“Am I out of touch?” The irony was lost on TERFs ever since they were applauded by anti-abortion christian and white nationalists and nazis, and they still went “No, it is the trans that are profoundly misogynist”.

We could say that science is under attack (see following sources). In this case, it belongs.

• Exclusive: how NSF is scouring research grants for violations of Trump’s orders
• Ax falls on elite group of Ph.D.s training to lead U.S. public health labs
• CDC ordered to remove research papers that use the terms “LGBT,” “pregnant people” and more
• The Attacks on Science
• Those of us who work in gender medicine are not going anywhere
• My daughter is publishing another academic paper and has to run a filter to ensure there are no “controversial” words. It is an applied physics paper dealing with novel quantum matter.

Can we agree that:

1. Science is under attack.
2. Weaponized cisgenderism is science denialism at this point.
3. Free speech absolutism is a trope to suppress all freedom except for white supremacist rhetoric.
4. The attacks are not limited to trans but also cis women, including cis women scientists.
5. Trans rights stem from a complex set of fundamental freedoms, and opposing them is profoundly fascist.

If anyone does not agree, ex post facto, with the above points is a literal nazi apologist at this point, and can go debate if FElon’s salute was nazi or not. I don’t have the time of day for this though.

Can we further agree that scientists must be in the social and ideological avant-garde and opposing fascism, like Einstein did?

Then we see at a time that science is under attack, in the context of a petrifying fascist power grab from anti-vax charlatans, and in the name of science innocent people are vilified and persecuted, that the relevance of these developments ought to be front and center to all science-related communities, much like this once were:

• Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement

Because this more or less shows the fossil fuel interests that are behind all this.

User name checks out

From their perspective? Feminists.

You know there is a specific type of person who holds 95% percent Nazi views, but is pointing fingers in all directions when an actual Nazi is called out as a Nazi. It is the same type of person that says he hates rapists most of all things, but never admits there is enough proof of sexual misconduct about any actual rapist. That person is the next door m’fer that enables fascism and patriarchy throughout history, and he is complicit to both.

Oh, outch, what a blow to all the First Amendment absolutists of Lemmy, who chose to stand up to EFF and Techdirt. Here are some more arguments against X/Meta put in the most coherent of ways.

There is no democracy without free media, and no free media without democracy.

Down with the corporatist power grab. NO PASSARAN

if just a handful of idealists

If they are so few why does their vote matter that much? Futile attempt to undermine those who disagree with oneself on the basis of statistical sums.

suck it up

This arguments goes both ways. You say I suck it up, I say you suck it up, I don’t put my friends’ life/well-being on the line, for the sake of some half-baked moderation bias one considers self-evident truth.

the third-party purist who made their heart sing.

This is not what happened. All analyses point to that Harris failed to mobilize progressive voters. But this is not a discussion we are having right now, I have made my point very clear in this post including the contributions of others underneath.

So this is a dishonest ad hominem argument, that contradicts itself. I expect it to be thought of as refuted, and one should not resurrect it as per the anti-sealioning policy.

I am a pragmatist, you are an idealist.

1. This is not what these words mean.
2. You don’t get to define what other people determine themselves as.
3. I am ideologue with certain material interests, and you are an ideologue with a different set of interest, who is willing to solve equations with human lives.
4. A centrist although presenting as non-ideologue, is willing to protect his moderation bias even with the lives of other people he thinks as ideological purism.
5. By continuously compromising with the worst amongst the humanity for precious election points he makes society worse for all of us.
6. The real meaning of centrism is that you are flexible with your red lines against fascism and corporatism, and weigh human lives according to their ideological distance from oneself.

history shows that “radical solutions” are almost always a mirage

We have LibreWolf, Mullvad, TorBrowser, which are all Firefox forks of course. If we are talking about possible extinction of the gecko engine perhaps we could have this discussion anew, but because these other projects exist, not because we have to support any ill advised move Firefox makes that time and again alienates this community.

