring to oneself by terminology reserved for either the deviant or somehow inferior. To those unused to questioning their centrally held power the idea of just having a word to describe them in relation to others is seen as an oppression.

If enough people disliked the term cis they could band together and just come up with another value neutral word…That’s basically how we arrived at the less science centric terms for other sexuallities like “gay” as an example. “Homosexual” being a relatively new classification wasn’t exactly loved by the people to whom it was applied to beyond their consent as it sounded clinical. Other euphemisms had always existed but gay was purposely adopted as a synonym by the queer community.

I don’t think there would be objection from the trans community long as the term synonymous for cis was essentially was not trying to imply that it is somehow the default state of being.

Think of the potential slang we are missing out on!

Also the thing is just steeped in trans metaphor. Consider the agents deadnaming Neo throughout as “Mister Anderson” Ander being intended as the same word part as Androgens, Androgyny or Misandry… Mister Ander Son. The system keeps reinforcing his identity as Man man man.

Go listen back through Morpheus’s speech just before he offers a red and blue pill (back in the 90’s horomone treatments for trans women came in the form of little red pills)… It’s a sci-fi parable for gender roles and dysphoria. Of being forced into a system where oppression isn’t seen or heard or touched because almost nobody recognizes it. Only some nebulous but insistant feeling causes you to want to break free, to explore yourself.

And once you break free you no longer have the protection from the system. The system sees you as a threat. You must accept less resources and support outside of whatever small found family and resistance you gather.

Like all scifi parables some of it’s metaphor plays second fiddle to making the technical premise work from a narrative perspective…but whenever they start talking about the Matrix consider they are actually saying “The Bioessentialist construct of gender” and you can see a lot of the different facets behind deliberate creative choices.

In part. The other half is that Conservatives started courting Evengelical groups to make voting for them the “correct” thing to do. Abortion legalization was championed by the left but the Catholic Church had some remaining abstention held over by essentially a political decision that had been cannonized as an official spiritual stance on the idea of the soul. Conservatives tend to think like marketing experts and they know abortion and the nature of the soul is a core belief not easily shaken thus they were able to make their platform a matter of “life and death” harnessing the empathy people had for the idea of babies… Very specifically the idea of babies, the soft squishy humans whom we are programmed instinctually to protect.

It also dovetailed nicely into purity doctrine. The idea you are enabling the sexual deviancey of loose women… The idea that a fetus is a souless empty blob as the majority idea was for the first thousand years of Christianity got in the way of the advertising campaign and the Catholic Church wasn’t about to roll back the precedent decision it has upheld for centuries. That would make the idea seem kind of arbitrary… and once you start unpicking the history of Catholic control measures it weakens the vwey idea of them as a spiritual authority.

Part of the issue with many religions is that they exists in multiple components. There is

• the religion as the nebulous idea of a culture as adopted by word of mouth generational teaching.

• religion as depicted and codified by a holy script.

• the popculture adoptions of religion through time that become traditionally indistinct.

• the branches of philosophical thought inside the religion changing the window of interpretation and creating schisms

• The economic and power structures involved in maintaining physical sites of worship and a guiding priesthood.

• The political stances the powers inside the religious complex adopt to adapt to specific historical events.

These different factors are generally all at play though there are exceptions like some religions do not have a holy text or sites of worship for instance. Religions are kind of aggregates of time, tradition and thought and distorted by time as well. For instance linguistic and technological drift makes it very hard to appropriately understand a text in it’s proper context. Like David and Goliath becomes a very different story when you understand that a sling weilded appropriately is like firing a pistol at short range.

Christianity is kind of a mess in the concept of time. A lot of belief brought into Christianity predated it. Hell for instance predates Christianity (it is not explicitly mentioned in the text but was passed down linguistically) and the conception of it borrowed off of Buddhist, Norse and Grecco/Roman ideas of the underworld. Other things like the Seven Deadly Sins, Lucifer, Monastic living and so on were often inventions of single people who essentially just started fads. Priesthoods have always been tied into concepts of authority through study and internal structures around property. Becoming an abbot was basically just another way to gain the ruling autonomy of nobility for land use. The political structure inside the Church has changed it’s relationship with things out of fear as well. The idea of abortion as murder is tracable to the black death when priests worried that a population collapse would cause disaster for society so it changed it’s teaching from the concept of “ensoulment” and being very abortion neutral to facilitating a literal witchunt destroying existing systems of female led midwifery to gain reproductive control.

Christianity has at some level always been about power, control and resources… But there are also multiple Christianities. For instance a person who reads the book but rejects the church or the built up dogma of traditions is still a Christian. You can also adopt just the institution or the popculture understanding of Christianity and still be a Christian. Adopting every peice of a religion is itself optional.

The problem being is that understanding the text and history requires a lot of effort, intellectual savvy and time in study. Just like the medieval times people tend to get their understanding from people who did that work for them (or say they did) to supply the missing context. A lot of the time people accept whatever “feels” right and people also tend to be self centric. Feeling superior by category of beliefs we have been handed is something we are all potentially susceptible to.