If I wanted an autistically over-literal answer, I’d either ask myself (or come to Lemmy)

Stochastic parrots is an excellent phrase.

I know I’m just one person, but your experiences are important and imo, necessary for women’s liberation (and human liberation more generally). I’m not going to say “you should share your experiences” because I get how exhausting it is to be challenged on basic shit all the time and that means commenting can be akin to self harm if overdone. I guess I’m just trying to expand that 1% of non-assholes into a larger percentage.

I say this as a cis woman whose feminism has gotten a hell of a lot more intersectional in recent years, in part due to trans friends. Knowing trans women in particular has helped me to feel more at home and happy in my own gender (femininity and its relationship with womanhood is complicated). Having lived as a guy for a chunk of your life no doubt means that your lived experience (especially with respect to gender) is messy and complex, but that’s great, because the world is messy and complex. At least, it would be great, if more people were open to listening to you when you share. I’m sorry that you have to do the cost:benefit analysis before commenting — that part is something I can relate to.

It does help, thank you.

Is outrage all that new? It strikes me as evergreen

I liked this comment. You wrote with the nuance and balance that I strive for. Thanks for sharing

I agree that it’s not quite the same, and I’m finding it real interesting to ponder how that happens.

This comic and this comment section have been pretty thought provoking. (Heads up, this is overly abstract speculation from here): For example, here’s a mathsy diagram This is a commutative diagram, and I’m not at the level of being able to explain it properly, but part of it is the idea of equivalence, the fact that there’s two routes from A to D that are equivalent.

I’m thinking about this sort of analogous to what we’re seeing in the comic and these comments. Like, the base experiences we’re talking about (being spoken over when you’re trying to share your experiences, for example) are fundamentally shared experiences, but the manner of experiencing them is different, because it’s coloured by our own positionality (of which gender is a big part of). I think sometimes though, it’s like discussions don’t work because we get separated — some of us at B, and some at C. Like, it does matter that our experiences are different, but also, there’s a sense in which it doesn’t, because we need to head to the same place anyway.

I don’t know what converging on D would be in this analogy. Solidarity perhaps? Which would, I suppose, involve recognising that the route you’re on is different to the route other people are on, and that it’s possible to be heading to the same place. I’m not sure, this is quite abstract, but you said the word “meta” and that seemed to catalyse this thought, so here’s this comment. You’re welcome/my apologies

I’m sorry, but this comic doesn’t help.

I don’t think it necessarily has to? Like, I agree with pretty much everything in your comment, aside from this part and what it implies. I read this comment as an expression of frustration from the artist, and it’s certainly one that I can relate to. I also realise that there’s a heckton of men who’ll relate too, because of how men who want to carve out space to talk about men’s issues can be cut off, even if they’re not the same men as the assholes who only want to talk about men’s issues when they’re speaking over a woman. However, I think that saying “both sides” to this misses the point of the comic

It can be useful to ground statements in our own personal perspectives because of how it limits the scope of what we’re saying. A smaller, messier example is that I am autistic and have done both disability activism and autism activism in the past. I am autistic and because of that, I am also disabled, and so many of my experiences as an autistic person can also apply more generally to disabled people. However, generalising a statement can be difficult, especially if on a difficult topic, such as institutional ableism. I was able to speak confidently on how that affected me personally, and to a more limited degree, how it affects other autistic people, because of who I am in community with. However, I don’t directly know any deaf people, for example, and thus I am cautious when talking about my experiences as a disabled person, lest I over-generalise. I get a similar sense from the comic’s use of “as a woman”. Grounding stuff in that way is often an attempt to limit the scope of the discussion to something more manageable when grappling with something hard to articulate.

I also do think it’s useful to recognise the difference in experience. As a silly example, I might say “as a woman, I need to breathe air in order to survive”. I could also say “as a human, I need to breathe air in order to survive”. I could also say “as an animal, I need to breathe air in order to survive”, but actually, I’d need to go and double check the facts on that last one. That’s sort of my point — sometimes statements are overly specific and should be simplified, like in the “as a [woman/human]” statements. However, limiting the scope (like in the “as a human” statement compared to the “as an animal” one) actually gives space for the possibility that some weird animals don’t need to breathe.

