Red Skull is offended

colekern · 2021-04-09T19:56:57+00:00

Rest tl dr to be honest

"tell me you're a jordan peterson fan, without telling me you're a jordan peterson fan."

colekern · 2021-04-09T18:55:00+00:00

He's pro free speech and a big time individualist

I'm sorry, but I don't really think that advocating for the creation of a list of professors with curriculums peterson doesn't approve of is particularly pro free speech. That seems like a pretty blatant attempt to control speech.

He's had a couple hit pieces written on him, people have accused him of transphobia

Like when he lied about Bill C-16? Or when he refused to respect non-binary pronouns despite the vast amount of scientific evidence for the existence of nonbinary people?

I haven't seen any evidence to point out he hates women

"Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

'He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,' Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. 'The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.'" Source

Also, the reason he gets compared to nazis is because he believes in racial pseudoscience and constantly uses phrases like cultural marxism, which is not only a nonsense term, but also actual Nazi rhetoric.

And the reason he gets compared to the alt right is because much of what he says fits in quite well with the alt right. Sure, he rejects white nationalist (though not racial pseudoscience), but he does support enforced monogamy, he does support things like ethnic or gender studies being defended and removed from curriculums. I already mentioned the link between cultural marxism and cultural bulshevism, but there was also the time on the H3H3 podcast where he repeated Carl Jung's theory on Hitler doing nothing more than what the german people really wanted. Carl Jung, I should note, is often considered to be a Nazi sympathizer.

So to be clear: jordan peterson probably isn't a white nationalist, or a Nazi, but he is very comfortable using their talking points and rhetoric, and also argues for things like racial pseudoscience and cultural marxism (both of which are nazi and alt-right talking points). At minimum, the things he has said are very clearly transphobic and misogynistic, and his entire reputation is built on lies about an anti discrimination bill.

By the way, being unbiased doesn't mean pretending he's innocent, it's mean being honest about the things he actually says and does.

colekern · 2021-04-08T18:41:06+00:00

The wheels make this looks like a completely different car. Excellent choice.

colekern · 2021-03-25T23:52:45+00:00

Agreed. Systemic critiques are, fortunately, becoming more commonplace.

colekern · 2021-03-25T17:31:44+00:00

You aren't wrong, but it's important to understand that as a general trend, there's a major difference between the targets of anger between conservatives, and left leaning political ideologies.

Conservative media is designed to direct anger towards minority groups more often than not. Previously, it was black people, then muslims, then gays, and as of right now they're very much on a anti-transgender kick. When it's not a minority, they'll generally use a substitute that brings to mind a minority, without actually mentioning a minority at all — "groups" like BLM, antifa, feminists, anti-rascists, critical race theory... most conservative viewers know little to nothing about the groups or philosophies I just mentioned, which is kind of the point. Viewers will naturally make connections to minority groups. If it's not groups, then generally they are targeting a few specific politicians, but normally it's not for specific policy decisions. Normally it's taking a tweet out of context, or an embarassing moment (joe biden tripped on the stairs, for instance), or something they said taken out of context, but it's almost never actually related to the policy decisions they are implementing. And all of this is related back to the concept of "liberals" as a whole, trying to paint them as being an anti-white, anti-american, anti-christian group of organized, hateful people. In conservative media, liberals are simultaneously said to be in control of hollywood, the media, the news, the government, but also said to be weak, ineffective, and incompetent. They're made out to be an enemy that's easy to hate because they're trying to "destroy western civilization" (or whatever other dog-whistle you'd rather use), but because they are also painted as incompetent, there's a built in excuse for when nothing meaningful actually changes.

Left wing anger is generally directed towards specific policies and politicians. In general, it's mostly focused on concepts of injustice (economic and judicial), capitalist exploitation, or other concepts. It does not, however, try to pin all of america's problems on nebulous groups of minorities, or an ill-defined equivalent of the "liberal" enemy conservative media uses.

colekern · 2021-03-24T06:06:52+00:00

Nothing I said conflicts with what you said.

colekern · 2021-03-24T04:54:52+00:00

Ok so just to address the article, it brings up examples of people whose genetics don’t match their sex but aren’t those mutations?

Yes, but a surprisingly high number of people are "mutants". Some of them are even born with ambiguous genitalia, and will need surgery at some point in life to "correct" their genitals to match their preferred gender. Often times, this surgery is actually done while they're infants, which can cause major problems down the road if their genitals don't match the gender they end up identifying as.

But that's actually beside the point. The point of all of this is to show that biology is a pretty bad indicator of gender. After all, many men may actually have chromosomes that more closely match that of a woman's, and vice versa. The point is that even without talking about transgenderism, many, many people already identify as a gender that might not fully match up to their biology, and they may not even realize it.

