Lurker > Kyuubi4269

ninja_lootz posted...

Their love child, Xutin.

Puxi*
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

OniRonin posted...

gamespot users are 14 years-olds

11*
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

wolfy42 posted...

Didn't ever notice if they stopped being together though.

Look at the url.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

It hurts when the nurse fucks up, it should be a minor prick.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

TheSlinja posted...

CTLM posted...

DirtBasedSoap posted...

thats what you get for listening to music on YouTube lol

okay but spotify doesnt have this so.....

You mean this:


---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Lightwarrior11 posted...

transferred files over WiFi

Wifi is distinct from online.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

LinkPizza posted...

Im talking about the dreaded Homeowner Association.

That old guy is pretty gross but the porn is hot.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

If you give a mouse to a gamer...
She'll have all she needs to game!


---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

They absolutely have a point, but this is also why you should have the death penalty. The dead don't have rights you have to respect so you don't have to draw a line where rights do and do not apply (downgrading them to privileges).
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Jen0125 posted...

Why do all these idiots think no liberals or left leaning people own guns?

Presumably because every time they mention they own guns, some liberal/left-leaning person takes it as a threat against their life and starts acting shifty. Seriously, people are such nutty neurotics, it's a reasonable assumption.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Rasmoh posted...

EvilMegas posted...

They drove out of state to buy weed? This ain't 1995, no one believes that dumb shit.

People drive out of state to buy dealer quantities of weed all the time.

People also get murdered over weed all the time.

Neither of those scenarios are outlandish or even uncommon.

Just ignore him, anything that happens to black people is a racist conspiracy to him.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

dainkinkaide posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

From 2-8 boys used to wear dresses in the 1920's. P sure it was called breeching. The people making this an ordeal are nosy assholes imo. Think even the Kennedy boys all wore dresses.

In fact, one Theodore Roosevelt wore pink dresses as a toddler. He seemed to turn out OK.

Roosevelt was pretty nutty.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Should be on a register.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

streamofthesky posted...

Full Throttle posted...

But he has other racists supporting him and said "I see nothing wrong with this tweet actually. There's going to be a civil war and we have the guns, they don't"

Translation: "I'm super enthusiastic about someday gunning down defenseless unarmed people while repeatedly telling myself, 'I'm the good guy here'!"

That's not how a civil war works.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Shifting with off-hand, presumably.

Oh. So, better for right handed people who drive manuals?

I guess, but idk.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

Neither are particularly appropriate to mock, unless you know for certain the person is okay with it

The one without the mental harm is fine to mock, being as they're in a fine mental state to take it.

adjl posted...

Fortunately, I presented two alternatives.

You did not, but feel free to tell yourself what you want.

adjl posted...

My name is whatever I identify it to be. Assigning me a name I don't want is disrespectful at best and dehumanizing at worst.

Your name is what you were given. Your decisions are respected when they are respectable.

adjl posted...

The process of eating involves touching food with part of your body, so that would be making eating illegal. You're really bad at analogies.

The process of speaking freely requires I say the pronoun I choose.

adjl posted...

And it is your job that is exercising that coercion. There is no legal penalty for choosing to say nothing instead of using the incorrect pronouns, ergo the law is not forcing you to say the correct ones.

Not at all. I want to comply with my job, I do not want to comply with government overreach, it is the government forcing me to act against my will. You can't say I have a choice when the choices are do as I say or be punished in myriad of ways.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

Alternatively, you could stop rejecting very straightforward scientific conclusions about effective ways to help with this mental disorder. That might work better than relying on medication that doesn't exist.

It's not straightforward to expect the entire world to change their perception of humans to accommodate the interests of the 0.01%.

adjl posted...

You address everyone else by their desired names and pronouns. What makes trans people any different?

I address them by their correct pronouns, their preference doesn't come in to play as I don't pander to that.

adjl posted...

... Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. There's some room for debate over whether it is mental or physical, given that the current best practice for treating it affects the body more so than the mind, but that distinction is largely academic.

The distinction is also social. I can mock a guy with a missing leg, I can't mock a guy with a missing mom. The mental state determines the appropriate response.

I will indulge the man who says he believes he is a woman, I will mock the man who says he is a woman.

adjl posted...

The law simply says (hypothetically) that you can't use the incorrect ones

If everything but one thing is incorrect, it compels that one thing.

adjl posted...

the correct ones being the ones you are asked to use, because that's how names work

Your name is whatever we need to identify you. You have had a particular name recognised by the government, but that doesn't not make other names incorrect (such as your nickname). Incidentally, your sex is recognised by the government based on your birth, not what you feel like.

adjl posted...

That leaves you with two options:

-Say nothing
-Say something else

The law does not remove the option of saying nothing

If the law bans touching food with any part of your body in any form, technically it hasn't banned eating, but you will be arrested for making any attempt and any sane person would consider it a ban on eating. Similarly, if you railroad somebody in to saying words at threat of being unemployable for not speaking or imprisoned, it would be considered being coerced in to speaking. Note that coercion is a synonym for compelling.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

CarefreeDude posted...

Rather than separating male and female athletes, maybe we should do something similar to wrestling weight classes; measure something like muscle mass or testosterone levels or something.

Then let both men and women participate in each class.

The Paralympics does it best, their afflictions are weighted by severity so you have a woman with a missing arm swimming against a midget. You could have classes like soyboys vs butch lesbians.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

You're saying it's good to double their suicide rate. That's not good. You shouldn't think that's good.

If they have such a severe reaction, they require severe medicating so they can cope with reality.

If you want me to treat them as perfectly normal then you have to let me not pander to them as I do with everyone else. If you want me to pander to them and baby them, tell me it's a mental illness and I will accommodate their disability.

adjl posted...

You're welcome to find me a law that requires you to talk to somebody, but I was referring more to professional interactions where your job doesn't allow you the option of not talking to them. In that case, you are compelled to talk to them not by the government, but by your job requirements.

My job doesn't necessitate certain pronouns. I can use the correct pronoun in my job, thus the only restriction is imposed by law.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

I want them to do the same thing because I can subscribe to multiple.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

zebatov posted...

Companies have to provide a legitimate unsubscribe button at the bottom of all forms of communication, including e-mails.

That's why it works.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

DPsx7 posted...

I think thermite is an easy recipe too.

Breaking bad covered that.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

PK_Spam posted...

Trans people are disproportionally more likely to suffer from sexual and violent assault

Trans people are vastly more likely to engage in rape by deception, and a man is vastly more likely to hit what they see as a man than a woman.

Maybe if these attempted rapists were more honest, they wouldn't be at heightened risk.

And just for kicks, I'll float a more controversial idea. People say trans are mentally ill. The mentally ill are more likely to suffer from violent encounters so that matches up. The mentally ill are more likely to commit suicide, as are trans, seems like there's a trend.

You know what does exist in a bubble? Trans people's perception of their own gender.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

CTLM posted...

If someone delivers mail, that would be the perfect job and reason for owning a British car.

Or JDM, or Australian. Basically anything capable.

LinkPizza posted...

magemaximus posted...

is having the driving wheel on the right side of a car. not sure if anyone has driven a vehicle where the wheel is on that side, but it is much better than having it on the left.

What makes it better?

Shifting with off-hand, presumably.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Lokarin posted...

Some things I can think of are horror games

Anticipation is exciting, excitement is fun.

Lokarin posted...

as well as competitive games that you play just to win.

It's fun to win.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I find it odd that a generation of people who screech about inclusiveness are so quick to try and divide it.

This may surprise you, but these are two separate groups. It's the people obsessed with inclusiveness trying to let MtF crack women's bones, the rest are looking for competitive matches.

