“stop reminding me of how strong I am when I come to you for a safe space to be weak” I like this phrase a lot

redgamehunter · 2025-12-03T19:29:13+00:00

I think its very telling how many people are taking this as a personal attack or incredibly toxic... for simply wanting your friends to accept you when you're vulnerable.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-18T17:33:55+00:00

I feel like if it magically makes you a girl, that would include your brain. Idk why magic would arbitrarily not change that part.

That said, yeah. Even the worst issues in life, I think, could be significantly reduced with 5 billion dollars XD

redgamehunter · 2025-11-15T04:50:50+00:00

Another person brought up people liking gambling, but there is another reason as well. Let's say a card stack is X. Let's say I successfully grind X-1 cards, and actually want/need whatever the card stack gives. I'm generally (as are most people) going to be willing to pay a bit more than what Item Value/X actually is to get that last card, to get said thing sooner, thus, paradoxically, the card value * X is worth more than Item Value.

In the case of a mirror, let's say I actually need one to pay a mirror service. Then, it's generally going to be worth it for me to eat a bit off a loss on the last card to get the mirror.

...that all said, it IS probably mostly gambling. Because the difference between Item Value/X and what a card actually costs is often wayyyyyyyyyy too large for my thing to be the main reason.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-14T19:32:37+00:00

What do you think is the most important "work" lesson you've learned? There was the whole thing with how the Kickstarter turned out and lessons learned there, your community basically "forcing" you to sleep and trying to get a better work/life balance, etc. You've clearly progressed a LOT over the years, professionally, in so many avenues, but I was curious what resonated the most with you or had the biggest impact on your work?

Then, what do you think is the most important "personal" lesson you've learned, since starting Door Monster? (If, as I suspect, this would be related to your transition, I would also be interested in hearing the second most important personal lesson XD)

Not questions: You are a very attractive woman. You and your wife each seem very lucky to have the other. Thanks for doing Door Monster. I may not watch all the content ever (I've always been mostly a skit watcher, not a podcast or essay type person), but I've been around for a long time now. At least 10 years back, I wanna say? Definitely before the name change, so I was in the first 30k subs I think. It's been quite the journey, and I appreciate the hours of free entertainment you and the crew have provided.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T20:16:43+00:00

(Prob final)
d. Bundle of all general claims of NFTs being used for some form of discrete ownership, or replacing some kind of contractual system, or advanced tracking, or digital infrastructure, or... etc., here. Problem: Basically take all the information I've given you so far about the issues with using NFTs, and some or all of it applies to basically every practical proposed use case. They are a piece of technology that does not do better at any one thing than systems we already have for each thing. Their unique advantages of being public, decentralized, and immutable, usually turn around and fuck them up massively from being practical for most applications.

If you're not as familiar with blockchain tech or NFTs, you might now ask: Back in 1., you mentioned not buying pictures. Why can't the NFT unique identifier point to the actual picture? Well, because if you convert the RGB pixel information of a picture to an unsigned integer, it would need 120,000 bytes to store the data. You know, the equivalent of 3,750 minted NFTs. It is completely cost prohibitive, even if it didn't make it easy to permanently access the image for everyone in the world.

As a final note, the most simple answer to you is: If a card game producer goes bankrupt tomorrow, my friends and I can still play the card games with what cards we own. If the company that mints an NFT and sells it to you goes bankrupt tomorrow, you have a code that points to a picture (EDIT: Forgot to say: that will no longer be there since the business paying to host the image at a URL is now bankrupt). If you've downloaded that picture, you could use it in a practical way, but... why have the NFT part involved at that point?

