So, why haven't mods renamed this thread into "ITT: We post political shit"?
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting 2j1py
posted
Total Posts
57,528
t/201618Aurani wrote: k3n52
There is a difference between shitposting 3 years ago and shitposting now. The current shitposters don't even know how to make ordinary shitposts, let alone quality ones.
These were fun times
But politics are not funny, nor interestingMara wrote: 1293c
So, why haven't mods renamed this thread into "ITT: We post political shit"?
doppelganger got ranked, finally
Caradine
That IS politics talk, Caradine
Modern psychology science shit says that since gender is socially constructed, there's no real point asking "how many there are". Non-binary people exist, so it should moreso be acknowledged as a spectrum.
Most people are happy to identify as entirely male/female but you could go deeper into "masculine and feminine" percentages or something if you really wanted to. It doesn't matter very much though
Modern psychology science shit says that since gender is socially constructed, there's no real point asking "how many there are". Non-binary people exist, so it should moreso be acknowledged as a spectrum.
Most people are happy to identify as entirely male/female but you could go deeper into "masculine and feminine" percentages or something if you really wanted to. It doesn't matter very much though
Interesting denial of psychology there because your feelings don't want it to be true LULB1rd wrote: 4w393k
You are either male or female, empirically determined by your biology. Just because there is a girly man or a manly girl does not justify the idea of "non-binary" people or a "spectrum" of genders.
Are you somehow trying to appropriate the right-wing argument by projecting your own own left-wing irrationalities? I'm talking about biology, you're talking about psychology which is the most feels based, least objective "science" there is. True it's about psychology, which another way of saying would be that the recent social trend of creating arbitrary classifications of gender thought up by deluded people is in their minds. People may show a broad range of behavior that may be atypical of their sex, but it's completely irrelevant to the concept of biological sex, and no that's not going to make me buy into the whole postmodernist feminist dogma about gender fluidity.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Interesting denial of psychology there because your feelings don't want it to be true LUL
B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Are you somehow trying to appropriate the right-wing argument by projecting your own own left-wing irrationalities? I'm talking about biology, you're talking about psychology which is the most feels based, least objective "science" there is. True it's about psychology, which another way of saying would be that the recent social trend of creating arbitrary classifications of gender thought up by deluded people is in their minds. People may show a broad range of behavior that may be atypical of their sex, but it's completely irrelevant to the concept of biological sex, and no that's not going to make me buy into the whole postmodernist feminist dogma about gender fluidity.
You seriously think psychology isn't science, or what? Nobody was talking about biological sex, by the way.
The DSM-V explicitly acknowledges that some people identify as nonbinary on the spectrum of gender, and that in itself is not a mental disorder. That's a collaborative work created by American psychologists to help diagnoses. Saying these people's work is meaningless delusion is just absurd and betrays how you'd rather ignore science in order to fit your own clearly biased worldview.
Caradine
Baited, but
Because if the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not either "having a certain feeling overrides your biological sex" (chaotic good) or "you cannot have more than 2 feelings" (chaotic evil), then it seems like people are just arguing about the definition of the word without even noticing it, and not about the underlying subject...
I don't mean this thread, or you specifically, but I notice some people be like:
,,There are two genders because biology!" well, i know what you're talking about and you're right...
then someone else comes in and says:
,,There are infinite or whatever else genders because psychology!" well, i know what you're talking about and you're right...
Then they start arguing and all I can think is "how is this possible?"
Not push my own narrative i promise
Would it be fine if the very specific term "gender identity" was used in that context?B1rd wrote: 4w393k
You are either male or female, empirically determined by your biology. Just because there is a girly man or a manly girl does not justify the idea of "non-binary" people or a "spectrum" of genders.
Because if the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not either "having a certain feeling overrides your biological sex" (chaotic good) or "you cannot have more than 2 feelings" (chaotic evil), then it seems like people are just arguing about the definition of the word without even noticing it, and not about the underlying subject...