Dreaming_King posted...

Like the time the U.S. National women's soccer team got beaten by an under 15 boy's team

Implying world class players are phoning it in but an under 15s team is under massive pressure to perform.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

party_animal07 posted...

Yeah, I also don't understand why he felt to need to let people know he won't watch.

Maybe if it was a cousin though.. .

Because porn is for teh deviants and he does not understand their evil ways.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

hypnox posted...

Doesn't matter. They need numbers for community and investors. No matter the game, if only 10%(being generous here) will play a game, they will step back and rethink.

If the profits are 90% with a 90% smaller audience, they'll rethink how much they can specialise on farming whales rather than pretending to be a game for a wider audience.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

hypnox posted...

Truth be told, you could make a FAR more deadly impact with the right know how compared to the same cost of an AR15.

Stolen ARs are free.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Trialia posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

Isnt the wheel on the left side in England?

No.

What about after brexit?

Then the driver's seat will be outside the right side door and the gas and brake will be replaced with whip and rein respectively.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Napalm isn't explosive so it's near-worthless for guaranteeing deaths.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

For the most part, students that are transitioning or otherwise experimenting with a new gender identity are doing so because it's been suggested to them by a medical professional.

That is a compromise by the medical professional to stop them immediately chopping their nuts off. It is also good if the teacher doesn't call them by their preferred gender as there's definitely no guarantee anybody will post-mutilation. They are supposed to be learning what it will actually feel like post-transition, and that is like an outcast.

adjl posted...

Giving teachers free rein to supersede medical advice like that is generally a very bad precedent to set.

Give an inch and they'll take a mile. It's not recommended, it's compromising with a potentially suicidal patient to avoid undue loss of life.

adjl posted...

In neither case is refusing to call a student by their preferred name appropriate conduct.

No.

adjl posted...

If you're in a context where not talking to the person is not an option, your speech is compelled by your circumstances, not by the government. Still consistent.

The circumstances are created by the government. If they cannot choose to disagree and can't not speak, they are being compelled to speak by threat of law.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

In which case, pronouns should not be used so as to avoid confusion. As I said.

Or just use the correct pronoun to avoid Arving.

adjl posted...

Hateful speech and criminal hate speech are two very distinct things. Same with discriminatory behaviour and criminal discrimination. I'm really not sure why you seem to think otherwise.

I'll just cite UK hate speech law:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour

That seems to cover hateful speech as a whole.

adjl posted...

Do you really think that recognizing a human's anatomical traits is more humanizing than recognizing that human's cognitive identity? Most would say that humans are defined by their minds, after all, much more so than any particular physical traits.

Their gender is determined by their anatomy, and seeing as I'm not a wild sexist, I don't believe men and women have different minds. It's also rarely useful to reference the mind of a person when it comes to identification as the mind isn't visibly apparent.

adjl posted...

Again, see the Stanford Prison experiment. What you're suggesting is a hideously, insanely horrible idea that no competent educator would ever consider a reasonable way to approach their job.

Are you seriously comparing pronoun use at school to psychological attacks in a prison? Grow up.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

if you have to talk to them, suck it up and say something other than the things you can't say.

Remember when you said you were being consistent in insisting that speech was not compelled?
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

No, that's just their choice of pronoun in the absence of knowing what my name actually is. My name is legally defined as something other than that.

So it's an objective thing and thus not under the same thing as denying your birth certificate.

adjl posted...

If the use of the most appropriate pronoun for the situation may confuse the audience, then pronouns should not be used.

Their chosen pronoun is not always the most appropriate pronoun.

adjl posted...

If you're talking about two guys named Jim and Bob, "Bob took Jim's sandwich and ate it in front of him while he talked about his visit with his family" is a confusing sentence that should be clarified by using fewer pronouns. That doesn't mean "him" is not a suitable pronoun for Jim or Bob, just that the context demands more specificity. That's no less applicable here.