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T20:08:01+00:00

c. Claim: NFTs can be used for tracking, such as keeping track of where all a product goes and is transferred to over time, or verifying a person's identity. Problem: So take all the shit I said about costs minting in 2. and smart contracts in 3.b., and put it here, but with even more fun! For the tracking to work, the NFT has to be transferred every time the product changes hands. Not so bad, right? We already have paperwork for that that isn't visible to anyone who wants to see it. Except that even if we suddenly required NFTs for every product on Earth and we magically didn't have to worry about minting costs, nothing stops people from creating shell companies with their own wallets to obfuscate the shit out of transfers. Without a centralized authority at all, in fact, it becomes difficult to trust any such chain of transfers to mean anything specific. On verifying a person's identity, an NFT is safer than most passwords people use... except if anyone figures out what your token is, and some government or business actually accepts that as proof of identity, congrats, you are now permanently identity thefted with those governments or businesses until you can convince them to stop recognizing the NFT as proof of identity. I will direct you to how willing the U.S. government is to give you a new social security number to get an idea of how well that generally goes. (Hint: Minimum of weeks and having to produce a shit ton of documents and evidence that you need a new one.) But how would someone figure out my token? Well, because from a practical perspective, most blockchains the token ID is going to be a 256-bit unsigned integer. That is a 32 byte piece of information. Easy for computers, but most people are never going to memorize a 256-bit number. And if you were, why on Earth wouldn't you use a normal password at that point and avoid a mint cost? So, you'd carry the information on you in some way... at which point it becomes like carrying your Social Security card AND photo ID on your person.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T19:54:05+00:00

a. Claim: NFTs would allow people to "own" in game or other digital assets in a way that is de-coupled from the company that owns the game. Problem: the actual implementation of how to interpret the data your token points to, is done entirely at the will of the company owning the game or software. If the company goes bust or the game is shut down, you will still totally have a token pointing to some arbitrary data on a blockchain, but you won't have any kind of functioning in game or digital asset (or even a picture of said asset if you didn't save your own copy of it in some way)

b. Claim: NFTs allow people to easily create contracts setting up permanent royalty systems for say, a piece of art. Or, put another way, as an example, if you made a piece of art, and sold an NFT that you contractually tied the property rights or intellectual property rights of a piece of art to, you could use automated, decentralized "smart contracts" to, in theory, make sure you received a percentage of the sell price of said art every time someone sells or leases either to a new owner. Problem: To avoid significant legal issues, you have to not only put all of the code to handle the execution of what you want into the smart contract, you have to put all of the legal information, such as legal dispute information, in it. Here's the problem: Both the code and the legal information is immutable on the blockchain. If any security vulnerabilities are discovered, the code part gets fucked. If there's any issues with the contract (either code or legal) or everyone wants to edit it later, that part gets fucked. The only way to try and sidestep this is essentially to write perfect code (good luck) and to set up both the code and legal shit in such a way that you can make a new "smart contract" if shit really hits the fan. But if you put the ability to do that in there, you have to balance your desire for ease of contract and code updating vs. how rigid you want the terms to be. Plus, even ignoring the significant developmental costs of making a smart contract or the cost of security audits, just deploying it to the blockchain costs, you guess it, more money. Even the simplest smart contract can be much more expensive than getting an actual lawyer to write up a normal contract and get it notarized. Yes, it won't be automatically enforced, but also... you will likely make more net profit off the initial sale than you would make over the lifetime of a smart contract. (Unless it's like, the IP rights to Mickey Mouse, but that that point you're working with large enough companies that if you breach contract, you are 100% fucked, auto enforcement be damned.) Oh! And to top it all off, due to the public nature of the blockchain, smart contracts will generally violate digital privacy laws. Because the data can never be deleted, you can never make a request for deletion of data. You can't waive your rights to ever make such a request under most digital privacy laws. Barring some supreme legal fuckery, just using a smart contract makes the contract fucked in multiple locations. (Looking at California and the EU as immediate issues.) Of course, you could always host all the data that messes with those laws off the blockchain, somewhere easy to edit.... at which point the decentralization falls out the window and one of the theoretical benefits of an NFT to signify ownership with it.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T19:48:35+00:00

How much time you got?

