There have been several documented cases already, ranging from invading privacy to harassment to actual rape.
should it happen before you acknowledge it as a problem? It's not "far left propaganda" but a fact that everyone young and left-leaning accepts. This is why we don't like JK Rowling.
TERFS acknowledge they are a *type* of women. namely a man who transitioned post hoc to take on the identity of a women. They do not dispute this. Therefor: they are not invalidating their existence as a trans women.
yes they are.. they are trans-women but they are biogically male. Sorry but thats just a fact.
no, at its core feminism is pro female. and intersectionalism is a seperate philosphy continuing to sub catagorize stuff through a post modern lens. they can go hand in hand but they're in no way *supposed* to do that by any feminist logos, ethos or pathos standard.
"trans women are women" is something you only hear from liberals, and "trans women are men" is something you only hear from conservatives and TERFs. This isn't a "circle" thing but instead a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative mindsets.first, big kudos for actually giving an attempt an explanation instead of just yelling "bigot!" and then running of
now lets get into it:
everybody in your circle accepts it blindly as truth, therefor it is not propaganda/ a narrative pushed on you
TERFs think trans women are not "real women." Also, misgendering someone is rude, a dismissal, and could be interpreted as invalidating someone's existence. (See: Jordan Peterson with Elliot Page)
Sex isn't gender.
Spend some time on a US college campus, and you will quickly realize that almost all feminism (that is legit and is taken seriously anyways) is intersectional 4th gen feminism. This type of feminism is very strongly at odds with previous gens who primarily catered toward white women. Those previous gen feminists will get called out by 4th gen feminists veeeeery quickly. Feminism and intersectionalism are indistinguishable today, and being a "feminist" without being intersectionalist (excluding minorities and LBGTQ+, especially trans) immediately leads you to not being taken seriously.
everyone reading every back and forth between @jetflag and I
I don't care if its something you hear from Santa Claus or his mindset.
yeah its because they are not. categorically, biologically and I would argue even psychologically. They are trans-women, different catagory falling in the biologically male spectrum. The TERFS are simply right in this. and you can hate them all you want for that..its not going to change the reality.
transgender rights is a non-sense term. what are those precisely? They can have the same rights like everyone else. including not getting to randomly pick your own public bathroom, showers, prisons, or olympic games, when you are of the opposite sex.
Fair enough .What I have come to learn is the exact opposite. and judging from the way both of you are "communicating" you seem both very eager to just express and hold on two your own respective "views" or ideologies and it comes out very argumentativ, and I really dont see it as fruitful. I dont see a disccussion here, just an argument without any type of settlement. Have you seen the Crowder debates? They remind me very much of them. They are not that fruitful if you ask me. I agree with his views all-in-all but I find that he's a coming out like this nice-guy-lets-have-a-frienldy-debate but I think he really just wants to feed his inner ego, but it backlashes with some of these more heated leftists so he prolly wished he never set up some of these debates in the first place. I remember when I was younger and I was so into "alternative healing/medicin haha and I would argue to death and to the end of time itself with my parents and some friends about it. I dont think it turned to anything good in the end. I harldy argue with people anymore, its completely a waste on my part. I try to avoid it as much as I can though, atleast IRL. Easier said than done on the internet, but its even more of a poisonous pit here.@Daysleeper every debate is fruitful, and despite me and @dmgtz96 being diametrically opposites more often then not.. I always find debating him insightful, fun, mutually respectful (mostly) and educational. And will infact on purpose be devils advocate for topics, just to get the noggin’ joggin’
So far you’ve been the first to express dismay of us having that here… fair enough.. if more people feel that way I’m happy to migrate the topic to a designated thread or pm
Ecactly my first thought when i just opened this page. WTF!
Wel ofcourse everybody does. But we’ve just before this has a very insightful discussion on the scientific front where we both on the general principle agree.
Usually people will just say "Sure man, just fucking do it", but it's not always that simple - you really have to make sure the sub doesn't muffle out highs and mids like my old sub did. Sure, most subs today you can set to a specific strength and that can help in some cases, but I've always found that super annoying as different medias "require" different levels.
Also depends on your room. Too much low end isnt really a profit when your room is unoptimized. I have very very little low end because I have a small room I am not able to optimize in any way. Also depends a lot if you wanna mix/master or just listen to music, if the last one is the case you have it way easier of course.
A good (sonic) podium outweighs any individual addition. I would get the acoustics of the room right first before deciding wether or not a subwoofer is needed or desirable