It's very confusing to refer to a man as "she" because he requested it as it goes against observations, if he needs to state his pronouns, they are not clear and do not deliver useful information to the listener. Compelling the use of she for a man on request and is offensive to normal human interaction and flow of speech.

adjl posted...

ou don't think something can be hateful or discriminatory unless it's illegal?

When it's law that hateful and discriminatory things are criminal; yes, that's exactly the case.

adjl posted...

Also, nice job leaving out the "dehumanizing" part.

Dehumanising anything is inherently discriminatory. Calling him a he is recognising him as a human male, to refer to him as female suggests he doesn't follow human dimorphism and is dehumanising, or at the very least discriminatory.

adjl posted...

So you think that refusing to use a student's name is not only acceptable conduct for a teacher, it's a better learning environment than one in which the teacher does use their name?

It's entirely dependant on circumstance. If the teacher choses to refer to everybody by their student ID it could help separate the learning environment from a social one, reinforcing the mindset demanded from learning. They could refer to everybody by their GPA and class rank to drill a competitive environment to enhance engagement, it doesn't really matter.

If a teacher refers to every male as he except one, he is discriminating against that one student, separating them from the rest of the group, this may not be helpful. The teacher may also not agree with using their chosen term as they don't consider it helpful for the student's well being, they also may want to establish that all students are measured by the same yard stick and can't negotiate exceptions.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

So tell people they can't use the wrong pronouns. Logical consistency, ho!

So it's okay to refer to transgenders by their name awkwardly in all contexts where pronouns appear?

"Did you see Arv? Arv's hands were filthy and Arv rubbed them on Arv's face! Arv's gone back to Arv's position, Arv is very messy."
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

"My name is Andrew" is an objective fact. "I prefer to be called Andy" is also an objective fact (or at least it would be if I had such a preference). Were I to change my name to Bob, Jim, or Sally, "My name is Bob/Jim/Sally" would become an objective fact.

Your name is also "that prick" to people who don't know you.

You call yourself Andrew but there's no reason to be called Andrew. It's your moniker that's entirely circumstantial, you're not objectively an Andrew. It's only offensive to call you another name as there's no reason to refer to you by another name thus it can be assumed to be to antagonise you.

Calling an MtF he can simply be going by how they understand the world, and not using she is refusing to say what they believe is false. It can't be inherently offensive as the intent can be divorced from offense.

adjl posted...

It also doesn't change the fact that refusing to call somebody by name is just plain rude at best

Or not directed at the referenced person and speaking in terms that least confuse the audience as to the rest of their sentence.

Regardless, it is not illegal to be rude so thank you for agreeing that it isn't inherently hateful/discriminatory.

adjl posted...

None of that spectrum should be considered an acceptable way for a teacher to treat their students.

Teachers should be clear and honest with their students, students should learn to put their pride aside when they are coming to learn. You won't die because your teacher doesn't agree with your opinion, and perhaps you'll learn to respect people who don't agree with you.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Stop acting beyond your pay grade then.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People hate him because he vehemently disagreed with legally enforcing use of ill-defined pronouns and generally compelled speech because apparently that means he's a racist/sexist/transphobic bigot.

If a student tells a teacher their name, and the teacher responds with "no your name is *something else*" and refuses to use the name they were given, should that teacher continue having that job? Because that's basically what Peterson is saying in regards to pronouns and whatnot.

Pronouns are not names. Names are also not objective. We have objective methods of determining pronouns, just as we have objective methods of determining race.

When we get in to the realms of "I believe I am male, despite my bodily sex", we enter subjectivity. If you can believe your gender is distinct from your sex, others can believe your sex determines your gender. The correct pronoun is what the speaker believes is correct. It's not objective so you can't correct them.

