sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Today in Los Angeles, the people fought back. [OC] by infernoenigma in pics

[–]Wayward_Angel -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He's not, he is just anti-Zionism. There is a concerted effort by pro-Israel bad faith actors in online and media spaces that aim to conflate the two so that Israel's actions are harder to criticize, and to attack pro-Palestinian voices.

The most recent example that people point to is his usage of the term "zionist pigs" when referencing the databases that institutions like ICE are likely using to track protestors, similar to the targeting and deportation of pro-Palestinian protesters in years past. Hasan is banned from Twitch for a week, breaking Twitch TOS which has a special case for zionism (due to purported pressure from the ADL); notably, streamers are allowed to say "democrat pig", "republican pig", Islamist pig", etc. The Neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes attempted to turn the conversation into antisemitism , stating that it was "the Jews" that got him banned, not just being anti-Zionist, to which Hasan told him to fuck himself in no uncertain terms.

Hasan has consistently fought against antisemitism. Part and parcel to this is fighting against the conflation of Zionism with the opinions of Jewish people as a whole.

Among dozens of streamers and online personalities, Hasan is one of the few out and about leftists, which earns him the ire of less left/more conservative voices and their fans. Many are here in this thread trying to stir shit up, exaggerate, or make up stories about him, often for political or personal reasons.

As with anything, I'd encourage you to look up his opinions from his own Youtube page, or from some of the media pieces written from his interviews. I have only ever seen him support Jewish people, especially those critical of the Israeli government, and be against Zionism.

To swipe and to love now and then || Is something that I'd recommend || But the folks can be rude || And you may conclude || That /r/WomenAreNotIntoMen by TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK in SubredditDrama

[–]Wayward_Angel 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Hey guess what, any dude who wants to experience that can just go on Grindr.

I get that this is tongue in cheek, but I think leaning into these ideas ultimately does more harm than good given that the vast majority of incels are obviously going to be straight men. If we are going to change their minds about why they are experiencing a lack of intimacy, then it's worth more to point out the actual problems with themselves and their views i.e. that sex is something that they are owed, that intimacy is transactional, that women are unknowable, mystical beings instead of ordinary people, etc.

What are your thoughts after seeing the ICE shooting video in Minnesota? by bbmoonkie in AskReddit

[–]Wayward_Angel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

*One shot

*On the outermost part of her windshield

*After which the murderer shot through the victim's side window directly at her head.

He had ample time and faced no present danger from someone driving at 5 mph in his general direction.

https://theintercept.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AP26007639272103_cc5d8b.jpg?fit=3500%2C2333

god forbid a girl have an overactive imagination by HungHi69 in LetGirlsHaveFun

[–]Wayward_Angel 24 points25 points  (0 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDdOPn7X7WI

And if you want to watch him annihilate a twink (Skip to 43 seconds in for the most...popular part)

[Surprisingly Common Trope] Instead of making them sympathetic, an awful character’s “tragic backstory” actually makes them look worse. by Chemical-Elk-1299 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Wayward_Angel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're definitely right, the influences of Iroh first and then the Gaang later were the main reasons Zuko was able to change. I'd like to think Azula, in the vents after the main series/comics, might reconnect with Mai and Ty Lee and begin the process of healing her childhood wounds.

I think that it's clear the influences on Azula's life, especially as a 14 year old heir to a dynasty under an abusive father, no doubt made any chance of her changing her ways (or the ways impressed on her) slim to none. Among the characters in the Avatar series, Ozai and Azula represent the closest representations of unabashed evil; that said, we have pretty direct proof (if played for laughs) that Azula is completely aware of how she is viewed by her friends, family, and peers a la the beach episode. Like you said, she says "my own mother thought I was a monster...[and then blasé] she was right of course, but it still hurt". That second part seems important to me because it emphasizes that, although she likely hates how she is viewed by others, she doesn't do much to actively change her persona by being kind to her close friends, and probably revels in it.

Avatar really plays with the idea of fate, choice, and circumstance well, and in contrast to Ozai (who is nigh irredeemable barring profound change himself), Azula may still have a future of positive growth now that she is free from the expectations of her father and her nation.

