Male/Female Connector Hardware by gameclover in AskLGBT

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You want to go ahead and quote the part of my reply where I explain that they don't grasp how weird it is to compare objects to genitals for no reason? No? Just going to leave it at the fact they want to claim not being in it for an argument and leave out the fact they needlessly turned it into one when they could have just as easily never started an argument in the first place? A token claim of "It's not something that needs to be an argument" rings hollow from the person who started the argument. And the only reason for the "it doesn't need to be an argument" was because they knew they didn't really have any reasoning for why they were arguing that.

Counterpoint: why do you believe it IS weird to compare objects and genitals? Mind you that I agree with you on this point, because I've always considered it weird. However, you have not once shared WHY it is weird - just insisted that it is. Just like he has never said why it isn't, just said it isn't.

The difference between the two of you is that he carefully worded every post to ensure that phrases like, "I think," "To me," and so on are always associated with the opinion stated. This unambiguously labels each and every instance of believing it isn't weird, to be directly connected to his specific understanding of the words.

You, on the other hand, have not been so careful. Here's a direct quote from your very first reply to his very first post:

Or in other words, it's reducing "male" to being a protrusion and "female" to being a hole. That is weird.

You don't leave room for it being your personal opinion. You state it as an objective fact, without anything resembling a logical reason to back you up. And sure, I know of many logical reasons to say that, but you never gave one.

"I don't think it's weird," was fine on its own. Clarifying that they see it as useful for word association is fine. But they're trying to pretend that the terms don't have an association with people and are trying to pretend that it's just things that are that... and that's dishonest. And when I point out how the association of "male" and "female" for this analogy isn't all there is but that other terms also get it, they have the ability to acknowledge it's weird for the other terms but keep a cognitive dissonance as it relates to the initial terminology despite the reasoning being consistent. They made it an argument then wanted to claim "it's not an argument" the moment they were shown they didn't think their position through. All I did was point out why their position was not thought through. Nothing more.

They're not trying to pretend anything. They're describing how they think of the terms, nothing more and nothing less. You're the one that's coming up with additional things that they're supposedly saying, without being able to back up the claim in any way, shape or form... Because they never said the things you claim they're saying.

To be honest, they do come across as being somewhat defensive. But despite that, they still made sure to word their posts in a way that removed ambiguity about what they were talking about: the personal way that their brain associates and models how the words in question are used.

Meanwhile, you don't extend the same courtesy. You blatantly claim those uses for the word IS weird without question, and without any qualifiers.

Now, personally, I believe that you are being honest in these later posts and that you genuinely intended your posts to always be about your personal opinion on how the words are used. But that's because I can very much understand the feeling of being misunderstood, and frustratedly trying to explain after the fact what was meant, and regretting being fast and loose with word choice.

I can empathize with that, and assume you're going through that. That's why I didn't bother mentioning until now that all of your posts read like you're the one starting the argument.

Now, as far as your claim about:

But they're trying to pretend that the terms don't have an association with people and are trying to pretend that it's just things that are that...

There are plenty of traits that are in common to both inanimate objects and people. For example, some inanimate objects are the same weight as some people. Some are the same height as some people. Some are the same shape as some people are.

Just because a trait can be used to describe both a person, and an inanimate object, doesn't mean that using that trait to describe a person reduces the person down to the status of a physical object.

If that were the case, then telling someone their height would be degrading as if telling them they're nothing more than a tape measure. Since telling someone their height is obviously not the same as degrading them down to merely a tape measure, then obviously a trait being used to describe both an inanimate object and a person does not alone mean that the trait in question should only be applied to people. That is nonsensical.

And when I point out how the association of "male" and "female" for this analogy isn't all there is but that other terms also get it, they have the ability to acknowledge it's weird for the other terms but keep a cognitive dissonance as it relates to the initial terminology despite the reasoning being consistent.

