No, it’s not socially acceptable. Yes, I wish it were.

Like, does this mean you are afraid of other people you don’t know judging you, or that you or your friends find it socially unacceptable?

Either way that seems to be more of an individual problem rather than a social one. I am physically affectionate with my friends and have never been confronted about it by a member of the public , not that I would really care if I were. People be dumb, I’m not going to let someone else’s projected homophobia dictate my friendship.

It’s actually pretty plausible, the first wave of Japanese people to immigrate to California and Hawaii was in the 1860s. By the 1900 census there were nearly 25k Japanese people living on the West Coast.

You wouldn’t need anything that extravagant, you could reasonably find all these people in California in the late 1800’s. The earliest Japanese immigrants to California happened in the 1860’s. After the gold rush people from all over the world flocked to Cali.

It’s enough for me to know that the one who brought that rhetoric into a portion of my friend group, an acquaintance of mine (I won’t call her a friend) actually does mean it, or at least says she does.

Right, but isn’t making a judgment call on feminism in general, based on a single anecdotal experience a bit dramatic?

I have tons of personal experience with racism, I don’t automatically associate all white people with the actions of a few radicals.

It shifted me away from self-indentifying as feminist. Nowadays, I say I’m pro-gender-equality, and embrace the values of classic feminism if someone asks.

I think that’s really damaging to the social fabric of progressive politics. I don’t think that anyone who actually studies feminism holds real ill will to all men, it’s just not cohesive with the ideas of mutual support feminism was founded upon.

Corrupting the social understanding of feminism has been the long term goal of conservative politics for decades. I don’t think there are many people who hold true to this ideology, I just think the ones who do are having their voices amplified by conservative media. And I think the point of this amplification is to interrupt class consciousness among young men, and to make them more sensitive to this messaging.

I’m not claiming everyone who has a reaction to the problematic generalization of political language is a woman hating conservative. I just think they’re unwittingly amplifying a conservative campaign aimed against protecting women’s rights.

Lol, are you this overdramatic every time someone disagrees with you? I think you may be a bit sensitive when encountering criticisms, which may explain the whole taking the generalization of men personally.

All I’m really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just “men” when making complaints about certain men. It doesn’t need to be precise, just clear enough that it’s obvious that all men aren’t the target of criticism

Right, but isn’t it a bit far fetched to be taken literally? That there are a significant amount of women who hate every man in their life?

If I said men love sports, would you demand me pretext that with “not all men”?

I’m not doing that. I’m making my point in a thread that’s specifically about why feminism is often seen in a bad light. Where else could I possibly find a more appropriate venue for such a criticism?

That was in reference to the “not all men” rhetoric.

I’m saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.

Maybe that means you may be overreacting?

I know better than to say “not all men”. You’re missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me.

You’re just validating their interpretation?

It’s about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because they’re men.

I think people whom think that way are just finding pedantic reasons to be upset at something they already have made opinions about.

You don’t need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.

Not trying to convince you of anything besides my original retort, communication about politics is hard. Just look at our conversation.

How so? I’m criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that I’m taking about that subset of women, not women in general.

Idk, you said" a lot of women" and “I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted turn I do”, not exactly specific language.

prevalent enough that I’ve encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. It’s also prevalent enough that it’s a common complaint from men.

Again, anecdotal evidence. I have not experienced this, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Assuming that all societal discourse is reflection of your own experience is a product of reductive reasoning.

They do need to stop.

Right, but who are you making that request to? If a woman randomly yelled out to you that misogynist men needed to be cast out of society, what assumptions would you make? How different would it be if they just specified men, not misogynist men?

My point is that actual productive discourse requires context, nuance, and patience. That even if you are talking to a person who doesn’t utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesn’t automatically mean that their point is moot. Nor does it really mean they were unintentionally making a claim.

If someone is making a claim like “men evil” and there is surrounding context that should lead you to believe that this is not a literal statement, like them having a boyfriend or being married to a man…isn’t saying “not all men” pedantic? Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?

But I didn’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric

Couldn’t your need for specified absolution be an example of internalized misanthropy? One could assume that people who do not self associate with accusations intended for misogynists, have no real need for this type of pedantic relief.

Again, my whole point that political discourse is exceedingly hard. And it’s made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isn’t being specific enough for their taste.

How hard is it for critics of toxic masculinity to just say what they actually mean instead of saying a bunch of blatantly sexist things things and then claiming they meant something else when they’re called on it?

Tbh, pretty difficult. At least for the vast majority of people. Putting together a comprehensive argument pertaining to socioeconomics or politics without it being full of internal contradictions is nearly impossible. Especially if your ideological framework isn’t accounting for things like class consciousness.

For example, you are complaining about the reductive reasoning that leads to people make a bunch of sexist claims. However, you yourself utilized reductive thinking to come to that conclusion.

