I can’t agree with that - the crowd was right in this case. We can stick with your example to discuss why.
If a bunch of christians hold a christian conservative meeting and want to discuss christian topics there, it’s objectively wrong to bring up atheism, unless you’re there to learn about their perspective on it. But as soon as you start to argue or defend a position, you’ve broken the rules of that social space, and excluding you is the correct move.
Ah, that’s probably where the disconnect is!
Especially when talking in safe spaces for women and minorities, one needs to be mindful of the history of negative experiences of those groups. Women still struggle with unwanted sexualization today, often leading to very negative interpersonal experiences and general disadvantages in their lives. So your response in that thread is being interpreted under that light.
To give a very inappropriate comparison - it’s kinda like being invited over for dinner at a friend’s house, and their whole family is jewish. During dinner they talk about family members they’ve lost in the Holocaust, and you suddenly crack Holocaust jokes. No matter how funny/clever/subversive your humor might be, there is no world in which that’s a good idea!
Hm… I get what you mean, but that’s because I’m not interested in engaging with the discussion. Mostly I just wanted to give you actual feedback on why you got banned in that case, since you said somewhere else in this thread that you didn’t understand/didn’t get feedback on why.
I wanted to give you this feedback because I too used to struggle with being understood the wrong way. It can be difficult - in my head I know exactly what I want to communicate, yet trying to find the right words to bring it across sometimes just doesn’t work. But the big thing I’ve learned is: the person I’m talking to is not wrong for misunderstanding what I’m saying, especially not if it happens frequently with different people! Instead I have to learn how to properly communicate my thoughts, and part of that is knowing what subjects are appropriate to touch on, and which ones aren’t. And sexual topics are very often inappropriate, so touching on them (even tangentially) can throw a conversation completely off course.
It still feels inappropriate to me to bring up any sexual topics with the image you initially commented on, so I don’t want to engage in the discussion.
No, it’s not motivated reasoning or bad faith. I’m honestly telling you how you come across to me (and likely others).
Every time I’ve seen someone take the route you did (focusing on everyday things/activities and extrapolating them towards something sexual without any contextual reason) that person turned out to be an incel, or at least incel-adjacent. That doesn’t mean you are either of those! But it does mean that’s how you come across to some.
If you don’t want to come across like this, you should avoid sexualizing things that aren’t explicitly sexual.
I understand that it seems silly on the surface to compare coffee to sex, but the motivation for sex and food are the same pathways in the brain.
Oh, so you actually meant the sexual connotation? Then it should be even more clear why you got the reactions that you did: not only were you hyper-reductionist (“She holds a cup of coffee? She must be addicted!”), you also sexualized a woman doing something absolutely normal and non-sexual in a safe space for women. That’s actual incel behavior.
I disagree it’s hyper-reductionist. I see it as just textbook definition.
But you’re not focusing on the most common textbook definition (and the one that’s used colloquially), you’re focusing on a secondary definition. For example, Merriam Webster lists these definitions:
You’re using the second definition while completely ignoring the first one. But how can people reading your comments know that you mean the less common definition? They can’t - they’ll assume at best that you mean both, at worst that you only mean the first.
And that’s ignoring that deriving a “lust for coffee” from a person holding a coffee cup is, by textbook definition, hyper-reductionist.
Yes in that I am beginning to realize that people are irked when I use dictionary definitions, but i have yet to learn which words are sensitive or buzzwords.
Again, it’s not about “dictionary definitions”, it’s about using secondary definitions of words which necessarily carry the connotation of their more common definitions. Even leaving that aside, words with similar definitions usually imply different strengths of their meaning. To give an example, imagine a photo of a university student studying at home while smiling. Which of the following descriptions is more accurate/better/less weird?
I read through a couple of your banned comments in WomensStuff. You really seem to have “Lust” for calling everything “Lust” (like a woman holding a cup of coffee has a “Lust” for/addiction to coffee). Do you not see that this type of hyper-reductionist thinking irks people?
Never before have I felt quite this seen by a meme
Great initiative. I really feel like people over 60 believe everything they read online - age limits should really help protect them from misinformation.
Do you think they’ll finally announce Silksong?
Yes you can! There’s plenty of places where you can turn prayer beads into consumable chains.
Lucky! I had to try more than ten times due to unlucky behavior in the waves before the boss, and finally managed to win only by using tools.
Snaps are bad for two reasons:
apt install installs the Snap insteadThere’s no good reason for either. Canonical is simply setting things up so they can squeeze money out of their users by enshittifying over time.
[Physical Instrument - Challenging 12] Shut him down!
Most runbacks aren’t too bad, but fuck the Bilewater one. That shit was too hard and annoying. I had less trouble with the First Sinner than that boss.
There is a way to make Pilgrims Rest free :)
GPs comment was hyperbole, but it holds true for most countries.
I live in Germany and make a pretty good salary as a developer. If I could, I’d take ½-1 year off work to develop one of a few games I’ve been designing over the last couple of years. In-between jobs I always start working on them, and those 1-2 months are a blast, much more fun than regular work.
But even though I have enough savings to do so, I really can’t, because it would mean:
When the result is most likely making 0€, it’s hard to justify the risk.
Because by the time I use awk again, I’ve completely forgotten that it supports this stuff, and the discoverability is horrendous.
Though I’d happily fix it if ShellCheck warned against this…
15?! Ridiculous! We need to breed one universal bean that covers everyone’s use cases.