Sam Smith comes out as genderqueer

[ryanripley 86,575]

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

Very original. Not seen that one a couple or so times already. And as I can see from your like meter, people have a very basic level of humour around here.

insulting the whole forum isn't going to help you make friends or win debates  

[Katsuki Bakugo 9,788]

9 hours ago, ryanripley said:

the only intimidating thing about starting with you is the wall of text my phone will have to load when i press "StrawberryBlond quoted you" and having to scroll to the bottom to see the reply  

Tea. Served hot. 

[Katsuki Bakugo 9,788]

1 hour ago, ryanripley said:

insulting the whole forum isn't going to help you make friends or win debates  

I love how they think they are superior because they like “intelligent” humour, yet are clearly not intune with what humour is. 

[rpggal 328]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Like most of us, you view the words as synoymous. They've always been synoymous in society for as long as I can remember. I've heard scientists and doctors use them interchangeably. I've seen biology textbooks use them interchangeably. I've encountered most people throughout life use them interchangeably, it all comes down to which term sits more comfortably for you (for most of us, it's "gender," as it means that no one giggles when you say it). Now, if we're talking about gender roles, they are a social construct, at least to a certain extent. Gender expression is also a social construct. But everything else is a biological process that was put on this earth for a distinct reason. The genitialia you were born with is not a social construct. The fact that only biological women can menstruate is not a social construct. The fact that only biological men can impregnate biological women is not a social construct. The fact that only biological women can get pregnant and carry a child is not a social construct. If it all was a social construct, then why do trans people have to transition at all? If gender was just all in the mind and based on what society tells us, it wouldn't matter to them what was in their pants. Social constructs are ideas, they're invisible. Something solid that you can see (genitalia) is not a social construct, it's reality. There is so much to'ing and fro'ing with the rules of these new 76 genders. It's like Blaire White once said: "Why is it so common in the community to believe that gender is a social construct but also that trans people are born with the brains of the opposite gender? Those are 2 directly contradictory statements. Get it together."

I'm not intending it to be threatening. It's just a defensive statement. I'm saying that you're intimidated by my intelligence and that I might have caused you to second guess yourself. It happens all the time around here. I write a long, well-researched, logical reply to someone and they don't even respond or say they're done. Dropping the conversation when it's no longer going your way is a common route and I'm sick of it.

Yes, I looked at the link of cognitive biases but I'm just expanding in case you were talking about even more biases than that. But nevertheless, I think even out of the wild, we still need these cognitive biases. We're still in danger while out in public or even in our own homes. And what if we don't have evidence at hand? I always think that common sense is the starting block, everything else will branch out from that.

Trust me, I understand how dangerous it is to trust pseudo science. I mean, part of my masochistic online research into the world of niche groups is the vegan community - pseudo science is powerful there and even other vegans warn against the dangers of it and the vegans who perpetuate it. At the end of of the day, you can search for evidence that supports just about anything you want to believe online. Though I sometimes wonder if the sheer amount of evidence in one direction is because the opposite direction is deliberately stifled by various highly influential organisations with the ability to control what pops up when we research our confirmation biases to ensure we get an overwhelming amount of support for their side.

Sorry, I think I was confusing you for the earlier people I argued with. You're just talking about my statement that liberals don't cite sources that much, right?

It's best to just point me to articles rather than books as I'm definitely more of a physical copy person (my Kindle is possessed and drains energy without me switching it on), so I would probably have to order the book online to get it and I'm big on the idea of not buying something unless you think there's a huge change you're going to like it. So, yeah, articles, are best for now. And yeah, I do maintain skepticism regarding what I believe. I sometimes fear something will come up one day that will completely shatter a world view I had for years. Personally, I never understood why we were told lies in school about certain things to do with animals, like "camels carry water in their humps" and "male seahorses get pregnant." Then you spout these things as an adult and look like a fool!