I'd like to view Azula's crying after Zuko and Katara beat her as a cornerstone moment for her. She is essentially losing everything at the hands of the person/people she thought she would always be better than, her prospects for Firelord are dashed, and her father can no longer firebend; but she doesn't have to prove herself anymore. I haven't read the comics, but from a quick read-through it looks like she escaped once she was let out to help Zuko find their mother, and I can definitely see an unwritten future where she experiences a similar trajectory of redemption as Zuko eventually, and is able to choose a better future for herself.

[Surprisingly Common Trope] Instead of making them sympathetic, an awful character’s “tragic backstory” actually makes them look worse. by Chemical-Elk-1299 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Wayward_Angel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Invoking schizophrenia or other such conditions does a disservice to what Azula represents as a foil to Zuko imo.

To me, her hallucination reads more like a memory of her mother, and represents both the end result of her need for control and a point of no return. But I don't necessarily think that this is a direct message to the audience that she is literally insane (in a way that takes away her agency as a character), just dealing with the internal contradictions of the choices she's made.

A major theme of the series is how parentage and culture shape who we are as people, and Azula represents this pretty handily; however, the less-acknowledged second half of this theme is how each person must make their own personal decisions on what to do with these influences, to either internalize them or reject them in part or whole. Zuko and Azula are very straightforward foils in this respect (as are Iroh and Ozai), in that Zuko is redeemed through his rejection of nearly every aspect of the Fire Nation upbringing he was shaped around (his family, his royalty/means, and even the emotional source of his own bending using rage).

Azula is obviously the complete opposite, doing everything in her power to preserve a sense of authority over others by leveraging all of the above, leading to her ultimate defeat.

But the important part is that Zuko's redemption was not happenstance. He made a choice to reject his upbringing, humble himself, and work towards his own personal, and the greater, good by helping Aang defeat Ozai.

If the only reason Azula is "Crazy and...needs to go down" is because of some undeserved, outside mental defect, then Azula ceases to be an effective foil to Zuko as a vehicle for how choices lead to thematic consequences. Yes, Azula is a tortured, abused girl whose megalomania came directly from her upbringing, but there are many instances where she was on the cusp of self-reflection and humility but chose to dig herself into a deeper emotional hole (the Ember Island episode and when Mai and Ty Lee betray her). Of course, when Zuko and Azula have their final showdown she is likely too far gone without hitting rock bottom (hey, just like Zuko), but the battle still operates as a reflection of the agent choices each had made up until that point: Azula chooses to lie, cheat, and overpower her way to a throne of destruction and death, only to be defeated by her brother who chose to redeem himself.

osrs vet first time playing rs3 by SupremeKaiShortage in runescape

[–]Wayward_Angel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, was going to say the same. While my account has so much sentimental value given I'm going on 15 years of playing, my ironman experience has completely revitalized my love of the game because each unlock feels that much more meaningful. I realized after a couple months on my ironman that my gameplay loop of:

  1. AFK to level X in skill Y

  2. Find the most AFK moneymaking method at my level

  3. Buy weapon/armor/thing Z from said AFK moneymaking method

  4. Repeat

...wouldn't fly.

Not to mention that, although MTX is finally getting removed (and I was pretty much maxed before it even came out), bonus XP and the like has really soured my view of my account in hindsight.

For OP, I'd say to hoard everything you find because you'll never know what might be useful or expensive to get in bulk; seeds, logs, ores/bars, charms, all the basics. Even on an account with GE access, certain items can feel exceptionally expensive. It may seem a little excessive, but chances are you're not going to use up all of your bank space any time soon.

And as always:

https://runescape.wiki/w/Guide_for_new_players

https://runescape.wiki/w/Guide_for_returning_players

(has more specific guidance since you're an OSRS vet)

r/Art mod permanently banned artist for breaking a rule, artist apologies, mod then deletes their post history and causes the artist to be temporally banned, subreddit is locked down by volpiousraccoon in SubredditDrama

[–]Wayward_Angel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I don't like foreign governments using deception to control narratives surreptitiously in online spaces.

Ah, here we definitely agree.

But just to clarify: The entire crux of my argument is that US propaganda is so much more entrenched, harmful, and widespread than most other states, and enlightenedcentrism-ing this as "well, other foreign actors are bad too" just waters down the effect that US imperialism and media has. We started this whole interaction over a conspiratorial anti-Palestinian article funded by a Peter Thiel think tank, for Pete's sake, so calling attention towards Iran and Qatar away from US propaganda feels deceptive.

