I think downvotes with a comment are a lesser negative feedback than swearing. More like a frown or shaking your head than swearing.

Blocking or trolling is the swearing equivalent.

Since women are people, and some people believe stupidly bigoted things, it follows that some women believe the stupidly bigoted thing you describe.

None of the women I know would admit to such a belief, though.

Being cursed with a memory good enough to recall some of my math teachers, I’m absolutely willing to believe that someone as comically incompetent as you describe could be a math teacher.

AI is less a chainsaw that it is a guide-wire.

It doesn’t accelerate the actual work. It provides a fairly elaborate way to do an adjacent task, which is still entirely dependent on the actual work being done correctly.

Knowledge work is a lot more like a professional restaurant chef than it cutting down trees.

Deflation makes dollars MORE valuable, and thus discourages commerce.

Listen to your therapist over random strangers on the Internet.

And, that said, cishet women showing affection to their masculine partners is entirely ordinary, healthy, and expected.

A billion 3-inch circular tailpipes have the area of a 1.5 mile tailpipe.

Which would be… Very big.

Linguistic drift requires a considerable majority understanding, not just a large minority

By way of example, no matter how many men think “chartreuse” is a vaguely pink color or that “trans-man” includes Caitlyn Jenner, it’ll still be lime-green and Eliot Page.

Dictionaries are free to note whatever definition they want, but so is everyone else

Decimation means “lose 10%”, not “lose all BUT 10℅”

If two people suddenly quit your twenty-man team you’ve been decimated. If eight or eighteen people quit you’ve been devastated.

(Plus a bunch of “politics” and civil rights things.)

POLITELY assert your rights on the streets. If an officer asks if they can search your trunk, tell them that you would rather they didn’t.

“Do I have to” and it’s variants are deferential without necessarily ceding your rights in a way that “oh, sure” does. They don’t need any cause at all if you give permission, and if you give permission it’s going to be hard or impossible to argue later that it was an unreasonable search.

The sad truth is that you need to assume that you’re on camera whenever you interact with a police officer, act as if whatever you say will be either edited and shown to the jury or described to them out of context to justify whatever bad actions the officer takes.

100% be polite and even friendly, but 0% on “just let the officer do whatever and think you can fight it in court later.”

While I generally a fan of Wikipedia as a way to explain obscure terms people may not be familiar with, in this case I don’t think your linked article reflects a distinct concept worth seeking.

People in general are honest in their discussions. Asserting that you want to have a dedicated space for “intellectual honesty” asserts that it isn’t workable in the extant communities, and implies that the rest of us are being “intellectually dishonest” if we are “partisan” or do not pretend our beliefs do not affect how we state facts.

The internet writ large, and social media in particular, is neither a scientific journal nor academic forum nor business back-room. And biases always affect how we state facts.

Where we take each others points seriously, demonstrate we understand them, and then address them?

This isn’t how human discussions work, unfortunately. At least not outside of formal debate clubs.

Humans in general use language to understand or be understood. If you make an assertion and people “ignore” it by trolling, they are expressing that they have disdain for your position–which implies at least a coarse understanding of it.

I’ve found that essentially any place on the internet can lead to worthwhile discussions, if you simply practice the habits of ignoring the trolls and engaging with those who respond to you.

Two points worth making :

1. If the entire biosphere collapsed the resulting lifeless rock would still be the single best place for humans to live in the solar system.
2. Billionaires dont have enough money to fund a Mars colony.

I don’t think there’s anything especially offensive about recognizing that (trans)gender affirming care would be covered under an expensive definition of transhumanism. Except for two key points.

• So would eyeglasses, any dental care beyond cleaning and tooth pulling, and any surgery that includes a graft or pin.
• Transition of apparent sex is not necessary to be transgender. A transgender woman doesn’t suddenly become a cis man just because you deny her HRT.

Republican hypocrisy on the subject essentially boils down to “poors and children are property, not people.”

A worthwhile question to ask is “what are you protecting from whom?”

If you already have a Google account, especially if you have an Android phone, the ad corp already has your real name and phone number. Creating a second Google account that Google can link back to your main keeps you from thinking that Google won’t conflate the two, but it may be enough to keep internet randos from doxxing you.

Online accounts for singke-player games can burn in hell, though.

I think the world has just gotten less justifiably absurd.

While English has largely commingled conditional and unconditional love, as a Christian I feel obligated to point out that Jesus definitely doesn’'t love you because He wants to fuck you.

The key phrase is tell a lie not speak a falsehood. All the magic does here is reveal his honesty or dishonesty.

And since he eventually becomes either a real boy or ordinary puppet, it’s hardly an infinite source of wood.

~Excellent point that the only things worth invading Earth for are those things found only on Earth.~

My guess would be an ironic intentional misuse of the phrase that got out of hand.

Either “let us contemplate the utopian setting of fallout where everyone has the liberty to shoot anyone else at any time and there are robots and monsters and other cool things” or “can you believe this dystopian socialist vision where NOBODY is rich, we have to just feed everyone, and you can spend a night in jail for throwing pigs blood on a trans man who had an abortion?”

… Come to think of it, maybe the originating usage wasnt so much ironic as just ignorant.

~and yes I’m perfectly aware that what I described is probably satirical or sardonic rather than classical irony. Blame Alaniss Morissete~