I don't mean this thread, or you specifically, but I notice some people be like:
,,There are two genders because biology!" well, i know what you're talking about and you're right...
then someone else comes in and says:
,,There are infinite or whatever else genders because psychology!" well, i know what you're talking about and you're right...
Then they start arguing and all I can think is "how is this possible?"
I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that without using the same set of rules (input) you can end up with completely different results (output).B1rd wrote: 4w393k
I'm talking about biology, you're talking about psychology
Not push my own narrative i promise
Worth clarifying: "Gender" and "Biological sex" are two different things, which is why we use different words. You said that gender is determined empirically by biology, which isn't correct. Like I said, gender is a construct created by society.
Fun thing to consider: Masculinity and femininity are also socially constructed. Someone's idea of manliness in one society may be very different to the idea of manliness in another society, etc.
Fun thing to consider: Masculinity and femininity are also socially constructed. Someone's idea of manliness in one society may be very different to the idea of manliness in another society, etc.
Caradine
It's able i think just because of how many people use the word "gender" as the substitute to sex. I tried to be specific here - if some make that differentiation, and some do not, that's the misunderstanding that I was talking aboutDaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Worth clarifying: "Gender" and "Biological sex" are two different things, which is why we use different words. You said that gender is determined empirically by biology, which isn't correct. Like I said, gender is a construct created by society.
Fun thing to consider: Masculinity and femininity are also socially constructed. :thinking:
Go on crying about "ignoring science" and relentless accusations of "bias". It's all falling on deaf ears. You left wingers like to pretend that science is on your side, and that you are the "intellectual ones", but you can't claim that other people are "denying science" when there is no empirical proof whatsoever of your gender ideology. Psychology is hardly a science because of a distinct lack of replicable results and a doctrine that shifts radically from one decade to the next. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness until it was changed completely arbitrarily because of changing public opinion, just like the recent trends in psychology have been influenced by public trends, and it's still highly controversial within the scientific community and saying it's not a mental illness does not mean the scientific community s it. Whether or not people identify as "non-binary" are classified as having a mental illness is completely irrelevant, "mental illness" is an arbitrary classification as it is, and I never said those people had a mental illness, just that they were deluding themselves with fiction.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
You seriously think psychology isn't science, or what? Nobody was talking about biological sex, by the way.
The DSM-V explicitly acknowledges that some people identify as nonbinary on the spectrum of gender, and that in itself is not a mental disorder. That's a collaborative work created by American psychologists to help diagnoses. Saying these people's work is meaningless delusion is just absurd and betrays how you'd rather ignore science in order to fit your own clearly biased worldview.
Despite what you have said, gender roles throughout every society have been extremely similar in numerous ways, because biological sex determines behavioural traits to a large degree, this warrants gender roles for the better functioning of society. However the different genders in feminist theory have no distinct biological basis, they are just arbitrary labels created by people so they can feel like special snowflakes. Shaving my head, cutting off my balls and calling myself "non-binary" is no different to dying my hair black, giving myself piercings and calling myself a goth.
Regardless, I don't really care for silly debates like this, I'm much more interested in economics and philosophy which are much more relevant to our daily lives.
If you're going to it outright that what I'm saying is "falling on deaf ears" as well as clearly demonstrating your lack of respect for psychology as a science, as well as disregarding any valid arguments relating to gender that disagree with your own, I don't know, man.
Gender identity isn't exactly controversial in this field, but I think you're probably just incredibly willingly ignorant on the subject. Does it bother you personally, or something..?
If you're not willing to look into the science behind gender identity then you should probably avoid making any bold statements on the subject in the first place. It's a worthless statement to make when you're neither interested in an intellectually honest argument nor open to any new ways of thinking about the subject.
Just to let you know, though, the "68 genders" or whatever is not scientific. People don't try to make arguments for the many genders of queer feminist theory as being rooted in biology, they're more understood as being a means of conveying ever-more-specific feelings of gender or sexual identity. It's complicated and honestly I think a lot of it is INCREDIBLY pedantic, but I'm just telling you a summary of how it works here.
edit: also VERY IMPORTANT THING that I need to say- gender identity etc isn't "purely 100% sociological" nor is it "purely 100% biological".