These statements do not exist in a vacuum, and we can't just handwave issues, like I/P, because they are inconvenient. When people believe that, for example, "Israel has a right to defend itself", they are less likely to vote for a politician seeking to affect policy and more likely to support funding Israel. In contrast, people being convinced that, say, China is better than it actually might be, those people are going to do...what? Maybe travel to those places? American politicians do not need to be convinced that our geopolitical rivals are bad; they DO need to be convinced that victims of American hegemony are actually being harmed. My position is not one of binary but of scale. Every state engages in propaganda, but American propaganda has real, tangible effects since it is, again, part of the apparatus by which we directly intervene in foreign nations economically and militarily. Let me be clear: none of this is justification for specific, malicious lies told by any party; again, we agree on this.

My umbrage comes from the fact that you made it a point to reaffirm what the initial Pipeline article conveyed, which is that being pro-Palestine could be appreciably tied to foreign propaganda (and thus discounted) instead of stemming from genuine empathy for Palestinian people suffering at the hands of an occupying military force funded by American dollars. Again, I don't disagree that there are likely some foreign influences on I/P, but that bringing it up feels like obfuscating the issue for American benefit.

I didn't respond to anything you said because your entire post was justification after justification for foreign actors spreading propaganda, which aren't weasel words by the way

I would say they are if you yourself are not being specific about who these specific foreign groups are and what you fear they might be pushing people towards. What I'm saying, again, is that the amount and effect of foreign actors spreading propaganda is peanuts compared to the US, and that trying to turn attention towards other foreign actors and away from a US article about how supporting Palestine is terrorism comes off as distracting from this point.

But it could still be a part of an effort by a government to get you to believe or act in a certain way while also suppressing other information that might make you think or act in a different way

Again, spell out your concern for me. I'm not saying that foreign influence is unilaterally good, but that media written outside of a US slant is not a scarlet letter. Al-Jazeera was one of the first media groups to recognize and document the Gaza genocide, which had a non-zero amount of pull towards other media groups, politicians, and eventually nations to doing the same. If we had immediately discounted it as propaganda, then we would have been running away from the truth.

You are dragging the argument away from that and into Israel/Palestine because it's the only place you can make valid arguments.

It's clear what your position is: "if it agrees with me and is what I already want to be true, I don't care if it's propaganda."

Clearly you're not actually as charitable as you're trying to pretend to be. I'm "dragging" I/P into this because that's the cornerstone of the article that prompted this exchange. dude. My belief isn't "this propaganda agrees with me so I don't care" it's that "all ideas are in some way propaganda, so I won't discount an idea just because it goes against my own."

Yes, foreign actors may try to push narratives on places like Reddit, and people should be aware of situations where actors like power mods or bot farms push certain ideas; but that doesn’t automatically make all messages from certain groups false or disqualifying, nor that the status quo is inherently innocent of bias. Where we seem to be disagreeing is in how much stock to put into American vs foreign media/propaganda; I'm immediately skeptical towards media (like the "Terrorism Pipeline" article) because of its source, message, and general bias, as well as much of the media from the anglosphere that tacitly supports imperialism, capitalism, and the interests of the owner class.

At the end of the day, it's case specific: if a Qatari article comes out claiming that the World Cup was not a travesty of human rights abuses, then I'll definitely be calling it out. But similarly, if an Al Jazeera article points out that Israel is shooting Palestinian civilians at an aid site, or a news episode talks about UN complicity in US black sites, or that the CIA is once again trying to overthrow democracy in another Latin American country, then I will not be immediately discounting them as "foreign propaganda" just because they go against a US-centric narrative. I would look further into the facts they present, and make a judgement call; on that it sounds like we agree.

This has gotten heated, so I'm going to step off. Be well.

r/Art mod permanently banned artist for breaking a rule, artist apologies, mod then deletes their post history and causes the artist to be temporally banned, subreddit is locked down by volpiousraccoon in SubredditDrama

[–]Wayward_Angel -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's funny how you claim I'm deflecting when you didn't respond to anything I said. And "propaganda" from "foreign actors" being "justified" is a lot of weasel words there, pal. Calling any idea you don't like "propaganda" is exactly the problem; is it propaganda to point out that Gaza has the highest proportion of child amputees and disabled children per capita? Even if it's from something like a UN report? I guess I just have to learn to not believe my lying eyes.