How prevalent is this attitude among feminist? Is this a majority or minority opinion, and if it is a minority opinion, how impactful is it? If it is just a few people making a lot of noise, is it fair to really judge half the global population for it? It is essentially the same “Schrodinger’s douchebag” you were speaking about.

Women who do this need to fucking stop, because they’re draining enthusiasm from their male allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.

Is essentially the same as saying the men who are misogynist need to stop because they are draining enthusiasm from their female allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.

None of these are actual solutions to problems, they don’t even really identify a problem, it’s just rhetoric.

Which is why some men are becoming “anti-feminist”. It’s not that they’re anti-women, it’s that they are anti-“A movement that tells them they are the source of all problems and offers them no support”.

I think the problem is more inherent in how America interprets liberalism. We don’t include things like class consciousness into liberal ideology, here it’s all about addressing specific systemic inequalities between certain demographics.

When you define liberalism as only fixing these inequalities then of course a large population of men aren’t going to involve themselves, they don’t reap any benefit, they’re not experiencing any systemic abuse.

However, if we accommodate socioeconomic realities of class into the equation, things start making a bit more sense. By protecting the most disadvantaged demographic in your class, you also strengthen your own interests.

I think it’s important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you aren’t participating in misogyny, then they really aren’t talking about you. They just aren’t vocalizing the division in class that separates us all from the reigns of power.

T-bills are highly liquid.

Depending on what maturity rate you choose. I think the shortest is little over a month?

kept it in the SP500

Not super liquid if you are considering taxes.

The 400m dollar amount is based on an audit conducted in 2021, where it listed him having around 298m. The total of 400 was an estimate based on his income and liabilities since that time.

I for one highly doubt that he has 400m in liquidity. Not because he’s incapable of raising that much wealth, but because it’s an incredibly dumb move to keep 400m in cash. There’s no financial benefit like meaningful interests rates, and it doesn’t offer any tax benefits.

Even if he has kept it in partial liquidity like a money market account or Treasury bills, the amount and the timelines may not allow for him to access the totality of his funds in time.

We recently had a person from the hospital cleaning services throw away a 240k prosthetic limb. I felt really bad for the dude, because the prosthetist who was working with it is always super messy, and we do throw away a lot of weird looking stuff. The guy even tried going out to the dumpster and dug around for it.

We convinced the hospital not to fire the guy despite having to file a police report for insurance purposes. Unfortunately, he ended up being let go a couple months later for “unrelated” circumstances.

The student loan forgiveness was swatted down because he technically didn’t really have the authority to do so, Congress typically holds the power of the purse. Rescheduling isn’t at risk of violating the separation of power as the DEA is under the purview of the executive.

Yeah… I don’t know where the claim that the navy has more pilots than the Air Force came from? The Air Force has more than 20k active duty pilots, while the Navy only has around 7k.

And art should be accessible to everyone, not just the wealthy. There’s a reason that piracy almost died out completely and then came back with a vengeance. People don’t mind paying a reasonable price for art, the prices and accessibility of art has just become unfeasible.

Like OG aluminum, this is going to be crazy expensive at first, but in a century it’ll likely be cheap and we’ll see it replacing glass in the most mundane uses.

I doubt that it’s ever going to be super affordable, or be used in something as common as a phone. The price constraints on aluminum were due to the amount of energy it takes to produce. The transparent aluminum is a bit more complicated.

From the article it appears the fabrication is mold dependent, which always increases production cost. So you have to fabricate a mold for any new component. You then have to then pressurize the powder at 15k pounds per square inch, and then heat aluminum powders at 2000 degrees Celsius for 2 days.

Your views are completely ignorant to what the entire point of the fediverse even is.

I think you are missing his point, that the fediverse in large parts is failing to live up to its own aspirations. Yes, of course the people who gravitated to the fediverse expect more independence and self organization, but I think people also expected some semblance of cooperation and community.

It feels like instead of having one large empire ruled by an emperor, we’re instead in a divided land ruled by hundreds of kings. The abuses are the same, but more localized.

Yes you can move on to the next realm once you make an enemy of some minor tyrant, but this also forces people to be more transient. Which isn’t amicable to creating a long lasting community with lots of engagement.

Reddit has it’s problems, everyone here already knows that. But, that shouldn’t prevent us from engaging in self criticism about the fediverse. A system that can’t be criticized is a system doomed to stagnation.

This will be the next big class action suit similar to tobacco. Big sugar has been operating just like tobacco, denying negative side effects and lobbying at state and federal levels to stifle bans and regulatory actions.

America is on the verge of a sytemeic failure when it comes to health care, and a lot of that is due to the prevalence of diabetes in our aging population.

Right now one in every three medicare dollars goes towards treating diabetes, a perfectly preventable disease. It’s not sustainable, and it’s literally siphoning off our ability to treat other ailments.