hA hA sMaLL pEnIs

Leftists bodyshaming men to criticize their fascism is some real regressive shit. It's also super off-the-mark. Bodyshaming harms all men, not just the fascists.

WhatsApp uses client-side scanning, which breaks end-to-end encryption by recording data before it gets encrypted or after it gets decrypted.

But, like everything, context matters and I believe directing harm towards “bad” people is “good”

That's not what bodyshaming does, though.

If you punch or kill a nazi, that harms the nazi.

If you joke about nazis compensating for having a small dick, then you are reinforcing the idea that small dicks are bad and something that needs to be compensated for. This harms people with small penises.

In addition, lots of nazis will have average or big dicks, and will find this kind of post laughable and irrelevant. It's not even harming them.

So, this post mainly stigmatizes men with a certain body type, and not nazis. This is not good praxis.

"Bro" I am a gay man. I love small penises. This post is reinforcing stigma around small penises, by associating them with white nationalism.

It's weird to make jokes about them. People don't need to make up for having a small penis, because it's not a flaw, so there is literally no basis for this joke other than toxic masculinity.

These comments are crazy lol.

The idea of "shallowness" is stupid. It's a normal part of human attraction to prefer people that are visually attractive, so it's unusual when people ignore that and take conventionally unattractive partners.

It's similar to having a partner who's kind of an asshole. Why would you do that? Cuz they're hot? It's just as odd and one-sided in the reverse.

Now, if you just find conventionally unattractive people to be attractive, then that's another story -- that would show that you're not making excuses for ignoring basic elements of human attraction.

Also, if you truly don't value physical attractiveness to the degree that other people do, and are not just saying that to cope with having a less beautiful partner, then that's totally fair. People are just commenting on it because for most people, physical beauty is a core part of attraction, and ignoring that fact is a big sign of denial and deeper unhappiness. But if that doesn't apply to you, then rock on.

At least when I used Craigslist, there was no social network element to it, so it was difficult to determine the trustworthiness of any given poster.

For that reason, I don't want a Fediverse clone of Craigslist -- I want an existing Fediverse platform to add a marketplace. I will not use anonymous marketplaces.

it predicts toxic masculinity 20 years before it became a widespread phenomenon

20 years before it became a widespread phenomenon

err... toxic masculinity has been mainstream since the beginning of recorded history.

Males in Athens who in adult life willingly submitted to anal penetration were derided as kinaidoi, a term of abuse which had the connotation of effeminacy.

-Professor Paul Cartledge

Yes it is. Conservatives have shown time and time again that they will vote and cheer for fascism if conditions are bad enough.

You are part of the problem. The normalization of conservative politics leads directly to fascism.

A lot of people with autism diagnoses really should look into trauma. This is a textbook trauma response.

People talking about sex is not torture. Get a grip.

I don't agree? Even in big cities, I've often seen marketplace posts from people with mutual friends, so I could easily verify their trustworthiness. In other scenarios I can at least check to see if their posting history and/or profile seems legit or if there are any red flags. Having more data helps people decide whether to trust someone, but Craigslist doesn't allow for that.

A lot of people are saying to learn to cook, but things aren't that simple. Many people know how to cook perfectly well but order out anyway, either because they're busy or because they have mental health conditions that make cooking incredibly stressful.

We need to change our economic system so that CEO bonuses aren't inflating the prices of people's food. This would make it easier for people to eat out more often if they feel they need to. It shouldn't break the bank to get simple meals at a restaurant.

Ah yes, the USSR, a state which considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder and a sign of fascism, and then subsequently criminalized it, arrested queer people, and sentenced them to years in labour camps.

People oppose communism because we don't trust authoritarians to make good decisions, and when they inevitably make bad decisions, the effects are disastrous and widespread due to how centralized the system is.

And also, the idea of "choice" is bullshit anyway. People who don't comply with their doctor's recommendations generally have reasons for doing so, such as depression, insecurity, and horrible side-effects to medication. Good healthcare finds and addresses those reasons instead of just blaming people for being affected by them.

Context doesn't justify bodyshaming, full stop.

To expand on your second point in case anyone isn't sure what you mean:

Different browsers render webpages slightly differently, because they use different "engines". The most popular browsers are Chrome or Edge, both of these which use the Blink engine, whereas Firefox uses a different engine called Gecko.

Web developers want their websites to work for most people, so they develop websites that are optimized to run in Blink, which means they sometimes don't look as intended on Gecko (Firefox). It's not Firefox's fault that developers are doing this -- of course developers want to reach the most users possible. There's nothing wrong with Gecko, either -- if it were more popular, then developers would build sites for it instead of for Blink. But, this issue of sites breaking can sometimes turn people off.

(Conversely, I develop for Firefox first, so sometimes webpages I make don't render properly in Chrome/Edge. That's not ideal, but I don't care much. I think Gecko is the better + more consistent engine, and I'm not interested in chasing mass appeal.)

Bad parenting is widespread, but far from universal.

In terms of prevalence, a worldwide meta-analysis estimated rates of 12.7% for sexual abuse, 16.3% for physical neglect, 18.4% for emotional neglect, 22.6% for physical abuse, and 36.3% for emotional abuse [3]. These data indicate that childhood maltreatment is globally widespread, affecting the lives of millions of children.

Source

Anecdotally, I've found that people with bad childhoods tend to befriend each other. Every person that I've instantly clicked with has later revealed a history of long-term childhood maltreatment. I think this is why some people see bad parenting everywhere, and others find it unthinkable.

For some reason your comment appears uncensored to me, but the top commenter's is censored.

And more than just realizing that, we need to find a realistic path to take that power away from them.

What led you to change your views?