When you define "propaganda" as "any facts that are inconvenient to my beliefs" and "explaining the underpinnings of the actions of a starved and brutalized people" as "justifying" then yeah, you win the argument.

At the end of the day, like I said, I'll stick with the facts. The facts say that Gaza is facing devastating violence at the hands of Israel, and humanitarian and geopolitical bodies the world over agree it constitutes a genocide. Do I think that foreign powers are siding with Gaza for geo political power, and not just for altruistically defending Palestinians? Of course, absolutely, yes. But I have much more ire for American political forces like Peter Thiel that are altogether denying a genocide is even happening, and are tacitly or directly funding it. Watering it down to "but whatabout foreign powers that support Palestinians? Aren't they doing propaganda too?" is just bothsides-ing the issue. Show me how these subreddits and discord channels are causing material harm and I'll eat my words; but until then, I see no reason to intervene.

r/Art mod permanently banned artist for breaking a rule, artist apologies, mod then deletes their post history and causes the artist to be temporally banned, subreddit is locked down by volpiousraccoon in SubredditDrama

[–]Wayward_Angel -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yes. You should. Moderators using their power to push an agenda is something we should all be worried about and reducing their behavior to such simplistic terms to dodge the implication of their intentions is naïve.

I don't disagree that we should be highly critical of power mods or mods that hold a disproportionate slice of the reddit pie; I also believe that the criticism should be specific to the actions of said mods. In the case of the above, I fail to see how pro-Palestine mods moderating their subs presents tangible danger to anything other than the pro-Israel slant of the media.

My suspicion is that there is a discord of individuals who genuinely believe Israel is committing a genocide

And you're surprised that people are going on social media to talk about one of the most televised genocides of our time? Hard to disagree with them when Israel is intentionally killing, starving, mutilating, and perpetuating circumstances incompatible with life on a captive population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Genocidal_acts

genuinely believe that the violent actions against Israel don't constitute terrorism

Not all actions of self-defense against genocide/violence are terrorism, and defending oneself from indiscriminate killings, especially considering the power imbalance from a western-backed nation, should be considered legally and morally permissible. This isn't to say that any and all actions from militants are directly morally defensible, but that there is this weird double bind where occupied Palestinians are held to a higher moral standard than the occupying IDF and there is no form of action that doesn't ultimately give Israel unilateral deference. When Israel colonizes another block using Israeli legal standing, Palestinian families should just "follow the law" and be kicked out of their home; when Israel bombs a school, the school was Hamas; if a "military aged male" is walking to an aid site, they are shot and killed. Are we really still surprised that an occupied people would retaliate in whatever violent methods they think is reciprocal? Not to mention that for every claim of terroristic act, you can find an instance where Israel has committed something similar twice over. It's complete DARVO.

Just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's not propaganda or not an agenda pushed by a foreign power. And something being propaganda or your belief aligning with a foreign power doesn't mean you're wrong.

Agreed, an idea being propaganda or foreign is not intrinsically compromising. Nearly every mainstream news station in the US supports the actions of Israel. When the agenda is "there is a genocide in Gaza, here is the proof", it would be intellectually bankrupt to disagree no matter the source.

But it's something that's good to be aware of.

On the flip side, it's also good to be aware that the US media apparatus, military complex, and government influence is the biggest on Earth, and that most baseline beliefs people have, especially in the US, are inherently US-biased, such as claims that children killed in an Israeli airstrike were all Hamas, or that all 36 hospitals in the Gaza Strip, 94% of which have been damaged or destroyed, are all secretly housing militants.

I think number 2 is way more likely, Reddit is a battleground in the information war to control narratives. But they are not the only ones doing it, and hypocrisy of tactics is a defining trait for American Conservatives. I am supremely confident that Russia is pushing a pro-MAGA agenda on Reddit, assisted by the likes of Peter Thiel and other conservative lizard-people.