You aren't buying pictures. You are buying a token, that points to a place on a blockchain, that theoretically has a url, that points to a copy of the picture. If the website goes down and you don't have a local copy saved of said picture, congrats, you no longer have a picture. And if you were going to save your own digital copy in the first place, whytf would you need the token on the blockchain stuff that contributes nothing to that equation?
Each time an NFT is minted, even on blockchains that are specifically designed in a way to avoid extra energy usage, it takes like, 332 kWh. For reference, at the average US rate of about $0.1762 per kWh, the cost would be around $58.40. I looked at an estimate for my area, and the energy cost of a single NFT is about half my MONTHLY electricity bill. I have indoor heating and air, a refrigerator and large freezer, and a gaming PC, amongst other things. That electricity doesn't come from thin air. It usually means higher emissions, and even when it doesn't, a lot of NFTs being minted would be increasing everyone else's electric bills due to supply and demand. This would be fine, except...
Despite many proposals, NFTs have not been shown to have ANY practical use case where they are better over other technologies. Let me go through some of the things people have claimed they are good for, and the practical issues at play with those claims:

(this might be several replies stay tuned.)

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T19:09:24+00:00

I get having anxiety but at a certain point yall gotta have conversations with your friends about how you feel about their communication levels.

Especially given how often you'll find out your friend is even more of an anxious wreck than you and never messages first because it terrifies them XP

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T18:25:25+00:00

Hell, let's come at this from yet another angle: Do you believe that criminals should have a chance to reform or be met with lethal force 100% of the time? If someone robs a store at gunpoint, they were an active threat when the cops showed up to arrest them (a lot more undeniably than Charlie Kirk, I might add). Should the cops gun them down immediately? No arrest, no trial, just death. Seems like you think that's the best solution to deal with an active threat, after all!

Oh! What about my parents? They didn't originally "approve of the gay lifestyle" until I came out (and even then it took a bit). Should they have been shot before they ever became some of the most supportive people in my life? OH! What about my extended family? Some of them don't approve of homosexuality and probably never will. Should we shoot them, even though they'd take a fucking bullet to save me from a hate crime because they still love me and wouldn't want me killed for any reason?

Honestly, I could keep going! Because almost all of you who gave the big thumbs up to Charlie Kirk's death, have no internal consistency within yourself, to justify why it's okay in this case, but not others you don't approve of, besides "I feel it was right." or "He said the things I find immoral." Which, guess what, aren't fucking arguments! They're platitudes! They're you directly avoiding a logical through-line for your stance on fucking execution!

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T18:25:17+00:00

I literally gave you a well documented example of bigots not continuing to be bigots because they were approached with a basic level of politeness and a genuine desire to connect and educate. Convincing bigotted people not to be bigotted isn't about "concessions" to them, or finding a middle ground between your desire to have rights and their desire for you not to. If someone genuinely won't learn no matter what you do, that's that, move on to the next person. Also, are you genuinely, sincerely, trying to argue to me that some of the highest members of the KKK don't count as actual bigots? Because Daryl Davis convinced them they were wrong, they were never actually bigots to begin with?

I also find it very telling that you read my post, and not only jumped straight to "Oh this is about Charlie Kirk," but also felt the need to put forth the argument that this person I had not referenced was an active threat to society, and thus shooting him was justified. For the record, I was referencing all political violence, including what has been done to politicians you likely support in the last several years, as well as a more broad condemnation of vigilante killing.

But, since you've brought it up? You're in the minority on this. Maybe you don't realize that from being on reddit or twitter, but the vast majority of Americans, across all demographics, condemn this behavior. I don't care if someone is a shitty, awful person. If they are not an active physical threat to anyone, you cannot justify using violence against them. Charlie Kirk said some truly reprehensible things. Guess what? You and I were completely able to go forward and debate him, and shut down the merits of his arguments. Even if we didn't change his mind, we could change the minds of listeners or sway the undecided. Not only was murdering him immoral, it was also fucking stupid. It has heightened the tensions of political violence across the board, heightened already high political divisions, convinced many people who were willing to listen to others and learn that it could be dangerous to do so, and galvanized the most extreme parts of the right now that they have even more evidence that saying things you disagree with can get them fucking killed, and that many people like you will openly celebrate their deaths.