Gender identity isn't exactly controversial in this field, but I think you're probably just incredibly willingly ignorant on the subject. Does it bother you personally, or something..?
If you're not willing to look into the science behind gender identity then you should probably avoid making any bold statements on the subject in the first place. It's a worthless statement to make when you're neither interested in an intellectually honest argument nor open to any new ways of thinking about the subject.
Just to let you know, though, the "68 genders" or whatever is not scientific. People don't try to make arguments for the many genders of queer feminist theory as being rooted in biology, they're more understood as being a means of conveying ever-more-specific feelings of gender or sexual identity. It's complicated and honestly I think a lot of it is INCREDIBLY pedantic, but I'm just telling you a summary of how it works here.
edit: also VERY IMPORTANT THING that I need to say- gender identity etc isn't "purely 100% sociological" nor is it "purely 100% biological".
I never said that, I said your incessant accusations and insults are falling on deaf ears. Calling me ignorant isn't an argument. Calling me intellectually dishonest isn't an argument. I'm less interested in what you claim the supposed science says, what are valid arguments according to your own opinion, I only care if you can definitively disprove any of my statements. As far as I'm concerned what Caradine said is correct, and the whole argument is about interpretations and semantics.
You two need to go back and reread the things you wrote. Instead of actually discussing gender issues, you've immediately switched to bashing each other and weaving the arguments around just to fit the fact that you, under all that shit, simply want to insult one another.
You'll cease that bullshittery if you have any sense of dignity, as the previous page and a half has been nothing but embarrassment after embarrassment.
Don't fall on the same level as Blitzfrog, Madvillain, Enetro etc.
You'll cease that bullshittery if you have any sense of dignity, as the previous page and a half has been nothing but embarrassment after embarrassment.
Don't fall on the same level as Blitzfrog, Madvillain, Enetro etc.
Caradine
I completely disagree.Aurani wrote: k3n52
You two need to go back and reread the things you wrote. Instead of actually discussing gender issues, you've immediately switched to bashing each other and weaving the arguments around just to fit the fact that you, under all that shit, simply want to insult one another.
I've said a lot of facts about gender which might educate people who haven't thought about that kind of stuff before, or haven't looked into it, that people can benefit from regardless of whether or not I've been mad at B1rd for the things he's been saying.I it there was some misunderstanding regarding the words "gender" and "sex", but I cleared that up in one of my posts for a reason. Seems a little unfair to act as if we've been on the same level of intellectual dishonesty here.
Asteroid vs. Dinosaurs
It is believed by scientists that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid impact on Earth. One evidence ing this is the large crater, Chicxulub Crater, in Mexico which is believed to be caused by an asteroid colliding with the Earth's surface about 66 million years ago. The impact is said to have caused extreme changes in Earth's atmosphere and climate, eventually wiping out the dinosaurs.
Now you
Know!
It is believed by scientists that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid impact on Earth. One evidence ing this is the large crater, Chicxulub Crater, in Mexico which is believed to be caused by an asteroid colliding with the Earth's surface about 66 million years ago. The impact is said to have caused extreme changes in Earth's atmosphere and climate, eventually wiping out the dinosaurs.
Now you
Know!
I love your orphan at theMeah wrote: f4f5b
Asteroid vs. Dinosaurs
It is believed by scientists that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid impact on Earth. One evidence ing this is the large crater, Chicxulub Crater, in Mexico which is believed to be caused by an asteroid colliding with the Earth's surface about 66 million years ago. The impact is said to have caused extreme changes in Earth's atmosphere and climate, eventually wiping out the dinosaurs.