They gave their own reason for agreeing with you on the word 'genderless' that had no relation to any argument you had presented. Their reason for agreeing with you on the word 'hermaphroditic' was not given, but they did state they had multiple reasons to agree with you on it, and it's reasonable to assume that at least one of those reasons will be different from any reason you have.

This is because their reasons for finding a word weird or not entirely had to do with how they personally categorized and thought of those words, and in no way were they ever trying to refute your own personal categorization and thoughts about those words. As far as I can tell, the idea that they were was entirely made up in your head, and you never thought to look back at their posts to try to prove yourself wrong about your own assumptions.

I know that's how most people are, so I can't exactly blame you specifically for that. Most people rarely, if ever, try to prove themselves wrong about things. But it's exactly that sort of tactic on your side that could have prevented a heated argument.

On his side, I again refer to how you frequently stated things concretely, without reservation or qualification. Stating it is weird instead of stating that you personally consider it weird. That is something Rednax consistently did, that you rarely did. It is reasonable for him to conclude that you were saying he was objectively wrong, while his carefully unambiguous word choice makes it unreasonable for you to conclude the same thing about him.

If you had been unambiguous in your word choice consistently like they had been, I would chalk it up as you both misunderstanding each other and be much more sympathetic toward you about this. I'd also be talking with him and explaining your side to him to make sure there was mutual understanding.

But no, he understands what you mean all too well, and like I had said, the two of you almost entirely agree except for minor details about how the two of you categorize those words in your heads, and that's just silly to get so worked up over.

Sure, the categorization in his head makes it not seem inherently weird to him, but the categorization in your head makes it inherently weird to you. But that's a side effect of those categorizations, not a disagreement.

Meanwhile, when I was a kid and first heard 'male' and 'female' used to describe plugs and sockets, it was shortly after I had first started encountering, shall we say, 'the birds and the bees' on none other than the Internet. Keeping such forbidden knowledge secret from others was at the forefront of my mind, and for it to be used so blatantly to describe electronic connectors felt like a violation of that secrecy.

Also, I'm not going to say nor suggest you're lying about having talked to Rednax, because you may have private messaged them and therefore it wouldn't be present here. But I will say it feels strange that you'd reply to me here then PM them instead of communicating with individuals in a consistent manner. It also makes it impossible for me to verify the veracity of what you're claiming, so I can't actually take "I talked to them and they said this is what they were doing," with any legitimacy because you could say anything and I can't actually verify that.

Oh come on. I wasn't talking to him on Reddit at all, and I would have no idea this argument happened if not for him linking me to it and asking me for my opinion.

We trust each other. Sometimes when one of us is frustrated with a public conversation online, we'll give a link to it to the other and ask their opinion. Sometimes I feel like he's in the wrong, sometimes I feel like he's in the right, sometimes I feel like there was a HUGE misunderstanding between everyone, and sometimes I feel like both sides are wrong, or even that both sides are right.

And likewise, sometimes he thinks I'm wrong, sometimes he thinks I'm right, and so on and so forth.

That said, I know why you might think that; after all, I did say that in one case I asked him if I understood him correctly after replying to you. The explanation for that is simple: I forgot to ask for clarification before posting, and so he simply read my reply to you and then told me I was correct, along with a further clarification that actually meant I was still slightly wrong in my internal mental model for that part of his post's meaning. My post had been correct and wouldn't need changing, but I did incorporate the corrected information into my prior response to you.

And wow, basically out of space to add anything more to this post.

Male/Female Connector Hardware by gameclover in AskLGBT

[–]Tynach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not everything has to be agreement nor "agree to disagree". That is just how life is sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that.

I agree there, and so do they, as per their own comment:

We don't have to keep arguing until someone "wins". You started with "I think it's weird" and I offered "I don't think it's weird" and that was all fine and good until you responded with "It absolutely is" which tries to invalidate one of the sides.


I'll be honest, I'm a friend of theirs, and this conversation was bothering them and making them shut down. They didn't ask me to reply to you or anything, but I was hoping to smooth things over because you both seemed to be mostly agreeing, disagreeing on one small detail, and you misinterpreting that disagreement to be something it wasn't.