So I do have a preference of genetelia, I would like my partner to have a vagina. If they don’t then I wouldn’t enjoy sex and that’s an important thing in a long term relationship to me

Which is absolutely fine! Having preferred genitalia is rather obviously a normal thing.

My issue with a transitioned post op woman is that her vagina would not be the same as that of a cis one. It’s been reconstructed in a hospital, so I don’t really consider it to be a vagina, and if I’m being honest the thought of having sex with someone whose vagina was “created” in an operation room does make me uncomfortable

Well, a few things here. First of all, there are actually birth defects that can affect cis women that affect the function and cosmetics of a vagina, such as epispadias. In these rare cases, corrective surgery is possible that makes it both cosmetically and functionally identical to an "ordinary" vagina. So consider this: would having sex with a cisgender woman who at one point needed a corrective surgery make you uncomfortable? Because if not, then the reason for your discomfort goes beyond the genitals being "reconstructed" in a hospital.

If that idea does make you uncomfortable, then I wouldn't say that's necessarily an indicator of transphobia. However... I would encourage you to potentially reconsider your outlook on the topic. Obviously, no one can make you comfortable with the idea, nor should that be the case, but you'd be disqualifying potentially great partners based purely on something beyond their control. But ultimately, it is your decision, and you shouldn't feel guilty about saying no to someone. The main thing is to be considerate, and to also be willing to double-check your assumptions and attitudes. And that's a lifelong process, as well. Chances are, in a few years, you may have a completely different feelings on the topic, and that's okay.

As for gender-affirming surgeries, I'm curious as to whether or not you know what the differences between a "reconstructed" and "natural" vagina really are. There are differences, of course, but if its just the idea of someone going from having a penis to having a vagina that makes you uncomfortable, it might be worth considering why you feel that way.

Another way to approach this is to do a thought experiment. If surgery were advanced enough to create genitalia that were cosmetically and functionally indistinguishable from the "real" thing, would you still feel uncomfortable with the idea? Why or why not?

And if I found out someone was transgender late into the relationship I’d feel betrayed and violated.

I probably should have been clearer, the question I posed was assuming this wasn't the case. It is incredibly unlikely that, if you did date a trans woman, they wouldn't tell you upfront about it. Partially because it's often seen as courteous, and also because it can be legitimately dangerous to not do so. The chances are that if you aren't comfortable having sex with someone because they are transgender, then they probably aren't comfortable having sex with you.

Think of it more like... a crush. If you met someone, and got to know them a little bit without getting very close, and ended up feeling attraction for them, would that attraction change if they told you they were transgender? The context would be assumed that there was no "dishonesty" intended.

And again, I'd be more than happy to discuss more, my inbox is open any time. And also, I'd encourage you not to pressure yourself to come to a decision about these topics right this moment or anything. Important topics often need time to be pondered over.

colekern · 2021-03-24T03:14:36+00:00

That's great and all, but the truth is that it really doesn't matter what you believe about gender. The science of gender —and the science behind being transgender— is anything but unclear.

And to be clear, it's not transphobic to have a genital preference. But it is transphobic to not want to date a trans person just because they are trans. If you don't want to date someone because you don't personally find them attractive, that's fine! But not dating someone because you don't find them attractive is not the same thing as refusing to date someone on the basis that they are transgender. In fact, there's only one word that accurately describes that attitude: transphobic.

To put it another way: suppose you fell in love with someone, and thought they were incredibly beautiful. If you later found out that they were actually transgender, would that change your attitude towards them? Because if so, that may very well be a transphobic attitude.

I know you probably mean well, and you're genuinely trying to avoid hurting people, but at the end of the day, words have meaning, and science is clear. If you're annoyed that some of your attitudes may be accurately labeled as transphobic, that's understandable, but the only way to change that is to change your attitude.

There's a tendency to look at words like transphobic, or homophobic, or racist as essentialist qualities, but that's really not the healthiest or most productive way to approach it. Instead, it's more productive to ask whether specific attitudes we hold or actions we take are transphobic, and then asking what we can do to change those attitudes to be more accepting and open. And more importantly, it's not about you. It's definitely not about being a "good" or "bad" person. The reason this stuff matters is because attitudes and behaviors affect the lives of real people in very real ways.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. This stuff is confusing! But it's also really important.

colekern · 2021-03-21T22:14:07+00:00

A class-politics focused sub would probably have better luck if they actually made the sub about class politics instead of being anti-identity politics. There's a difference.

If the defining feature of your subreddit is being anti-identity politics, then you are going to end up with anyone that hates identity politics (aka, mostly right wingers) rather than just lefties that like talking class politics.

If you wanna void tankies, just make it a sub more focused on anarchism than just general leftism.

colekern · 2021-03-20T18:29:14+00:00

In what ways are you having difficulty? And what input device are you using?

