Narauko

If I didn't need more proof you are trolling, after accusing me of gaslighting you come back with the "I'm sorry you feel that way". Thank you for confirming.

You know that that words can have different connotations based on how they are used, and there is a vast difference between using maybe in a sentence like "maybe you want ice cream" and "maybe you should shut up" when used in an argument.

Both still indicate a positive stance or recommendation to the other person, and "maybe you should rethink your positions" can only be taken as the speaker passive aggressively advising the other person to change said positions. Hell, it's almost impossible to find another connotation to "maybe you...", as it is almost exclusively used in a passive aggressive manner.

Attempting to claim gaslighting is a cheap cop out, like a TV mob boss saying they didn't threaten someone when they said "maybe they will encounter a little 'accident'". Gaslighting also has a definition, is a form of abuse meant to cause a person to question their sanity and grasp of reality, and I take major offense to being accused of such.

You accuse me of bigotry and either quote other people as if they were me or make up positions you say I hold for said accusations, accuse me in a round about way of white supremacy by saying I think normalness is whiteness, then accuse me of gaslighting for taking your comment as passive aggressive and want to report me for trolling? If this isn't trolling from you then I feel really sorry for you.

No, I think that being a caricature by calling anyone who you seem to think is any amount to the right of you a white supremacist bigot and misconstruing them as such by putting words in their mouth like a character made up by Fox News is what's asinine, and would be the "insult" in this case.

-Edit-

And you are seriously telling me that because I don't pass your purity test I should rethink and abandon my leftist ideals/positions and just what, go right wing? This, right here, is why you are a caricature.

I am not a conservative, I am a left leaning classical libertarian that wants universal healthcare, UBI, LGBTQ rights, safe and legal abortions, and both religion and money out of government because these are the most effective/cost effective ways for government to support the common good.

You trying to put words in my mouth such as gender and sex being the same, or that I am a bigot who thinks normal = whiteness because I point out that social media started in and is primarily used in rich Euro/Americasphere countries is why you are a caricature, and I am real sick and tired of you doing so.

Wow, you really are an absolute caricature of a social justice warrior and an ass who likes to put words in people's mouths to boot. Having the knowledge that a thing exists means you support the thing that you know exists, huh? Since you pointed out the existence of an Anglo/Eurocentric world view first I guess that must mean you think normal means whiteness and you are trying to welcome me to the club?

Now I know your trolling, pretending that the term "Global North" isn't a known shorthand for essentially the G8 and coined specifically by the left to point out the disparity with the rest of the world on a global power and economic scale

I never said that gender is identical to sex, don't go putting words in my mouth. I am not sure if you are just skimming things or intentionally reading negatively, because I did clearly say that the Global North is the target audience for most social media, including Lemmy, and thus yes, for a North American or European that does apply as "traditionally".

I have said nothing contrary to that, nor said anything about it being either my world view, the only world view, a superior world view, or anything of the sort, and you are calling me a bigot for just pointing that fact out. I fully support the idea that sex and gender are not the same, can be different, and can be fluid, but also acknowledge that the majority of humans (I'll even confidently say globally here) will have them relatively aligned and not even think about it. That is why there need to be protections for those that do, because they are a minority.

Way to go about pissing people off. Your purity test bullshit that anyone daring to discuss your individual world view is automatically a bigot must be a big hit at parties and brings people together around you. I'll go out on a limb and say you are arguing that the non-Eurocentric queernormative world view is the superior world view, and that you do not believe that could be construed as a version of bigotry of any kind because you are "right". Like the actual bigots on the other side don't feel exactly the same.

You can't use archaic as a preparative against one thing and then come back and use it as a positive for its "opposite". I read your link, it is a perfectly good link, so I guess your arguing that an archaic Indoasia-centric queernormative world view is "the way the world actually works" instead? If you think you can understand what someone is attempting to say/discuss by only half of an opening sentence, I understand why you seem to be arguing past multiple people in this thread.

Something from within the last few decades isn't really archaic, that is generally reserved for (well?) over a hundred years old or older, and the vast majority of Lemmy users are either North American or European. Anglo/Eurocentric is going to be the relative norm on social media in general outside of specific apps, and those then trend East/South East Asiacentric due to their development origin. You should not be surprised to encounter this.

Heteronormative will also currently still trend as a default since over 80% of the population identifies as such. Intersex is also somewhere around or under 1% of the population. While gender and sex can most certainly be different, at least currently the supermajority of people will have these aligned and will use them interchangeably. This shouldn't invalidate or be used to discriminate against those that aren't heteronormative by any means, but something that is true 80-90% of the time falls within the colloquial or layman's qualifications for a broad assumption of "how the world works".

The fact that intersex people get to decide their primary sex (or more likely had a doctor decide for them at birth) on government forms is somewhat analogous to 3 wheeled motor vehicles that can be registered as either a car or a motorcycle depending on the State and/or county. This does not invalidate car or motorcycle as categories, nor does it invalidate andly other means of transport.

I 100% agree with the sentiment, but you can't really compare not following religious rituals and what the religious consider murder. The existence of injustice is enough to mean something to someone. That's how empathy works.

People get up in arms over the death penalty, and I don't think it's right to tell them that if they don't like it, just don't commit a capital crime or pay attention to scheduled executions.

The same for both Ukraine and Israel/Palestine, people are demonstrating and attempting to bring their beliefs to the government. The people who have true conversations about abortion see these as equivalent.

I don't think they are blaming their religion for their voting in so much as outlining that their convictions that are informed by/in line with their religion (life begins at conception) makes abortion their largest single issue. Those of honest conviction see abortion as murder, and specifically murder of a baby, and that trumps the rest of the ticket. There are plenty of grifters and hypocrites on that side too, but I would hazard that the "silent majority" on the right are the sincere convictions type.

Can you really choose what you believe, though? Could you make yourself stop believing in gravity or anything else you truly believe in? Could you make yourself believe in flat earth if someone told you too? The mind isn't something so malleable that you get to pick and choose your beliefs like a salad bar. Religious beliefs are one of the hardest to change, with even those leaving organized religion ending up frequently still believing in a God of some kind.

I grew up in a religious household but open minded and science oriented, so I deconverted and consider myself an atheist. I whole heartedly agree that the world would be a better place without religion, it's the world's greatest con job, but let's not kid ourselves about the spectrum of the word choice here. It's a (lesser) reverse of the religious telling anyone that isn't heteronormative in any way that those are choices. It's all brain chemistry occurring in a black box that we know vanishingly little about for how much we have studied it.