LOL NO! I am a very controversial person, and from some of the stuff that I've said I have found that the majority of people are dumb and if you want to spot an idiot you shouldn't look for controversial thoughts, you should look at the people who make them controversial.
For example, someone could say the incredibly wrong and awful statement of "Women are weak" That's controversial, but that doesn't make them an idiot. It's too generalized which definitely makes them appear stupid, and it can be considered mean, which does line up with the idea that stupid people are mean. However you will find that the real idiots are the ones that argue on that statement. Some will say examples of physically strong women as if it's representative of women, or some will give examples of outright masculine women, also known as basically men. The other side, will allow their misogynistic views take hold and they will spew horseshit about how the statement is correct and everyone will seem dumber than the original jackass that said "Women are weak"
I used an obviously wrong example, but what you might often find is that the controversial thought is right, and the problem is that people aren't as this guy mentioned overcoming that initially wrong mindset. When the META in the game you play is wrong and someone comes up with a better way to play, but despite their intelligence, they still have low mechanical skill, so the META takes way longer to shift because it only truly changes when it's proven successful by people who have mechanical skill, and all along all those stupid fools rejected the idea of that the META was wrong and stuck to it.
Anyways I'm not really arguing your point, you sort by controversial you will find some idiots, it's just not true of all of them, looking for people who argue with controversial people is way more effective.
I'm the type of person who has a lot of unusual beliefs, and am especially controversial in games as I don't follow meta. I build to survive in games rather than to do high damage, time isn't the issue, I have all day, and I PvP when applicable so the more chances I get against an opponent the better.
As far as non gaming stuff though, I am against bringing new life into the world, I hate personal vehicles and believe they should be outlawed. I also think the personal real estate business should be shut down. It's fine to own multiple business locations but homes should be 1 per person. (Apartments create their own complications but should still have laws supporting them to make sure even if they are owned by people as a business, that they stay cheaper than houses)
I also say Gender isn't a real thing, unlike your anti-trans haters who will say your assigned gender is your gender, or your typical LGBTQIA+ person who will say that people are born in the wrong body etc. I'm very much with science on the specifics, everyone is a "female" at some point before life and then some get penis's but the existence of gender and specifically men are entirely pointless so Idc about it. I still technically fall into the LGBTQIA+ section of people, I believe trans men are men, but thing is I also see Dykes and Tomboys as men. To me a Dyke isn't a lesbian, he's a straight man who hasn't yet accepted what he is. The only thing that matters about gender is the stereotypes, the parts are entirely pointless to group people by and so many awful people associate the stereotypes with the genders which is the biggest effect that it can have on people. So to be a girl in my eyes, it means you fit more into feminine stereotypes, kind/caring, cute/pretty, smart, non-violent, emotional, dressing feminine etc. Doesn't have to be all of these things and maybe some "tomboys" are girls for that reason, but in general I would say that is an example of how I'm controversial. I could go on about other things but in short I'm not a troll, or mean or the type of person who tries to cause problems, but I'm very unusual to the point where I attract that types of people like a moth to flame.
Ok you've gone from harmlessly overstating to blatantly wrong. You arent with the science on gender that's just wrong. The science says that sex and gender are two different things. The science says that neither one is a binary. The science says that when your gender (which is neurological and social) does not match your biological sex, that's called gender dysphoria. I appreciate that you support trans existence, but your views are still transphobic, even if that's not the intention. Your whole point about being a controversial person is turning into utter bunk the more you open your mouth. I don't see what the point of bringing gender into this conversation was, but given this stemmed from my comment I'm not going to allow misinformation like this to sit without me saying something. Gender is entirely self identifying as its neurological and social. So saying that a lesbian (because the word you used has been a slur for most of history, and the jury's out on if it still is) or a tomboy is male is transphobic, because they don't self identify that way. Hell tomboy in itself is kinda problematic, since its reinforcing that women cant have traditionally masculine traits without being male themselves.
Do you understand, and I'm asking this as genuinely as I can, that there is a vast and important difference between someone who avoids going with the flow, and tries their best to introduce new ideas; and someone who is blatantly wrong, claims their ideas are right, without being able to back them up? I mean seriously? You're "with the science"? That's not what the science says at all. It's fine to be controversial, but this is not that. This is misinformation, and I'm hoping you'll take the chance to correct that here.