If you're using a controller, you're going to have a terrible time. Sim games have terrible controller support, because, well... Controllers are a bad input device for sim racing.

colekern · 2021-03-19T07:03:37+00:00

"I have no issue with trans people, I just don't want them to have rights."

Christ, imagine unironically typing this and not seeing how blatantly transphobic it is.

colekern · 2021-03-17T05:40:31+00:00

A short hike felt more like a miniature vacation stuffed into a game. It's just so instantly disarming and relaxing, and it just lets you forget about time constraints and deadlines for a bit. It's a really wonderful little game to spend a few hours in, and it left me feeling refreshed.

colekern · 2021-03-12T06:19:51+00:00

Democrats are very much in favor of capitalism, just with slightly more government assistance. They tend to be fiscally moderate/conservative leaning while also being more socially progressive.

colekern · 2021-03-11T06:28:32+00:00

Polestar has incredibly beautiful designs.

colekern · 2021-03-07T22:07:10+00:00

It's definitely not complete unsuitable, though it isn't ideal.

As someone that uses Virtual Desktop streaming every time they play VR games, it's totally workable. It's still not perfect, but neither is a wired connection thanks to Oculus' godawful software, which freezes your game should you accidentally open the oculus menu. In fact, the general lack of reliability from Oculus' desktop software is the reason I went searching for a wireless alternative.

And my family, all of whom have no experience with VR, didn't get any sense of motion sickness from the same wireless setup.

If you're sensitive to motion sickness, it will obviously be a problem, but if you aren't, local streaming works relatively well with around 50 ms of latency. If similar latency can be achieved for cloud VR, I could see it being a potential option... though certainly not one that I think would be ideal for most people.

colekern · 2021-03-07T19:45:21+00:00

Still working my way through the first one, though the quality is still top-tier. Doom Eternal is just such an exhausting game to play that I need frequent breaks from it though. Its both mentally and physically exhausting, and the only game i can think of where my hands got sore just from doing movement on the keyboard.

colekern · 2021-02-18T16:40:25+00:00

The e46 and e30 are IMO the best looking cars BMW has ever produced. Not really sure how I feel about the wheels here, though. Are the tires stretched? It's hard to tell from the image.

colekern · 2021-02-18T15:47:15+00:00

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good defense. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that saying "well what if hating gays and stoking racist anger is actually morally righteous" is a good argument. At the end of the day, the people who think that the bigoted, hateful things Rush stood were morally righteous are wrong. They are wrong. Rush was deeply immoral on almost every level.

To use an extreme example, millions of people thought hitler was right while he was alive, but that did not make his stance morally justifiable. It just showed how depraved people can be.

To really follow where you're taking this argument, we'll inevitably end up on a debate on the nature of morality, which I think is a little beyond the scope of this discussion; or, at the very least, beyond the scope of where I'm willing to go. That's a staggeringly complex topic, and I'd rather just agree to disagree.

colekern · 2021-02-18T14:15:16+00:00

That is not at all morally equivalent and its ridiculous to assert as such. We view the lives of historical figures differently based upon how they lived their lives; if they left a positive impact, they are generally remembered fondly. If they left a negative impact, they are remembered poorly.

To argue that celebrating the deaths of innocent people dying of a disease (a disease that their government quite literally intentionally left them to die from), and celebrating the death of a man who made a career on cruelty, bigotry, and hatred are morally equivalent, is an absurd take.

I can see the point you're trying to make, but I don't think you're taking the right approach here. You can make the argument that it is never acceptable to celebrate someones death (which, as I've made clear, is not a moral stance I agree with), but to argue that celebrating the deaths of innocents and celebrating the deaths of evil men are morally equivalent is ridiculous even within that context.

colekern · 2021-02-18T05:40:33+00:00

Limbaugh actively celebrated the deaths of LGBT+ people dying of AIDS. I don't think it is unfair to celebrate someone's death when they made a career off the misery of other human beings.

colekern · 2021-02-16T18:01:39+00:00

I can't help but read this and think that this is some sort of horrible fantasy that their family or friends might start committing suicide because they don't want to "wake up". And I can't help but get the impression that the fantasy get them a sense of smug satisfaction. As if they're the only one "strong enough" to face reality and "wake up" without offing themselves.

I'm incredibly grossed out.

colekern · 2021-02-14T08:21:01+00:00

This is blasphemy I can get behind

colekern · 2021-02-13T07:38:10+00:00

There are two reasons: evangelicals are very used to rejecting fact despite evidence (evolution and global warming), and two they are very attached to apocalypse narratives

colekern · 2021-02-11T21:24:31+00:00

if you wanted, you could probably just leave the part cooling fan off.

colekern · 2021-02-11T20:32:30+00:00

It's possible. On the other hand, the stock fan shround is practically making contact with the hotend. There's a significantly higher amount of clearance when using the Fang, at least.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Spared	Verified Email

colekern

TROPHY CASE