Maybe, just dropping the "common" bit would help as it's not really needed. But in any case, I was never claiming that I knew, beyond any doubt, that liberals rarely cite sources, without any proof to back it up. I was just speaking about an experience I've had. Nothing to read too much into. And every side lies and and has biases anyway - as you've said before, all humans have biases. It's just that I decided to focus criticism on liberals, a lot of whom these days seem to think to think they are immune to this stuff and that it's everyone else who needs educating.

Very original. Not seen that one a couple or so times already. And as I can see from your like meter, people have a very basic level of humour around here.

I believe the book is just a curated and edited compilation of the articles on his website, which is free to access https://youarenotsosmart.com/all-posts/ I would recommend scrolling all the way down to the articles before the podcasts start, as those are topics I recognize for sure were in the book. The book was edited by actual psychologists before publication, so I can't guarantee that the stuff on the website is the same quality as the book. But if you decide you are interested and like the way he explains things I would recommend getting the book. It's not very expensive and a pretty quick read, especially per topic.

[scallywally 626]

10 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Like most of us, you view the words as synoymous. They've always been synoymous in society for as long as I can remember. I've heard scientists and doctors use them interchangeably. I've seen biology textbooks use them interchangeably. I've encountered most people throughout life use them interchangeably, it all comes down to which term sits more comfortably for you (for most of us, it's "gender," as it means that no one giggles when you say it). Now, if we're talking about gender roles, they are a social construct, at least to a certain extent. Gender expression is also a social construct. But everything else is a biological process that was put on this earth for a distinct reason. The genitialia you were born with is not a social construct. The fact that only biological women can menstruate is not a social construct. The fact that only biological men can impregnate biological women is not a social construct. The fact that only biological women can get pregnant and carry a child is not a social construct. If it all was a social construct, then why do trans people have to transition at all? If gender was just all in the mind and based on what society tells us, it wouldn't matter to them what was in their pants. Social constructs are ideas, they're invisible. Something solid that you can see (genitalia) is not a social construct, it's reality. There is so much to'ing and fro'ing with the rules of these new 76 genders. It's like Blaire White once said: "Why is it so common in the community to believe that gender is a social construct but also that trans people are born with the brains of the opposite gender? Those are 2 directly contradictory statements. Get it together."

I'm not intending it to be threatening. It's just a defensive statement. I'm saying that you're intimidated by my intelligence and that I might have caused you to second guess yourself. It happens all the time around here. I write a long, well-researched, logical reply to someone and they don't even respond or say they're done. Dropping the conversation when it's no longer going your way is a common route and I'm sick of it.

Yes, I looked at the link of cognitive biases but I'm just expanding in case you were talking about even more biases than that. But nevertheless, I think even out of the wild, we still need these cognitive biases. We're still in danger while out in public or even in our own homes. And what if we don't have evidence at hand? I always think that common sense is the starting block, everything else will branch out from that.

Trust me, I understand how dangerous it is to trust pseudo science. I mean, part of my masochistic online research into the world of niche groups is the vegan community - pseudo science is powerful there and even other vegans warn against the dangers of it and the vegans who perpetuate it. At the end of of the day, you can search for evidence that supports just about anything you want to believe online. Though I sometimes wonder if the sheer amount of evidence in one direction is because the opposite direction is deliberately stifled by various highly influential organisations with the ability to control what pops up when we research our confirmation biases to ensure we get an overwhelming amount of support for their side.

Sorry, I think I was confusing you for the earlier people I argued with. You're just talking about my statement that liberals don't cite sources that much, right?

It's best to just point me to articles rather than books as I'm definitely more of a physical copy person (my Kindle is possessed and drains energy without me switching it on), so I would probably have to order the book online to get it and I'm big on the idea of not buying something unless you think there's a huge change you're going to like it. So, yeah, articles, are best for now. And yeah, I do maintain skepticism regarding what I believe. I sometimes fear something will come up one day that will completely shatter a world view I had for years. Personally, I never understood why we were told lies in school about certain things to do with animals, like "camels carry water in their humps" and "male seahorses get pregnant." Then you spout these things as an adult and look like a fool!