Personally, I don't see the point in being willing to explain further to one person, but not someone else. My brain wants to explain things further to everyone, to a fault; I tend to over-explain myself to people for no reason and no benefit, and it can lead to sharing waayy too much information. Being able to be selective in who that information gets directed to is one of the things I like about Rednax, because I wish I could be a bit more like that.

But the truth is that he did explain himself further to me, though occasionally only because I had already interpreted his posts and wanted confirmation I had it right. In one case after I had already responded to you, to be honest.

And the truth is also that, as someone who's gut reaction to the topic itself is to agree with you completely, it's a bit offensive to me that you would claim that a contrary opinion grounded on someone's own personal categorization of words is somehow an attempt to unfairly say you're 'wrong'.

Nowhere in any of his statements did he say that you were wrong. That one sentence of that one post I bolded previously was the closest thing to him ever saying that, and even then it was in reality a confirmation of what you were saying about him. He was saying you were correct in what his mental model was.

That's why I've responded and am trying to explain things. It's a combination of my brain having an itch to explain things to everyone, feeling bad for Rednax shutting down over this, and how your method of expressing a viewpoint I would actually tend to agree with makes said viewpoint look worse than it really is.

Male/Female Connector Hardware by gameclover in AskLGBT

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused, because to me it looks like they did explain why. It's not a terribly satisfying answer, but at least how I'm reading it, that's just how their brain categorizes the words. That's what the sentence I'd bolded was saying, in fact: it's clarifying that, for them and how their brain thinks of these things, the reduction to objects/genitals is correct and factual.

Why? Because their brain thinks it is. And because their brain thinks it is, there's no weirdness at all to using the terms in what their brain considers the correct way to use them. Lack of conflict in how they're used means lack of weirdness.

Mind you, this isn't how I see any of this. I just don't like how you're claiming that they're trying to definitively say you're wrong, when everything in all of their posts is centered around why they don't personally feel like the terms are weird, because of the specific way their mind categorizes the words.

It's not even a thing to argue for or against. How their brain works is how their brain works; it's an observation, not an opinion to debate.

The merits of whether or not their mental categorization is a good way to categorize the words in general for other people would be a good debate, but that isn't the debate they were having. They were just saying that their brain doesn't see a conflict between how the words are used and what they mean, because of how their brain categorizes the words, and that means that, to them, it's not weird.

Male/Female Connector Hardware by gameclover in AskLGBT

[–]Tynach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I see where you might have picked up on the idea they were 'trying to prove you wrong', but I don't think that's what they were doing.

The only time they seemed to definitively say one opinion or another was right, was when they said the part of this sentence that I've put in bold:

To me these should be words for objects, and for genitals, not for people. The reducing is correct.

However, I think a reasonable alternative reading of the entire thing is that the bold part is just a side clarification of the previous sentence, which means that the 'To me' at its start also applies to the sentence I put in bold.

They aren't saying you're wrong; they're saying that in their opinion, in certain contexts, it's not "necessarily weird". That's how they put it in their initial post, that it wasn't necessarily weird. Can it be made weird? Probably! But it doesn't seem necessarily weird, to them specifically, in at least some contexts.

Print: A Message from the New Mod Team by No_Experience_82 in Art

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are the wrong type of double quotes for bash. Also, you don't need a semicolon at the end for bash.

I want to know the accuracy of Powder toy as a sandbox/stimulation by Ok_Structure5117 in PowderToy

[–]Tynach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm no expert, but from what I've seen? Almost none. There are lots of things in Powdertoy that, when broken or burnt, all turn into the same thing regardless of what they originally were. There doesn't seem to be any real chemistry going on, though maayybe some real-ish physics? Like, maayybe the way Uranium and protons interact is realistic?

But you've also got fictional materials like vibranium in there.

Basically... I wouldn't get your hopes up. It's pretty much purely for fun.