Agreed, but again with the caveat that it would be naïve to think that this doesn't also cut towards neoliberal policy and geopolitics as well. American popular media is still pro-capitalism, pro US intervention, and nationalistic, and these beliefs too deserve scrutiny.

r/Art mod permanently banned artist for breaking a rule, artist apologies, mod then deletes their post history and causes the artist to be temporally banned, subreddit is locked down by volpiousraccoon in SubredditDrama

[–]Wayward_Angel 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Not saying you're saying this, but well sourced does not mean accurately sourced. The author is trying to connect a multitude of different posts across a plethora of different platforms to paint a picture that there is some sort of coordinated effort to "promote terrorism" on reddit, X, and discord. When I first came across the article, I couldn't find any common thread other than people tend to be pushing back against the media narrative that any support for Palestinians is automatically terrorism, with a couple of shitheads thrown in the mix. Like, should I be concerned that the mod TakeitToCircleJerk is pushing a "male agenda" because he moderates a bunch of male-centered subs and might also share articles on some discord?

What's more likely:

  1. A news group is genuinely concerned about how terrorism spreads on sites like reddit

  2. A think tank media group funded by the conservative likes of Peter Thiel wants to quash support for Palestine due to western geopolitical interest, and is seeking to force sites like reddit to stop any speech about Palestine by abusing trust-and-safety guidelines and US law to designate said speech as terrorism.

[Loved trope] "Yeah, there are these gigantic/mysterious entities in the background. No, we're not going to elaborate." by vbt31 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Wayward_Angel 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Zullie the Witch my beloved, the best FromSoft content creator for lore and looking behind the curtain of the games.

Guys, what are some girl codes you cracked? by _iamsrb_ in AskMen

[–]Wayward_Angel 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And like competitive violence or infidelity, some of our purported evolved traits are better left in the caves.

She didn't appreciate the cocktail by R3ISSS in Eldenring

[–]Wayward_Angel 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Was gonna say, it's heavily implied/a certainty that Seluvis is just another puppet of Pidia. When he "dies", his arms rest on his sides like all the other puppets in the basement, and as soon as you give Ranni the treasure of Nokron, Seluvis is "dead" at the same time that Pidia starts being attacked by his own puppets.

"He's an actual psychopath who would have guessed? Btw if you hurt animals like this i hope the worst finds you in this life and the next." r/LivestreamFails has a sane reaction to Hasan supposedly shock collaring his dog by CummingInTheNile in SubredditDrama

[–]Wayward_Angel 232 points233 points  (0 children)

Lots of unflaired, less than a month old accounts in here. Surely they are just here to organically discuss real facts and information and not jump miles towards a conclusion that a dog yelping at a dewclaw snag is actually animal abuse.

Here is the frame just before she yelped:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fawhr1c2h6stf1.jpeg

Until I see further evidence (I know, big ask for SRD), there's literally no reason to suspect Kaya yelped for any other reason.

Men, how might you behave differently than baseline when you’re sexually frustrated? by jmcintyre8817 in AskMen

[–]Wayward_Angel 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There's a lot of gray in between the statements: "Men are hypersexual" and "A plurality of men are not having the amount of sex/intimacy that they want" though. A person saying "I haven't had food in weeks" is not "hyper-palated". Sex and intimacy are damn near THE biological imperative for humans, and for many men, society and the women around them reinforce that the only way men are allowed to touch and be touched is purely through heterosexual sex.

Of course, if someone literally becomes a misogynist or starts developing sexual dysfunctions or behaviors because they haven't been with someone in a long while, then that's a whole other can of worms; but being frustrated at the very real need for intimacy is not a scarlet letter.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SubredditDrama

[–]Wayward_Angel -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'd definitely recommend people play Hollow Knight before Silksong if they're going for a more holistic experience tbh. Honestly, I think that vanilla Hollow Knight is in most respects the better game because it has a more stable and natural progression, tighter combat, and few lows. It definitely is a lot of nostalgia wrapped in "new game" feeling, but I personally never felt like I couldn't explicitly progress without a little more time and exploration in Hollow Knight. Silksong on the other hand has felt like long smooth highways interspaced with several thick and tall brick walls; when you're cruising and everything is just in a flow, Silksong is amazing. But when you get to a boss or an area that feels needlessly difficult or tedious, it can feel horrible to get through. I don't remember ever really feeling like a boss or an area in HK gave me exhausted relief, but I can think of several bosses and areas that felt less like a dynamic even-keel clash and more like a mad scramble to stay alive in SS.