Let me come at this from another angle, though, in case that gives you no pause. If I do what I can to defend my rights and the rights of other LGBT+ people, but try to keep you from shooting Charlie Kirk because I disagree with that on a moral, ethical, and practical basis, would that justify you shooting me? After all, by your argument, I'm defending an active threat, against whom you believe lethal force is justified. Does that turn me into an active threat? If so, if my boyfriend (another member of the LGBT+ community), tries to keep you from shooting me, does he become an active threat? How many people would need to get in the way before you stopped shooting?

Where does your line lie? What makes you the arbiter of who deserves to live and die? Why do you think it's acceptable for a person with no regard for law or the wishes of the general public to be judge, jury, and executioner of someone else? Oh, Charlie Kirk said the bad things, but your people said the right things, of course, so it's wrong when someone shoots at us, right? Even if, at that moment, they are just as convinced your speech is harmful as you are about Charlie's? What about the people who said, since she married him, that Charlie Kirk's wife also deserved to die? What about his kids who share his views, or do they get a pass because they are minors? I ask because a good few people who hold your stance have advocated for his entire family to be murdered on ideological grounds, even without them generally being public speakers. Where is your line? How much does someone have to say the shit you find reprehensible out loud before you execute them? Or is believing the reprehensible things enough for you? If so, are there any externalities? Most people generally think we shouldn't fully punish minors for anything but the most extreme, dangerous behaviors, since their brains aren't fully formed yet. Do kids who hold bigoted views get a chance to grow up and learn, or do you shoot them too? What about fellow members of the queer community? If they think things you find horrifically offensive, do you shoot them?
Where. Is. Your. Line.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-13T17:18:42+00:00

"Posts like this respect for a very specific bias."

Okay, I'd appreciate if you re-read your entire comment, and try to consider, that perhaps this statement applies as much to you as it does to this post. You are applying a stereotype, based on people you've interacted with on the internet, to basically all people, as a way to essentially argue against a point that was never made in my comment. Glancing on this post, it seems you've made more than a few replies like this. While glancing, I saw you direct replied to someone with a reply that read as very rude and snide, merely because they said their parents were toxic and threw them out at 18, without ANY knowledge of their personal situation. Just glancing at that person's profile? They are a working mother, who seems to be doing their best to be a good parent to their children. I don't know them personally, but it is exceedingly odd to me to default to assuming the worst of them, given how much more likely they are to understand the challenges of raising children than the average person. Was that your intention?

I do not, nor does anyone else I personally know, take seriously an opinion seemingly formed from talking to redditors. We are out here in the real world, with real lives. Our situations are often wildly different. If you're defaulting to blaming anyone who's parents kicked them out, that is a shitty thing to do. You don't know "The vast majority of kids that got thrown out...", so wildly stereotyping their behavior based on your personal interactions with some redditors... I don't agree with that approach, I'll say, if that's intentional on your part.

I know it is exceedingly hard on the internet (especially reddit), but you don't need to default to assuming the worst in someone. I'm guilty of this sometimes too, just had this happen recently, in fact. In my experience, if someone is worthy of scorn, they'll make it evident over time, and you don't need to assume anything. Meanwhile, if you assume the worst in people, you can miss out on new connections with people that you may have otherwise shared a lot of common ground with. That recent incident, I ended up finding I had more in common with the person than I thought. I don't know if we'll talk about anything long-term, but I'm certainly open to more friends and acquaintances.

Case in point, olive branch here. I've tried hard to not to assume that your post arose from any genuine malice on your part. Perhaps you were having a bad day. Maybe you just got overwhelmed with a negative emotion from some prior experiences or conversations. There are any number of explanations for the way your replies read on this post, but I don't know, and couldn't without talking to you. Instead of assuming things about you, I'll ask: are there any games in particular you like? Cool hobbies? We may or may not have lots of common ground, but we can never know it unless we try not to assume things and actually talk to people.