Now you
Know!
end.
this and more in bill wurtz's new video, history of the entire world, i guessMeah wrote: f4f5b
Asteroid vs. Dinosaurs
It is believed by scientists that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid impact on Earth. One evidence ing this is the large crater, Chicxulub Crater, in Mexico which is believed to be caused by an asteroid colliding with the Earth's surface about 66 million years ago. The impact is said to have caused extreme changes in Earth's atmosphere and climate, eventually wiping out the dinosaurs.
Now you
Know!
Educational vid 10/10Raspberriel wrote: 2f96m
this and more in bill wurtz's new video, history of the entire world, i guessMeah wrote: f4f5b
Asteroid vs. Dinosaurs
It is believed by scientists that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid impact on Earth. One evidence ing this is the large crater, Chicxulub Crater, in Mexico which is believed to be caused by an asteroid colliding with the Earth's surface about 66 million years ago. The impact is said to have caused extreme changes in Earth's atmosphere and climate, eventually wiping out the dinosaurs.
Now you
Know!
Caradine
Caradine
Hatred against subhuman filth is always justified, regardless of who they are. Now it all depends on demography -- somewhere the majority is middle aged women and in other instances it's not.Kisses wrote: 53h3c
Is a hatred against middle aged women justified in this day and age?
Inb4, there are only 2 genders. Anything else is and should be considered as a personality disorder. If you have a penis - you're a man. If you have a vagina- you're a woman. Simple as that.
I like you. Finally someone that doesn't approach the hatred of aggressive, double standard middle aged women with straight up dismissalComfy Slippers wrote: 4v5r2f
Hatred against subhuman filth is always justified, regardless of who they are. Now it all depends on demography -- somewhere the majority is middle aged women and in other instances it's not.Kisses wrote: 53h3c
Is a hatred against middle aged women justified in this day and age?
Inb4, there are only 2 genders. Anything else is and should be considered as a personality disorder. If you have a penis - you're a man. If you have a vagina- you're a woman. Simple as that.
how did you manage to make a meme autistic thats unrealComfy Slippers wrote: 4v5r2f
Hatred against subhuman filth is always justified, regardless of who they are. Now it all depends on demography -- somewhere the majority is middle aged women and in other instances it's not.Kisses wrote: 53h3c
Is a hatred against middle aged women justified in this day and age?
Inb4, there are only 2 genders. Anything else is and should be considered as a personality disorder. If you have a penis - you're a man. If you have a vagina- you're a woman. Simple as that.
Caradine
Caradine
Yuudachi-kun wrote: 3x3n4i
Yuudachi-kun wrote: 3x3n4i
I like how gender is only a 1d spectrum from male to female, further emphasising the point that theres only two genders
If you can come up with a second axis thst is devoid of simple combinations if male and femsle thatd be great
@@daddycoolviper
here u go
To be perfectly honest, that IS how gender seems to be- as in, largely a "slider" between male and female, sure. Third-gender/Agender people etc are generally seen being "in the middle" of the two rather than on their own seperate scale.Yuudachi-kun wrote: 3x3n4i
Yuudachi-kun wrote: 3x3n4i
I like how gender is only a 1d spectrum from male to female, further emphasising the point that theres only two genders
If you can come up with a second axis thst is devoid of simple combinations if male and femsle thatd be great
@@daddycoolviper
It's irrelevant to dismiss this as therefore meaning there are only two genders though- the point I was trying to make earlier was that trying to quantify them is largely irrelevant, since people just use subjective words as a way of conveying ever more specific meanings in order to communicate where they lie on the gender "scale". Hence the meme with the 68 genders or whatever.
With that knowledge, saying "there are only two genders!" just ends up seeming like a mean-spirited "joke" intended to mock anyone who falls outside of the two binary identities. It'll probably fall outside of style soon, along with that dumb attack helicopter meme that people use to circlejerk their idea that trans people are just making everything up.
Caradine
more or less how it feels like mostlyDaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
With that knowledge, saying "there are only two genders!" just ends up seeming like a mean-spirited "joke" intended to mock anyone who falls outside of the two binary identities. It'll probably fall outside of style soon, along with that dumb attack helicopter meme that people use to circlejerk their that trans people are just making everything up.