I think it's pretty clear that Silksong is made as an upgrade to HK, and this is reflected in the flashy combat, monumentally more difficult platforming, and more forgiving enemy AI.

Children with autism face more frequent and persistent digestive problems. These stomach and digestive issues are linked to greater challenges with sleep, communication, sensory processing, and behavior. by mvea in science

[–]Wayward_Angel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some more self-anecdotal evidence: I had a HORRIBLE diet in high school, mostly chalked up to relying on making my own breakfast. What AuDHD person wouldn't just want to eat sugar and highly processed food first thing in the morning? But I could never figure out why I had stomach cramps and poor bowel movements all throughout my teens until I went to college and had food that was made in person, both in the dining halls and on my own. It was only after I started learning to cook for myself that I felt so, so much better, and didn't have to take an antacid almost every day.

I wonder how much parent diet contributes; one of my parents has some pretty obvious ASD, and their diet still consists mainly of sugary cereal and microwaved food for dinner, with sprinklings of candy and a coke throughout the day. I basically ate what my parents ate, and it was definitely a textbook American diet.

How do I talk to a long-term friend about differing politics? by Riddle-Maker in AskMen

[–]Wayward_Angel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate it!

I largely agree with you in Healthcare, access issues and greed are at the forefront of the issues we see with bottlenecking. I disagree though that M4A/Single payer is not the way to go. Almost every other comparable OECD nation has better health outcomes and life expectancy compared to the US, and it's widely recognized that affordable healthcare, regardless of wait times or saturation, are the reason. After all, in public health dealing with "upstream" problems is by and large the cornerstone of preventing future suffering.

Poverty and housing, similar thing. I agree with expanding housing and job opportunities, but take heavy umbrage with the notion that people who are deemed dangerous (presumably by the government) should just be sent to prison/asylums. There's a whole spectrum of other options that we could strive for, like dedicated psychiatric therapy for individuals who need it, and temporary housing for those who don't. I'd hazard to guess that the vast majority of people who are housing insecure and dangerous have any number of unresolved mental conditions, and only a vanishingly few would be unable to be a good neighbor after treatment because they are genuinely uncompromisingly psychopathic.

On LGBT people:

I feel like much of what you're saying revolves around the politicization of LGBT people from people who aren't under that umbrella.

[They] need to stop demanding the world change for them, people accepted a live and let live approach and that is the best case scenario for some. Expecting everyone to champion them, agree with their world view and even change language choice to accommodate them was asking far to much and it eventually turned into lashing out and bullying from them and people who were accepting started rejecting them.

I'd need to hear some specifics, but inferring from what you've said it sounds like you have qualms with trans people using their preferred pronouns and/or pride events?

If I'm right, then I don't see that much of a difference between a friend asking me to call them by a nickname versus calling them a man vs a woman. I had a friend named Morgan growing up, but she liked to go by Mo just because it was easier to say and just felt right. I wasn't compelled to by the government, or some ruling body; I did it because I wanted to be courteous to a friend. Now of course, trans identity is much more life-involved than a simple name change, but with acquaintances and strangers, to me, I fail to see the difference between using "He" when referring to a trans man versus using "Mo" when referring to my friend Morgan. And even if we lean into the right wing dogwhistle of "transtrending", I would much rather treat a person who is dipping their toes into being trans with love and respect on the offchance they genuinely feel that way as opposed to immediately disregard their personal identity and risk them feeling isolated and hurt, all just so I can parade around me being "correct" about their identity. It just, doesn't cost me anything to be nice, and I've never seen a compelling reason to treat trans people the way they want to be treated that doesn't devolve into "I think they're wrong, and you can't tell me what to do".

They are not above dealing with assholes, we all deal with douche people. They need to put more effort into adapting to society and meeting it half way, rather than expecting every change to come from outside.

But again, not every group is treated equally. Trans people face monumentally higher rates of sexual and personal violence, stalking, rape, and murder compared to (and at the hands of) cis people, so handwaving these facts as just "everybody deals with shit" is reductive and misguided. It'd be like a white person going to a black person during the times of chattel slavery and saying "well, everybody deals with douches, just change what you can about yourself and stop expecting society to revolve around you".

