Unlike the current system, where healthcare becomes completely out of reach of normal people.

That guy is the worst fucking developer I’ve ever known.

Nudity is also not inherently sexual. You can be naked for reasons outside of having sex, such as cleaning yourself, using the bathroom, changing outfits, sunbathing, relaxing, etc. None of those are inherently sexual.

Wearing drag is not sexual either. It’s been a thing for centuries, and that’s just the easily identifiable stuff.

Wearing kink gear is not inherently sexual, though I can understand that you don’t recognize that because it has connotations. But you can wear it without it being a sexual act.

“Expressing” sexuality is purposefully vague. Is kissing expressing sexuality? Is holding hands? Children do those. That would be an expression of your sexual orientation. You aren’t really making any sense.

Making everything sexual for children while not even acknowledging the sickness of it.

Same shit said about gay people.

Being gay isn’t sexual. Being straight isn’t sexual. Being trans isn’t sexual. Someone saying they are a girl is not sexual. Someone saying they are a boy is not sexual.

You see how none of this relates to sex?

The real answer is that a lot of people don’t really understand being trans. A lot of people used to the same way about gay and lesbian people. Conservatives tried to rally hard against gay and lesbian people, but that proved unpopular. Trans people don’t have that same protection. So, they’ll go after it until people finally get it.

Conservatives only have identity politics.

It’s too much like the real anti-fluoride arguments, man. I can’t recognize it, man.

Additionally, I called him childish because he was mocking others, and I pointed that out to him with his own quote.

He was not arguing in good faith, and to believe otherwise is to, frankly, underestimate him.

I did answer his questions. He didn’t like the answers. They weren’t either-or question, and it can, indeed, be answered with answers he doesn’t like, because those questions were leading.

This is, and I don’t say this lightly, one of the dumbest conclusions I’ve ever seen someone jump to.

Might as well say that fluoride in the water caused software developers, lmao.

Hey, yo, I got one! I once argued with FS about something where he continuously attempted to goad me, argued disingenuously, and acted childishly, and when I rightfully called him out on all of that, he removed my comment. It was a rather small abuse of power, but I have seen him act righteously indignant, especially when he is called out for acting like a child. He does not differentiate this from a personal attack, especially when he was very much responsible for escalating several interactions he has with others.

Their comment history is fucking insane. They appear to support accelerationism, so they got what they wanted.

I don’t think it is (or at least it isn’t fully), based on the guy’s post history.

I’ll bet she could carry more meat than you.

Be careful what you wish for, or they will find the one woman trained in medicine who wants to sterilize people using logic derived from eugenics.

But it was an issue before. And it’s an issue now. So the phrase isn’t really the issue. It’s an excuse to do nothing because you aren’t the problem, whereas before the excuse to do nothing was that you didn’t know about the problem. And if they say “Some men are rapists” to make you feel better, fuck if it isn’t an excuse to do nothing because you’re not one of them.

It is the responsibility of all people (and thus all men) to stop sexual assaults, and to blame people that are far more likely to be the victims of those assaults for making rhetoric that is extreme in response is to expect a perfect victim that did, does, and will do nothing wrong.

If you would like to use the AIDS epidemic as an example, it would be to treat the gay men as wrong when they said they should seize control of the FDA. It’s, technically speaking, not helpful, and there were many working in the public health sector trying their hardest to help those affected by AIDS… But, like, you understand why they said that, right? There were definitely protests before that where nothing happened, where their issues were ignored, and their were people in the government who were to blame.

I think men treating women like sex objects happened long before anyone said “All men are rapists” seriously. How does anyone address the historical (and current) context of subjugation and oppression women face under men (who do hold a large majority of positions of power)? I think reducing the conversation to what you said is, frankly, the tactic of the right, and it’s really easy to give up on learning that context if one takes a victim complex, like when anyone attacks white people or Christians or straight people or cis people or cops, and ignore everything related to why those groups might have that hate towards them.

How can you address that context if you say “Not all men” and then do nothing to address the original critiques in the first place? If you pretend like the conversation starts and stops at the logical disproving of “All men are rapists,” then will you simply ignore that marital rape exists? Will you ignore that women do have higher rates of being sexually assaulted and that we make it hard to do anything about those assaults?

I, sadly, think of “All men are rapists” as a defensive mantra. That we, as a society, have to teach girls and women to fear men because we failed at multiple other points. It isn’t true, and it probably isn’t a great attitude to take, but I don’t know that I can fault anyone for having that view.

By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Endorsements have been a thing throughout a lot of human history because we are very social beings. It may sound silly, but some people literally care more what an entertainer says instead of any or all politicians or political experts, and will vote because of it.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.