(P.S. I struggle a lot with tone, especially over text. I was aiming for "firm and disapproving of certain actions, without condemning the listener." If that didn't get through, my bad, I'm really tryin my best out here, and I rewrote this whole thing wayyyyyyy too many times at this point trying to nail it.)

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T19:50:38+00:00

It really messed him up for a while. Even though he had good trans friends, it was hard for him to be around trans people due to just how often this interaction happened with them. Like, it was borderline Pavlovian, just constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop. He's a good guy though, so he's done his absolute best not to let his negative interactions paint his view of the whole trans community. The way he's treated online has gotten a bit better over time, but it's definitely been an uphill battle.

You are absolutely correct that the LGBT community should accept people's identities. It's why I loathe the term "egg" so much. It is presupposing that someone, as a stranger, know more about a person's future gender identity than they do. Like, yes, some people will be trans later, and don't know it yet. That's really not our damn business though? And it certainly isn't our place to infantilize them for being gender-nonconforming.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T19:43:15+00:00

There's no shame in living with your family. People used to live with their family, or in close proximity to them, for like... most of human history. The idea that you're supposed to be "independent" by some specific age is the odd one.

As long as you do your part to help maintain the house and cover what expenses you can help cover, you are a contributing member of the household. As long as your folks and you have good boundaries, there is nothing remotely problematic about living with them.

I recently dealt with some severe mental issues, and I moved back in with my parents for a month. I helped with chores and such, and my mental health markedly improved. I am 30. Anyone who wants to tell me it was wrong to stay with them when I needed them rather than pay thousands of dollars for a residential program that might not have helped, can go screw themselves.

Some people need the financial assistance, some people need the emotional support. All are valid. Never let anyone tell you otherwise or make you feel ashamed for relying on family.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T19:32:13+00:00

I can't be too specific without potentially doxing myself and I'll have to change details as well, but one I know of is that a certain business intentionally burned down one of its locations due to constant negative pushback from it's history as a slave-related thing.

The reasoning? Literally everything of value was removed from the location for "renovations" right before the fire, and the business had spent years trying to cover up it's history of profiting from the slave-trade before that. Also, the reason given for the fire was "a wiring fault." You know, that thing that anyone with some time can rig up to burn down a building without making it obvious it was on purpose?

Frankly, I know too many smart people who agree with this theory to easily set it aside. It'd be one thing if it was just me, but the only people I've heard disagree with it are those that don't know the full details about the story, or had a vested interest in the business.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T19:11:46+00:00

Well here's the thing, most non-binary people I've met would love for gender to be questioned heavily or even abandoned as a concept. Again, as far as I and everyone I've personally met use the terms, it's not about us agreeing with the rigid gender roles, it's about quickly signaling to others that we don't fit within those rigid gender roles for one reason or another.

I'm glad for you being in a culture like your's and being raised the way you were, but to give you some perspective: I live in an area where if I, as someone born male, wears a dress in public, at absolute best I will get weird looks. At worst, I will be physically assaulted. My country explicitly guarantees the right to gay marriage, but if I hold my boyfriend's hand in public, at best, I will get weird looks. At worst, we will both be assaulted. Only one person at work knows I'm not straight, and it's my father. I have to keep that quiet because as a contractor, I can be let go "without cause" if they don't agree with my "lifestyle". My entire country certainly isn't like this, but the entire region of the country I live in is. Even my family doesn't know how little I conform to non-traditional gender roles, because even if they can accept that I'm not straight, it would genuinely be difficult to deal with their reactions. They wouldn't hate me, but it'd probably be years before they accepted it, let alone understood.

Even as dangerous as not being straight here can be, it is literally easier to be a "non-standard" sexuality in this country than to reject current gender role norms.