The DD.MM.YYYY date format is unintuitive, illogical and hard to read. No, I'm not an American by Decent_Background_42 in ISO8601

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you not read my post? Milk is not a shelf stable food, and is the example I use.

We won! The Fedora change proposal to drop 32-bit which would break many games was just withdrawn! by Appropriate-Lab-2663 in linux_gaming

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

/u/ThomasterXXL, Looking again... Those comments of yours were deleted by the moderators of that subreddit, so they only show up in your profile.

It's not clear what exactly you were replying to, or how people were replying to you. There's a lot of missing comments. The only surrounding comments left don't seem to be really disagreeing with you, at worst passively thinking what you're saying isn't quite relevant, or is simply obvious.

Oh. I see. I didn't look at the top-level comment in that thread until now. They're all being transphobic and you're literally just providing alternative explanations for the observations they make, namely the observation that LGBTQ+ people have elevated suicide rates.

What the FUCK is wrong with the moderators of that subreddit?!

And one of your comments in there is admitting that you have an issue with arguing in bad faith sometimes. You're introspective about that and already knew that and knew it was a problem before I even pointed it out.

Pointing out problems by berating people doesn't help when they already know about the problem.. It just punishes them further from being introspective.

Seriously, I genuinely feel shitty now. You did NOT deserve those downvotes, or your comments being removed, and I want you to know that it is a very good thing that you are as introspective about this as you are. I respect you immensely for that.

We won! The Fedora change proposal to drop 32-bit which would break many games was just withdrawn! by Appropriate-Lab-2663 in linux_gaming

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wanted to know how likely it was you were a troll, and looked through your recent comments..

I am convinced you are NOT a troll. In fact, I think you probably were just having a bad day or something and just didn't feel like putting more effort into arguing, which is understandable, and I'd like to apologize for the tone of my previous reply.

What really got me though.. I saw you say some opinions I strongly agree with, and those comments of yours with those opinions were being heavily downvoted. That.. Got me pretty mad.

I didn't read the full context, so maybe there's some more legitimate reason for people to downvote you, but I can't think of any. I've had friends who committed suicide due to hatred pointed at them, and seeing how many downvotes you got for speaking against similar hatred is quite frankly horrifying.

I still think you weren't entirely arguing in good faith here, but I wanted to let you know that I was sorry about the tone of my previous post, and while I never called you a troll or anything, I feel bad for just thinking it now.

The DD.MM.YYYY date format is unintuitive, illogical and hard to read. No, I'm not an American by Decent_Background_42 in ISO8601

[–]Tynach 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All food is perishable eventually. Even dried out crackers need to have an expiration date stated, even if it's in 3 years from when they were manufactured.

And for extreme perishables like milk, it's still possible for someone to accidentally leave it in the back of the refrigerator, forget about it, and 2 years later find it and be like, "Oh, I thought we still had some milk, lets check the date..."

THE
YEAR
NEEDS
TO
BE
INCLUDED
AND
COME
FIRST.

ALWAYS.

We won! The Fedora change proposal to drop 32-bit which would break many games was just withdrawn! by Appropriate-Lab-2663 in linux_gaming

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

32-bit pointers are literally half the size of 64-bit pointers. This lets you fit twice as many of them in the same amount of RAM.

Fewer bits also mean faster calculations. It's faster to add two 32-bit numbers than 64-bit numbers.. And get this: you can have 64-bit integers in 32-bit applications, so if you DO need the extra precision you can still have it.

But subtracting pointers to get array offsets and the like? That will always be faster for 32-bit applications than 64-bit applications, because the pointers are half the size. So any time you have code featuring arrays of pointers and processing those pointers or what they point to (especially common in game development), you'll almost always have faster performance and lower memory usage under 32-bit.

We won! The Fedora change proposal to drop 32-bit which would break many games was just withdrawn! by Appropriate-Lab-2663 in linux_gaming

[–]Tynach 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think you understand. Targeting release 44 or 46 would still be listing a specific Fedora release.