This is why it is a hot button issue. Some people believe they can force their subjective views on others and some want to express their subjective views without being criminalised.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

He's probably trying not not get the boogers on his fingers in his hair.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

kind9 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It turned "misgendering" in to a means of determining somebody as being discriminatory

This is true.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

making normal speech in to hate speech

This is wrong. Misgendering in and of itself is not discrimination under this bill.

If you would "misgender" a transgender but not a cisgender then that's discrimination. Inherently misgendering transgenders becomes a crime despite being a valid form of discrimination. You can believe an MtF isn't female without it effecting how you otherwise treat them.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

kind9 posted...

It was never about compelled speech. It simply added gender expression to protected classes so you can't discriminate(such as in job hiring) against people on that basis.

It turned "misgendering" in to a means of determining somebody as being discriminatory, making normal speech in to hate speech. It doesn't matter what the law intended, what matters is how the wording can be interpreted. At no point did he say they intended to criminalise misgendering, but it's what the wording says.

Also that is one thing. It's a weird broken clock if it's right half of the time.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Lokarin posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mad_Max posted...

Mead posted...

Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?

Yes. Incels, complete fucking morons, et al...

Yeah, you got to be a fucking moron to take hope in being told doing little things to improve yourself regularly will make you a respectable human some day.

That's one of the reasons I don't discount him entirely; and why I make the broken-clock analogy.

What are the examples of him being wrong? Aligning his philosophy with his religion for personal satisfaction? Not agreeing with compelled speech? I don't think he espouses enough material to be wrong 11/12ths of the time.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

deoxxys posted...

cool map with cryptids:

https://tinyurl.com/y4rms5wv

Map of the Scooby-Doo universe.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Mad_Max posted...

Mead posted...

Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?

Yes. Incels, complete fucking morons, et al...

Yeah, you got to be a fucking moron to take hope in being told doing little things to improve yourself regularly will make you a respectable human some day.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Classic old porn face; wrecked.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Lokarin posted...

He's basically the 'broken clock is right twice a day' of pseudo-science.

Raddest_Chad posted...

As a clickbait article would say "SJWs hate him!"

---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Your mom.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

Person willing to express opinions with certainty. He believes people can take responsibility for their lives and make it better little by little without setting lofty expectations. People like him because his message is pragmatic and he won't except nonsense to suit feels. People hate him because he vehemently disagreed with legally enforcing use of ill-defined pronouns and generally compelled speech because apparently that means he's a racist/sexist/transphobic bigot.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.

dancer62 posted...

An admittedly cursory search of the literature doesn't indicate a particular advantage to MTF athletes over natal female athletes. Jokes about Russian weightlifters aside, the Olympics and highest levels of sports are not overrun by MTF athletes.

It's as though no country would dare enter a man in women's events to score free points. It makes the country look bad.

dancer62 posted...

1. Female hormones = female muscles. Male hormones = male muscles. Overdose of male hormones = bigger muscles plus nasty side effects. No hormones = loss of muscle mass and strength. Check eunuchs.

For somebody who claims to be medically knowledgeable enough to claim vaccines bad, you sure don't understand biology.

A man suppressing testosterone gets weaker muscle but the gains they got as a male for decades gave them permanent strength improvement and enhanced their ability to train. Note that athletes who dope during training then back off before competition are still much stronger.

A woman injecting testosterone will get stronger muscle, but it is not comparable to men with a lifetime of testosterone who grew more in their formative years.

dancer62 posted...

2. Unless I'm badly mistaken, for sanctioned sports, trans athletes have to pass the same physical examination as their natal sisters, including steroids, metabolites, etc. Hormones must be documented as maintained at female levels for at least a year.

It depends on the sport, but testosterone can just be classed as medicine. Note in the tour de france a team got a lot of shit for abusing hayfever medicine for an edge, but it was allowed in the first place as standard medicine.

dancer62 posted...

3. Big tough untrained male, small disciple-level trained female. Hmm. Sue Shiomi?

Lol that's like calling Jackie Chan a Kyokushin karate master.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.