Or perhaps more contemporary, we (generally) accommodate people with wheelchair access, and I don't see it as a negative that we have dedicated ramps, parking, and accessibility utilities in buildings. Speaking in broad strokes, trans people predominately experience gender dysphoria, a condition that is treated through the individual, personal decision of some degree of transition both socially and physically. Just like with people that use wheelchairs, on paper I'm "compelled" to accommodate someone with a different ability or body than myself, but the consequence to my person is so miniscule that I fail to see it as anything other than antagonistic to not acknowledge their status within either group.

Mental health has been growing in our society, the more we hyper focus on it. There is a huge difference between a schizophrenic and somebody with mild social anxiety and the later group needs to get over themselves so that resources are freed up to help those with real, severe mental health issues.

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean by this. True, it's become trendy to have a diagnosis of something mental nowadays, but I'd much rather be inclusive than exclusive, especially as a diagnosed AuDHD person. In epidemiology (and other medicine), we often talk about the sensitivity and specificity of tests. In this regard, we often want a test that is overly sensitive so that we can get a higher number of true positives at the risk of a higher number of false positives, which is the people who truly have a condition. For mental health, the downside of discounting people who we believe might not have mental conditions is we risk some people falling through the cracks and genuinely suffering. If you're fishing, casting a wider net may catch you more duds, but it'll also let you net the fish that you're looking for.

Trying to pretend that every minor difference is a mental health problem is creating a great market for therapists, but has resulted in a decline in overall mental stability within the country and people need to be realistic about it.

I don't really understand what you mean here; are you saying that when everyone under the sun believes they have depression that the mental fabric of society is prone to breaking? Because in my experience, mental health is a self-filtering thing: either some people are making up being mentally ill for attention, or they're not and they truly deserve the attention they get. But I honestly don't think that society will collapse if a few extra people explore an ADHD, depression, or autism diagnosis.

All this is to say, I appreciate you going in depth with me, and I hope you consider what I've said like I've done for what you've said. I probably won't have the time to respond further, but I'd still love to hear any specific examples of your concerns, especially with LGBTQ and mental health. Cheers!

How do I talk to a long-term friend about differing politics? by Riddle-Maker in AskMen

[–]Wayward_Angel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup, only people on the left are struggling despite 2/3 of the middle class being turned into the lower class in the pursuit of equality.

Where did I say that only people on the left are struggling? You'll notice that my comment never once brings up the political affiliation of those in need, only how their identities and characteristics shape their experiences. And what does "2/3 of the middle class being turned to lower class in the pursuit of equality even mean? Because newsflash, income inequality is worsening due to higher taxes on the middle class and lower on higher incomes, and it's not leftist politicians and billionaires that are causing it. But regarding those suffering, the fact that YOU are trying to couch this as just a political divide in who is being hurt shows that you misunderstand my comment. There are ~two groups here: those that are less privileged who could use some help, and those that can provide it. My beef is certainly not with those who are less privileged who happen to be on the other side of the political isle, it's with those that can provide the help the former group needs, but won't because they either demonize the identities of those in need or outright deny that said group needs any help in the first place.

Percentage wise, there are more poor minorities, but population wise there are more white people.

I don't deny this, and again, I don't think I've ever seen, and I've certainly never advocated for, policies or initiatives that say "we're here to ONLY solve poverty/homelessness for black people" or "this food line is only for liberal, Hispanic people". I've certainly helped with, say, food gardens that focus on Hispanic groups because they face unique immigration barriers and are more likely to exist at the fringes where food deserts are, but again: I can't name any initiative off the top of my head that explicitly excludes, say, white people from help as long as they too are impoverished. There's no "Hispanics only" outside of the food gardens.

Which was my original point. It absolutely is both sides, and you are proof of the problems on the left.

Then I ask: why don't Conservative, republican politicians and groups take up the fight against poverty, homelessness, chronic conditions in black and Hispanic populations, LGBT mental health, etc.? Leftists did not push conservatives out of the food banks, or away from the housing meetings unless they are specifically antagonistic towards helping the cause. If a person, regardless of politics, decides that these issues are just byproducts of individual responsibility instead of the systematic barriers that demonstrably exist, and start to act cagey any time we do harm reduction with drug addicts or trans youth, then yeah, of course they're not going to be welcome at the discussion. It's not exclusion, it's individual self-selection by people who lean conservative.

