> Synonyms of bigot
> a narrow-minded person who obstinately adheres to their own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership
I merely shared a behaviorial observation of something I find odd. At no time did I react with prejudice or hate towards any particular group.
"favourable book review of someone that has unproven and controversial but absolutely not fringe views" imagine saying this in 1930 and suddenly it doesn't sound as innocent.
WhatsApp is a fact of life in locales like Europe, India and Indonesia. There is literally no avoiding it if you want to have a job or function in society.
I don't use Meta products, and haven't for many years. But I still have a Facebook account, because a) deleting it would be a fairly rigorous process, and b) as long as I maintain the account, I have some control over the information about me that Meta maintains; if I deleted the account, they would maintain a "shadow profile" for me that I had no control over, and (for instance) any photos tagged as containing me, I would not be able to go in and untag.
> It’s even easier to delete your WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook accounts.
Unfortunately, it's not, at least for Whatsapp.
That's a part of the issue - as there is no open access federation requirement, there are messenger islands. Whatsapp for the non-tech folks, Telegram for those who either are wary of Meta, want gambling, or a service decidedly not affiliated with the American judicial sphere, Signal and Threema for the utter nerds/journalists/activists, iMessage for the Apple crowd, or the now-defunct rich bro network of Blackberry. SMS, MMS or its replacement RCS that the carriers are trying (and failing) to push, I don't even count these given how faded to irrelevance they all are. Oh, and then there are (particularly in the Asian market) all the country specific "everything in one"-apps that Musk tried and failed to convert X to.
And particularly among the non-tech folks, no way to get them to use anything but Whatsapp. Network effects are a thing, hence the EU's push to break up the walled gardens at least a tiny tiny bit, but it will take years until it's implemented.
Ok sure, delete Instagram and Facebook then. That seems easier to start, no?
But you're assuming these messaging apps are something we need and have to have and then solving backward from there.
While I certainly recognize that a society may have made the mistake of going all-in on a proprietary app in order to participate in society (whoops!), I can tell you for a fact that it's not required for any given society to function because I don't have any of these apps and just use SMS and e-mail and I am able to work, coordinate events with friends, make dinner reservations, and send funny videos. I can also vouch for the United States, specifically that such apps aren't required.
So we can clearly separate out that we don't need these apps to function as a society - we can go back to the question of morality. In the US if you are "against" Meta or Mark Zuckerberg or whatever, you can just delete the apps because you don't need them.
This poster is a well known transphobic troll that makes new accounts every week and implies that trans women are autistic males who "pretend" to be women because of sexism.
That being said, saying presenting instead of being is not ideal indeed.
I completely disagree, I find this claim to also be unsupported by the current evidence. Identity is only a part of being trans and often comes much later.
In the 2010s there was a sort of emancipation for trans people, and you could see them more and more often being openly involved with open source software. It is only natrual to want to turn open source communities to be explicitly accepting.
Not convinced trans (especially trans women) weren't already over-represented prior as open source allows low barriers to join and anonymity on top of predominantly male (and trans women) + young.
You may not be convinced but I am simply stating my experience. I would be open to proof of the opposite. This is also seen in other open source adjacent communities around the world (eg: hacker conventions)
> In the 2010s there was a sort of emancipation for trans people, and you could see them more and more often being openly involved with open source software
It was "your" claim about others and in general ("you could see"), i.e., not mine or your anecdotal awareness.
> I would be open to proof of the opposite.
It's on you to prove LGBT, especially T, weren't already over-represented (versus typical population) in open source prior to the 2010s.
I can't possibly be the victim of anything as long as you stick to the party line. After all, isn't doing its bidding new morality, and isn't its opposition nothing but evil ghouls? </sarcasm>
If I really hated people, perhaps I would suggest to troubled ones that hating their own body to the point of mutilating it is the solution to their problems
Keeping it strictly medical and requiring a surgical procedure that only the most dedicated would choose seems a lot more reasonable than the western idea of basing it off identity and having basically no gatekeeping.
Depends on if one agrees with that ECtHR judgment.
Considering that Article 8 of the ECHR is framed as a negative right (as in freedom from coercion and interference):
> Right to respect for private and family life
> 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
> 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Then it seems odd that the ECtHR decided, at some point, to start interpreting it as a positive right (as in obliging specific actions to be taken), in this case the argument that anyone should be free to instruct the state to change their sex marker on state-issued identity documentation, with minimal restrictions attached.
Also they seem to have disregarded that permitting this may have significant repercussions on the rights and freedoms of others, depending on what exactly this sex marker permits an individual to do in any particular jurisdiction, i.e. accessing services and facilities restricted to those of that sex.
I’m not, but I know quite a few people who are. I’ve seen too many people regret it after surgery. Sometimes I even think the evaluation requirements aren’t strict enough.
People that you know personally or propaganda that you saw online? And what perventage of these cases was due to bad surgical outcomes? (Potentially due to surgeon incompetence)
Because I really doubt that you personally know many trans people in this category.
> Sometimes I even think the evaluation requirements aren’t strict enough.
According to the NIH, the regret rates for transgender surgeries are somewhere in the region of 1%. Regret rates for knee surgery are somewhere in the region of 10%. The evaluation requirements for knee surgeries should be way higher then, surely, if even 1% is too much?
Nice to see something as simple as this is enough to filter bigots away!
reply