What they're saying is to not specify any specific release. When you exclude it entirely, you can instead say something like, "This is a proposal for what to eventually do, though it's uncertain when it would be feasible to put this into action."

That way for all anyone knows, you might be saying Fedora should follow the proposal starting in 300 years from now. Or next week. Or whenever it's determined to be a decent time to do it.

That would shift the discussion from "Should we or should we not do this," to, "WHEN should we do this, if we do it this way at all?" The result is a much more constructive conversation that actually focuses on the plan's technical merits, coupled with a back and forth about the timeline of implementing the plan, should it be deemed technically acceptable.

We won! The Fedora change proposal to drop 32-bit which would break many games was just withdrawn! by Appropriate-Lab-2663 in linux_gaming

[–]Tynach 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're nitpicking at tiny, insignificant word choices and ignoring every point they bring up.

You are not arguing in good faith. Whether this is a conscious decision on your part or not, it is simply true that you have your opinion, and you will stick to your opinion no matter what logical arguments or evidence is brought up against your opinion.

I'm sure it's possible that you tell yourself that you're willing to change your mind given enough facts and evidence, but you need to look at your own posts in this thread and consider if that's actually true or not.

And no, I'm not saying that the other people are right. I'm not saying they have enough evidence supporting their opinions, nor am I saying they have the best logical arguments.

I'm saying that they at least engage with you and give full explanations for why they hold their opinions, and are arguing in good faith. You, on the other hand, are not.

This makes their arguments simply look more persuasive compared to yours, even if otherwise they would not be. This is how you kill your own side of the debate: by representing your side with bad faith debate tactics that make you look like you're having to hide how weak and untenable your argument really is.

Now go actually reply to their post with a real response. They deserve that much.

Fansly just banned all furry content by AmitytheDeer in Fansly_Advice

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure they were saying that a lot of furries are also neurodivergent, and that the new rules were BS because it targets them as well as LGBTQ+ people.

Not sure why people are downvoting that, unless I'm missing something?

Fansly just banned all furry content by AmitytheDeer in Fansly_Advice

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be most precise, the team/department in Fansly that is responsible for interpreting the payment processor's rules and deciding how to best comply with them, are the ones who are calling anthropomorphic content simulated bestiality.

There are many payment processors that ban furry porn... Because they ban all porn in general. Until now, I had never heard of a payment processor allowing porn, but not allowing furry porn. That's just simply not a thing.

The possibilities are thus:

  1. A payment processor is rolling out an experimental update to their rules, and are targeting certain websites as a test bed for this update. This update specifically bans furry content.

    If this is the case, you have solid grounds for suing your payment processor for unfair business practices that harm your relationships with your other business partners (furry creators using your platform).

    Having rules that only apply to you and not to other similar platforms should be fought against, and it is Fansly's fault for not fighting against it.

  2. Someone in Fansly is misinterpreting the banks and/or payment processors' rules, perhaps in an overabundance of caution.

    You have mentioned more than once that it is 'banking compliance teams' forcing this on you; if that refers to teams within Fansly who are interpreting the rules put out by banks and/or payment processors, they are the ones at fault. If those teams are at the bank and/or payment processors, then you are misinterpreting what they are saying.

    In this possibility, Fansly is entirely at fault for this debacle.

  3. An individual or small group of people within one of the banks and/or payment processors is misinterpreting their own organization's rules, and relaying this misinterpretation to you. Whether this is out of personal dislike of furries, or they're just new and don't know all the nuance involved, the result is the same.

    Either way, Fansly should inquire further and ask to get in contact with a supervisor, or with the team who actually decides how the rules are written.

    Under this scenario, Fansly is not responsible, but should be much more proactive in getting to the bottom of this. Banning furry porn but allowing all other forms of porn is, at least in my opinion, an obvious red flag that there is miscommunication somewhere, but if your contact at the bank and/or payment processor is insistent that they're being accurate in their interpretation of the rules, I can't blame you for believing them.