Apologies if I have explained this poorly. I don’t mean to come off as lecturing or argumentative; I am replying to your comment because I appreciate your points and I am open to discussion.

I wonder if it’s a case of trying to make a habit of good practice. I’ve gotten into the habit of citing stuff when writing online, even if the context wouldn’t really demand that (or slapping a [citation needed] onto the end of stuff I know I could cite, but I’m too lazy to do and I want it known that lack of sources mean my assertions are questionable)

If this were a shitpost, I would unironically love this.

Unfortunately, I think it isn’t intended that way, so thumbs down from me

I respect your approach. I bet you’re the kind of parent who apologises to their kids when you make mistakes

I understand why you feel uncomfortable with the word “feminist”. I personally don’t believe that feminism is inherently anti-male, but I also can’t ignore the people whose behaviour doesn’t fit inside my definition of that term; to do otherwise would be doing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. For me, identifying as a feminist means having to contend with that — that is to say that if I want feminism to account for the ways that men are fucked over by the patriarchy, then it’s important that I challenge hateful rhetoric in supposedly progressive spaces.

It’s frustrating how common IQ based things are still. For example, I’m autistic, and getting any kind of support as an autistic adult has been a nightmare. In my particular area, some of the services I’ve been referred to will immediately bounce my referral because they’re services for people with “Learning Disabilities”, and they often have an IQ limit of 70, i.e. if your IQ is greater than 70, they won’t help you.

My problem here isn’t that there exists specific services for people with Learning disabilities, because I recognise that someone with Down syndrome is going to have pretty different support needs to me. What does ick me out is the way that IQ is used as a boundary condition as if it hasn’t been thoroughly debunked for years now.

I recently read “The Tyranny of Metrics” and whilst I don’t recall of it specifically delves into IQ, it’s definitely the same shape problem: people like to pin things down and quantify them, especially complex variables like intelligence. Then we are so desperate to quantify things that we succumb to Goodhart’s law (whenever a metric is used as a target, it will cease to be a good metric), condemning what was already an imperfect metric to become utterly useless and divorced from the system it was originally attempting to model or measure. When IQ was created, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it was. It has been made worse by years of bigots seeking validation, because it turns out that science is far from objective and is fairly easy to commandeer to do the work of bigots (and I say this as a scientist.)

It’s one reason why I like Lemmy so much — conversations around here are so small scale that I can be confident I’m talking to a human.

Unfortunately, learning about things doesn’t always help. I’m still very scared of spiders, despite being big on team learning. Some fears are rational, some are irrational, and these have very different salves.

My late best friend was a metal head and I often joke that I hope he’s gone to hell, because as a queer nerd who loved TTRPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, he’d have a hell of a time there.

I went to a big, old university where there were many old chapels with excellent organs. I went to some services despite being an atheist, just to hear the pretty sounds echoing 'round a pretty room.

this type of ecological engineering

Do you count reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone to be the same type of ecological engineering? I haven’t checked progress on that for a while but the last I heard, it was too early to say whether it was successful. I highlight Yellowstone because of how cautious the effort was (it took years of planning and analysis) and this caution feels like it’s directly descended from the fuck ups of the past

It has one of the best on-screen depictions of a panic attack that I’ve ever seen, which I wasn’t expecting

I think it’s for ads. I first discovered this watching “Interview with the Vampire”. In the UK, it’s available on BBC iPlayer, but that version runs faster than the pirated version. I didn’t notice until we took a break from watching and notice we were out of sync. I decided to test it by playing the pirated version at the exact same time as the BBC version. It was uncanny to hear them start out synced but gradually diverge.

The BBC iPlayer version doesn’t have ads, but when playing on live TV it does have ads, so I assume that’s why.