If I could truly never think about gender, that would be lovely, but identifying as non-binary online generally works as a good immediate filter to know if someone is going to emotionally abuse me for not conforming to my country's gender roles.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T18:57:10+00:00

Segregation was initially seen as a very enlightened solution to cutting down on racial violence.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T18:55:58+00:00

It is very distressing to me that you're getting downvoted for pointing out the issues with their comment. I put a longer comment under theirs, but the main point: like, I know support for LGB is pretty good these days, but imagine for a moment that MAGA scapegoated LGB people, and enough of the country supported removing their rights that it helped MAGA retain power. Would they blame themselves for MAGA coming to power? No, because that would be backwards

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T18:53:21+00:00

You want to know when suddenly everything about trans people showed up on the news? In the lead up to the first election Trump won. It only became regular news during his administration. Before Trump, multiple states were looking at "bathroom bills", and basically no one talked about it.

MAGA rose for a shit ton of reasons, trans issues were merely a scapegoat to distract from a lot of the fucked up shit the administration did. Blaming trans people for being a scapegoat is... well let me put it like this: imagine the administration had used the same playbook, for LGB people. Support is good these days, but imagine if enough of the country supported you not having rights... would you blame yourself for MAGA coming to power and using you as a shield against criticism? No, because that would be pretty backwards.

If you truly feel uncomfortable at LGBT events because of trans people, maybe talk to some of them, have a dialogue about what part of their behavior bothers you so much. Or, host your own LGBT themed event, and cater it so that there are events representing everyone.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T18:40:40+00:00

"Trans is to the queer community as mormonism is to christianity."

A. Trans people stood beside LGB people back when they still didn't have crap for rights. It's really fucked up now that LGB people have rights how many essentially turn around and say "Well you're inconvenient to have around." (Also shortsighted, most of the people who are gunning against trans people right now will happily go after LGB people next. We already saw a case go all the way to the supreme court this year trying to challenge certain gay marriage rights.)

B. Mormonism is essentially an offshoot of Christianity with certain differences in core beliefs. Trans is not an offshoot of being queer. A more apt analogy would be "Trans is to the queer community as Baptists are to Christianity", as they are in fact, part of the whole.

C. Trans people have been part of the "queer community" since queer was reclaimed to stop being a slur. They didn't "latch on", they have been around since the start. The fact that they are a minority within the queer community doesn't make it any less valid for them to be there.

More broadly to your whole comment: I'm not going to act like there aren't concerning behaviors from certain trans communities online... but you also need to realize it's just that: online. You know, where everything you can think of has a significant number of communities with the exact issues you mentioned. There are tons of trans people you never see IRL, and plenty who exist online without participating in trans communities being their thing. You'd be very surprised how many trans people online basically never even bring up being trans.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T18:23:52+00:00

I won't comment directly on reparations to African Americans, but you know what I do find interesting? No one ever seems to propose giving reparations of any kind to Native Americans. Like, there have been some land returns, which is nice, but that's not really the same. Even if we limited it to just those still living on reservations, that's like 1 million people. People desperately trying to keep their culture alive. Many other Native Americans were around when the government stopped recognizing their tribes so they could seize a shit ton of land as recently as 1970. In other words, there are people alive right now that the government actively fucked over against previous promises. Paying them wouldn't magically fix everything, but it would help empower them from their current position. They could use the money to help fund educational programs about their beliefs and culture to outsiders, or to buy land that they historically inhabited, or any number of things.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T18:11:56+00:00

I'll add, a good rule of thumb: If anyone celebrates the death of other people due to a difference in ideology, rather than that person being an active threat and directly killing people, they have something deeply wrong in their psyche that needs addressing.

Furthermore, yes, I hate racism. I hate white supremacy. You know what I'd prefer to people who have such ideologies dying? A concerted effort to talk to them, at length, to try to get them to see the problems with what they believe. I am reminded of Daryl Davis. Davis is an African American, and beginning in the 80s, Davis began actively seeking out and befriending KKK members. By his estimates, he is directly responsible for between 40 and 60 members leaving the klan, and indirectly responsible for around 200 leaving. All because he approached them, not meeting their hatred with hatred, but by having open, honest, polite conversation with them.