To further this argument, there is, well, open source in general, which many people frame by the same “moderate-biased” arguments you propose. Nonetheless it exists and thrives, and it is well shown that the GPL licenses are better for developers. All this happens because of what you dismiss as “idealists”, from the era of Creative Commons, Independent Media Center, and the Internet Archive, to the Tor Project, Tails, SciHub and all other good things the internet has to offer comes from ideologues. Even Lemmy that you are currently using.

So whatever is outside the centrist’s tunnel vision is just non-existent. That makes the centrist an extremist naive empiricist, lacking non only object constancy but also the intellectual sophistication to stipulate configurations of the world outside his immediate and temporary surroundings.

The blithe centrist happily leeches off to preach ad nauseam that middle ground with spooks, fascists and advertisers is a universal truth we must blindly succumb to. Then it is shown that the centrist is not just naive or misguided but actively hostile and dishonest (see first section of this comment for evidence of your logical inconsistency and dishonesty) with people of different opinions, so they prove themselves not to be centrist at all, but diet fascists.

To sum up, in this post I have shown that:

• Centrists can be tactically motivated and intellectually dishonest.
• Centrist are in fact intolerant of views different than theirs.
• Centrists are immoral and undemocratic, in their pursuit of middle ground with perpetrators of exploitation and discrimination.
• Centrists are in fact extremist in their naive empiricism, tunnel vision, and glorification of the status quo that was given to them, which is by definition conservative.

Combining common terms from the above propositions: Centrists are tactically motivated, intellectually dishonest, intolerant to difference of opinion, indifferent to the rights of others, immoral and undemocratic apologists of exploitation and discrimination, extremist in their empiricism and conservativism.

Centrist? Better call them sentries of the status quo. Disclaimer: I hate centrists with a burning passion.

Someone should tell Mozilla about the AI-sized environmental concern in their browser?

It’s called offset /s

With no intention of stirring the pot, this sounds just like the pre-election arguments in favor of Democrats.

The last voice that cares even slightly about our privacy will be gone.

The emphasis here should be on “even slightly” rather than the dramatic effect of “the last voice”.

I mean, if this slice approaches zero, then why it is better to stay with Firefox rather than moving on to more radical solutions?

As for this valid focus on critical mass of users, perhaps a linked tags approach is better than a multiple-communities structure, until specific tags gain enough friction to become communities. Just thinking.

I also don’t know why this 1 year old post popped into my feed, but anyway, as others report, I am curious about this “case”. Is there any resolution @FarFarAway@lemmy.world ?

You do seem yourself to know awfully lot about this geezer, so this does not sit very well with me. Like, if you are doing counterintelligence on him you should come clean about it.

It bugs me (no pun intended) how people in such cases readily suggest some kind of poisoning, intoxication, or mental meltdown. Hinting to numerous other comments in the thread. So, a word to all armchair psychiatrists out there, I have it on good authority that real psychiatrists first rule out whether the situation is real, then move on to delusional and paranoia explanations. Otherwise it would be very easy to conspire against a family member, poison them or get them locked up, and enjoy their fortune or sth. So it is a meme at this point, so joke is on me for responding seriously but at some point it has to be debunked. You have to rule out that the situation is not real before reach for the mental illness explanations.

I see. “Men and/or fuckable” then

And as I read some where here, if testosterone levels is unfair advantage why aren’t there limits in the men’s league too? It is so just they police women bodies (cis and trans alike). Here is the original comment but I did not record the username, so sadly I can’t credit them

If testosterone is a PED and it doesn’t matter if the athlete is cis or not, then there should be a hard limit for both male and female athletes to ensure fairness. If too much testosterone is only a problem for women then clearly it’s a sexist attempt to police women’s bodies. Every human body produces some amount of testosterone, either too much is an unfair advantage or it isn’t.

Yes, we were expecting a clue that transphobe halfwits are ignorant. Can they even define what trans is? I don’t think so.

Are you forgetting the whole subculture of “transvestigation”? They were the Q-anon conspiracy theorists before Q-anon, and even Michelle Obama was claimed to be trans by this lot.

Wasn’t this was the Ancient Greek version of gender?

a smug little prick

lmao

a mug full of cold piss

worth it

It sounds glorious!