Maybe, just dropping the "common" bit would help as it's not really needed. But in any case, I was never claiming that I knew, beyond any doubt, that liberals rarely cite sources, without any proof to back it up. I was just speaking about an experience I've had. Nothing to read too much into. And every side lies and and has biases anyway - as you've said before, all humans have biases. It's just that I decided to focus criticism on liberals, a lot of whom these days seem to think to think they are immune to this stuff and that it's everyone else who needs educating.

Very original. Not seen that one a couple or so times already. And as I can see from your like meter, people have a very basic level of humour around here.

You've got a sense of humour ill give you that.

[StrawberryBlond 13,279]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:19 PM, ryanripley said:

insulting the whole forum isn't going to help you make friends or win debates  

I'm not insulting the whole forum, I'm insulting a very small portion of people who routinely seem to follow me in order to get at me and laugh along with people who put me down. There are people here who like me, thankfully, they just keep themselves to themselves most of the time. And I'm not focused on "winning" debates, I just want to put my thoughts out there to release frustration and if it changes people's minds, it's just a bonus, not the aim. I just want people to understand and respect what I have to say. And it's pretty hard to win a debate when a good 95% of respondents to a topic are against you anyway. When someone disagrees with you or simply doesn't like you, nothing you say will change them, most likely.

On 10/30/2017 at 10:47 PM, Melisandre said:

I love how they think they are superior because they like “intelligent” humour, yet are clearly not intune with what humour is. 

I've been a fan of humour for the longest time, I've studied the art of it. I may not be an actual comedian myself, but I know a thing or two about how to form a good joke. What was written barely even counts as a joke, the punchline is more of a statement than a zinger. Certain people are just that desperate to put me down that they'll happily laugh their asses off at any attempt at a put down.

23 hours ago, rpggal said:

I believe the book is just a curated and edited compilation of the articles on his website, which is free to access https://youarenotsosmart.com/all-posts/ I would recommend scrolling all the way down to the articles before the podcasts start, as those are topics I recognize for sure were in the book. The book was edited by actual psychologists before publication, so I can't guarantee that the stuff on the website is the same quality as the book. But if you decide you are interested and like the way he explains things I would recommend getting the book. It's not very expensive and a pretty quick read, especially per topic.

Do you mean scrolling down the first page or going to one of the titles at the top? It all seems a bit cluttered and too much to read right now. I'll maybe go back later, though.

15 hours ago, scallywally said:

You've got a sense of humour ill give you that.

I don't know where you were even going with that. Maybe something like: "you're a joke, I'll give you that" is more what you wanted to say.

[rpggal 328]

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm not insulting the whole forum, I'm insulting a very small portion of people who routinely seem to follow me in order to get at me and laugh along with people who put me down. There are people here who like me, thankfully, they just keep themselves to themselves most of the time. And I'm not focused on "winning" debates, I just want to put my thoughts out there to release frustration and if it changes people's minds, it's just a bonus, not the aim. I just want people to understand and respect what I have to say. And it's pretty hard to win a debate when a good 95% of respondents to a topic are against you anyway. When someone disagrees with you or simply doesn't like you, nothing you say will change them, most likely.

I've been a fan of humour for the longest time, I've studied the art of it. I may not be an actual comedian myself, but I know a thing or two about how to form a good joke. What was written barely even counts as a joke, the punchline is more of a statement than a zinger. Certain people are just that desperate to put me down that they'll happily laugh their asses off at any attempt at a put down.

Do you mean scrolling down the first page or going to one of the titles at the top? It all seems a bit cluttered and too much to read right now. I'll maybe go back later, though.

I don't know where you were even going with that. Maybe something like: "you're a joke, I'll give you that" is more what you wanted to say.

I meant scrolling down the all posts page to the bottom and clicking on the links to posts that don't say podcast. Whenever you have the time, read at your leisure.