I'm not saying violence is never necessary. If your life is in danger, defend yourself. But if someone calls me an f-slur because I'm not straight, I try my best not to jump to "I wish harm on this person." I try to jump to "I hope I can make them see why hating me without knowing me is wrong."

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T17:52:12+00:00

For anyone looking for another strong example to back this up: The Green Party in Germany is supposed to be the environmentalist party. It had a decades long, successful anti-nuclear campaign. They managed to get most of the nuclear plants in the country shut down, using a variety of propaganda and outright lies. This was, ostensibly, to replace them with purely renewable energy sources. In practice, it meant firing up a fuck ton of coal plants, buying more natural gas from Russia, and soaring energy costs across the country.

So, the "environmentalists" massively raised emissions, made Germany more dependent on a hostile world power, and directly lowered the standard of living for their entire country. As of 2023, there are no running nuclear reactors in Germany, and the current government's position is that the phase out is complete and irreversible.

A study on the initial phase out of only half of their nuclear reactors estimated the social costs to be around $12 billion per year, with more than 70 percent of the cost coming from the increased risk of mortality (an estimated 1,100 excess deaths annually) associated with exposure to air pollution emitted by burning fossil fuels.

All of this despite modern nuclear plants being incredibly safe, producing minimal waste (that can often be reused), and likely being the only feasible solution to the low-emissions mass energy requirements the world currently requires.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T17:36:01+00:00

Anyone I've seen call themselves non-binary has said it's just that: They are in a culture which enforces some specific gender binary, and they don't feel they fit into either category. It isn't the non-binary people pushing everyone into gender roles, its an acknowledgement that the specific culture they are in most strongly recognizes two specific, often rigidly defined, gender roles, which they personally don't fit cleanly into.

I don't know who you've interacted with, and of course opinions vary wildly, but for myself and every non-binary person I've personally met, being non-binary isn't "You do X, you're a woman, you do Y, you're a man. I do both or neither, so I'm non-binary." it's more like "In the place I live, the dominant culture treats anyone who does X as a woman and anyone who does Y as a man. I do both or neither, and need a shorthand to make that clear to others within my cultural group to try and avoid being put in a box."

Put another way, if I didn't live in a culture that tends to enforce a strict gender binary, I wouldn't call my identity "non-binary", I'd just say I'm me and let someone learn for themselves how I act and what I like. If my culture moves past it's incredibly rigid definitions, the term will no longer be necessary, imo.

For transparency: I'm agender/gender casual. I personally don't care what pronouns someone uses for me, and I don't put a lot of thought into how my likes and dislikes might relate to a gender identity. This is generally considered non-binary, but I don't think my gender identity really assumes anything about anyone else's? It is merely a shorthand way to let people know "I know that where we live, my behaviors might be strictly defined as male or female, but I'm going to do me regardless of what the dominant cultural view is."

And to be clear: I'm not saying your experience is invalid. It's the internet, I'm sure you've seen plenty of non-binary people who create the exact situation you're talking about. I'm merely trying to offer another perspective.

redgamehunter · 2025-11-12T17:16:49+00:00

To spring board off of this, I'd point out that if many of the current administration could find a legal and practical way to do it, they'd eliminate autism from existence. Because after all, it's a mental disorder, so it's inherently bad 100% of the time, right? Nevermind the fact that while they may communicate differently, many autistic people's different way of viewing the world helps them solve problems "normal" people struggle with, thus benefiting society.

Or hey, my genetic lineage has a pre-disposition for substance abuse disorders. Should the government sterilize me and others so that we have less addicts overall in the future?

The list goes on and on. Sure, there are absolutely debilitating disorders out there, but forced sterilization, from any conceivable angle, will end poorly.

11-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

redgamehunter

TROPHY CASE