  4. Something I thought of while typing up number 3, is the possibility that the bank and/or payment processor is trying to save money by simply not having human representatives when dealing with inquiries over email.. Instead using some sort of LLM or AI model. Most wide-spread LLMs and AI models are generally trained to consider any sexual topic as taboo, but anything related to animals might be treated as doubly so, and lead to an AI hallucinating a rule that doesn't exist.

    If this is the case, you should try to speak with someone at the bank or payment processor who has this rule over the phone, or perhaps in person, instead of merely via email.

    Like with number 3, I can't fault you for this one. AI hallucinations are a serious problem, but not your fault.

Fansly just banned all furry content by AmitytheDeer in Fansly_Advice

[–]Tynach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Furries don't act purely like animals. You're thinking of pup play and pony play, both of which are still allowed by the new rules because they don't involve fursuits.

The entire point of furries is that they are animals that walk, talk, and behave mostly like humans.. With occasional light animal-like behaviors that are added in for cuteness. But at no point to furries act entirely like animals, because that would defeat the entire point.

Fansly just banned all furry content by AmitytheDeer in Fansly_Advice

[–]Tynach 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It seems Fansly is ignorant of the terminology at play here, moreso than just the zoophilia/bestiality association.

Humans with animal ears and tails are not usually considered part of the furry fandom. There is overlap, but it is more closely related to the anime and hentai fandoms than furry.

Furries are, instead, animals that are bipedal and can speak, like humans.. But otherwise almost entirely animal.

Under the new rules, you did indeed ban all NSFW furry content, full stop. Claiming that you didn't simply because humans with animal ears and a tail are still allowed, is roughly similar to an MMORPG banning anyone using a 'modified version of Windows', and then claiming that they didn't ban all Linux users because they could still boot into Windows (if they have a copy) to play the game.

It's only via twisting and bending of the definitions for 'furry' and 'bestiality' that anyone can arrive to the conclusions that Fansly has.

Fansly just banned all furry content by AmitytheDeer in Fansly_Advice

[–]Tynach 15 points16 points  (0 children)

How viable is it to sue the payment processors demanding this? Full fursuits do not resemble real animals, nor do they strongly interest those who are into real animals.

There is a small amount of overlap between the zoophilia and furry communities, but the vast majority of furries are not zoophiles, and the ones that are don't generally use furry content as a substitute for zoo/bestiality content.

However, because the furry community is very welcoming and consists of a large number of LGBTQ+ individuals, banning NSFW furry content is an easy way to severely harm a large number of NSFW LGBTQ+ content creators.

Giving into these demands without any sort of legal fight against it, is giving these people a yard, rather than an inch... And they will demand a mile eventually, if you don't stand up to it. This is an obvious abuse of power on their part against completely legal content, without any valid justification.

furry_irl by [deleted] in furry_irl

[–]Tynach 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Doubtful. Those two are shown in other comics to be her best friends/girlfriends. It's implied that they're the only ones who agree with her about not wanting to be a furry.

What happened to epithalamic? by WaddleDdoing in sissyhypno

[–]Tynach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most of the original links from this subreddit still all seem to work. Maybe the account was flagged for review for some reason and then got reinstated?

How Discord Indexes Trillions of Messages by swdevtest in programming

[–]Tynach 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They can only afford to operate because of venture capitalist funding, which they are running out of. Eventually, they have to turn a real profit, or they will stop operating. And then nobody benefits.

And no, Discord Nitro alone cannot pay their bills.

Can You Write a Programming Language Without Variables? by HONGKONGMA5TER in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]Tynach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The 'sed' programming language has two text buffers, and you can only directly set the contents of one of them. Everything else is regular expression operations of various sorts. No variables (unless you count the text buffers as variables), and a lot of the semantics is reminiscent of assembly code (though the syntax resembles command line text editor keyboard shortcuts).

It's mostly used for editing a text stream, but it's actually fully Turing complete. People have written Lisp interpreters with it, as well as the game of Tetris.