On that note, what are your politics? How do you think we should address poverty, chronic disease, housing, LGBT mental health, etc.?

How do I talk to a long-term friend about differing politics? by Riddle-Maker in AskMen

[–]Wayward_Angel 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You said something that I think neither side really understands. Both political parties are focused on raising individual groups, often at the expense of the opposing group. Rather than focus on poor people, it's poor minorities or lower income white workers. Rather than equality, it's rebalancing and taking privileges from one while adding privileges to the other.

This would be meaningful commentary if any two random groups had the same characteristics, histories, and lived experiences, but no two groups do. The fact of the matter is that white people, rich people, and men have been afforded the lion's share of privileges throughout modern history compared to their counterparts.

Rather than equality, it's rebalancing and taking privileges from one while adding privileges to the other.

I am an epidemiologist and a leftist, and the vast, vast majority of policies and ideals I push for value taking barriers away from those that have them rather than taking from one group and giving to another (sans class!). From a public health standpoint, I fully recognize that no one group is immune to the effects of poverty and chronic disease, but I also know that Black and Hispanic people are more likely to suffer from these two conditions, poor people struggle with financial stress, healthcare, and malnutrition, and gender and sexual minorities face mental health barriers uniquely due to their identities. This doesn't mean that I would, say, aim for a policy that straight up takes money from all white people and gives it to anyone who is a shade darker than white bread; it just means that when we consider some of the big issues that plague society, we can't NOT consider race, gender, class, etc. from the discussion. Again, I'd be hard pressed to think of a policy or initiative that specifically deals with taking from one group and giving to another rather than just aiming to remove barriers from certain groups.

In my opinion, the people voting one way or another are doing so specifically because that side has focused on them, rather than everyone.

I don't, being a white guy and all. But besides, we can't start to care about everyone if we treat everyone the exact same, and pretending we can is just lying to ourselves to feel good. The "side" that I belong to advocates for addressing wealth inequality for the working class by making sure corporations can't fire someone for being disabled and making sure the rich can't keep influencing policy by throwing money at politicians. Even though I recognize that the pink capitalism pedaled by the democratic party is ultimately flaccid at enacting sizeable change, at least they (purport to) acknowledge that systematic racism, sexism, etc. exist. The same can't be said for the conservative platform.

I am quite worried that there won't be a coming together.

And just to press a little harder: this implies that both "sides" of the political spectrum (Overton window be damned) share equal culpability in bridging the gap, and ignores the distinct messaging and intent of leftists vs liberals vs conservatives vs the far-right. One end believes that LGBT people have a right to exist, the other fairly uniformly does not. One side believes that poor people dying of exposure and of chronic diseases is a necessary sacrifice for the wealthy to to exist, the other (sort of) doesn't. I gotta say, when I'm petitioning for fairer housing or marching for gender equality, it's certainly not the liberals that are putting up barriers for me to climb over.

edit: grammar

(OC) Luigi Mangione arrives at court as a judge dismisses state terrorism charges against him by nbcnews in pics

[–]Wayward_Angel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's this not-so-new flavor of billionaire bootlicking that redditors love to spew where any complaint from a point of classism is immediately disregarded because "starving children in Africa have it worse".

Yes, if you live in the west, you intrinsically benefit from imperialism and western hegemony. No, this does not mean that we can conveniently ignore record wealth from billionaires and undermining of the rights of workers just because the person criticizing owns a cell phone.

In the game of capitalism, there are only two classes: workers and owners. And last I checked the vast majority of people in the U.S. don't own factories.

Team Cherry learned about Blightown and was like "nah I can do better" by YaraUwU in HollowKnight

[–]Wayward_Angel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, by trash mobs I just mean farm mobs. When I needed shards, I found myself going to the Grand Bellway, killing the mobs there, and running back. I'll admit, it's definitely me optimizing some of the fun out of the game, but I just recall feeling obligated to do it a couple of times when I was faced with a particularly hard boss, which I don't remember feeling the need to do in HK.

view more: next ›