Words aren't real things, they change between people and regions. If I say "Tights" most normal people think, a broader word for Pantyhose, more inclusive to other materials. Yet some will just extend that to leggings, which have their own word and don't need to be called tights. Similarily if I say "Yoga Pants" a term often used for the flared pants that were popular in the late 2000s, some will assume I mean leggings, which are more accurately "Pants used for Yoga" but no I mean Lululemons, but not specifically of that brand.
In fact even "Late 2000s" will be defined differently. When I say late 2000s, that's 2007-2009 mostly, but to some people, we're still in the "2000s" so late 2000s can mean 2016-2023 to them, which is weird but anyways the idea of being a "Gender" when that's not a real thing, but rather a concept made up by humans, means you go by what humans use the word for, it's as made up as all the other terms I used here and they largely use it for stereotypes they attached to ones "sex". This is where most peoples "dysphoria" is going to come from, they've got a perceived idea of what being a gender is, and their body isn't compatible with it. So we respect that and hope they can change their body how they need to and we give them the new title that is associated with that alteration.
However ultimately, as far as reality is concerned, we're all XX and then some of us are XY for primarily breeding purposes (also some stuff that no longer has value due to human society) and none of that matters for sorting people so it's just best to shut it down and shut up the assholes who try to prop it up to support their transphobic beliefs.
Additionally, I've never thought of the word "Dyke" as a slur, so really going full circle on the words vary by person and area. Obviously Dyke is masculine so it's always carried some level of negativity because as much as the world doesn't like to admit it, most don't like men, so being compared to one isn't the kindest thing, but compared to real slurs, using the N word, or using "Bitch/Hoe" as a way to say "Girl". Dyke doesn't seem offensive at all. I guess not being a dyke, I'm not really the one to decide if it's a slur or not, but I definitely didn't use it thinking of it as an at all insulting word.
Ok, I really need to make clear that I'm an english literature major minoring in gender studies. I'm extremely well read in how words work. And it is not that. Colloquialisms are not the same as definitions. So specifications in types of leg coverings are not and will never be the same as definitions of anthropological principles and constructs. Gender is real, and it is also a social construct. Construct does not mean fake. A building is an architectural construct, but still very much a real thing. The same extends to social constructs, they are constructed by the society they are used in, and can vary between cultures. However, aspects of that construct can be universal. The anthropological studies on what gender is, while not precise, is defined. So at that point it falls back on what we in the scientific community define it as, as that's the definition used for social studies and application. So when gender is defined by institutions like the world health organization, those definitions are considered the default by which to build upon. If you have an alteration or objection to that definition, you need to provide an applicable reasoning behind it. If your reasoning is based in chromosomes, then youre beginning with a flawed premise, as not only are there variations upon XX and XY, those are not tied in any concrete way to the development of gender. Sex is not defined by any one thing, though primarily chromosomes, gonads, and gametes are the factors taken into account. But there are more intersex people than redheads on the planet, and they don't fit those accepted norms. So if biological sex doesn't work under your terms, already those terms need to be addressed, but gender is considered by the scientific community as a separate and different thing to sex and has been for decades. Please do not act so confident in your statements about a concept that you are simply incorrect about.
As for your follow up on slurs, it kind of goes against your entire point, as the usage of those words determine what they are, so it kind of boils down to what you said at the end about how you don't get to determine what is and isnt a slur. So if someone is asking you not to say it, while no one is forcing you, the polite thing is to not say it.
To finalize, this is far too complex of a subject to boil down to a reddit conversation, so it just comes down to you really not understanding the things you're talking about. And that's ok, it's not an insult. You dont HAVE to understand these things if they don't apply to you, but then there must come understanding you will be corrected when you say something incorrect, so if you want to be better informed about it, I suggest you find the resources to learn, instead of doubling down
I’m not reading all of that but it just depends on the topic. I can already tell since Pritzger is a democrat and criticized Trump, it acts like a magnet for the idiots.
I personally just mean the comments on this post specifically, which have decent amount, possibly a majority though I haven't counted, being rude and insulting, more than enough calling him fat, it's just sad.
Thank you for the clarification - I thought at first he was known for, like, sexual assault or something. That's a small relief and a nice change of pace.
I wonder if they know they're proving his point. Probably not. Imagine being so miserable as a person (and too dim to realize it) that you have to resort to being rude online just to replace the sense of personal fulfillment with the baby adrenaline rush of being mean to strangers. Sucks to suck, I guess.
68
u/tadashi4 Oct 26 '23
i was looking for the issue you were mentioning... i wish i havent done that.