Tedesche

It’s a good idea, but I’m skeptical of its efficiency in the sense that the people who approve of these cuts aren’t likely to read those op-eds. I kinda suspect a lot of those people don’t read at all.

When the primaries are over and there’s no viable third party candidate in the running, yes, third party vote = throwaway vote. Your idealist thinking is what’s short-sighted.

So, who should someone who “really cared” have voted for? To you, a vote for either viable candidate signifies apathy to the Gazan struggle, so only a throw-away vote or not voting signify true caring? Is it even possible in your mind for an American voter to care about Palestinians and the fate of their own country?

That’s good, because I’m pretty sick of you too. What an arrogant POS.

It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?

In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.

And you’re the arbiter of what constitutes “popsci bullshit” rather than the quantum physics professor? Such hubris.

I did, actually. So, what makes it “bullshit?”

That hasn’t been proven yet. All of this shit is still theoretical. AFAIK, time travel into the past isn’t possible in our current understanding of physics.

Says the random person on the internet in response to the quantum physics professor who says otherwise.

Uhm…I’ma have to disagree on that.

I really hope not. Looking at how humanity has managed this world, I think it’s for the best if the laws of physics and biology are such that we’re never able to escape our solar system.

Text from the article that talks about what most people are probably coming here to see:

The largest group—consisting of 1,976 people—shows mild challenges in core autism traits, whereas the smallest—554 people—has severe difficulties across those same traits. The other two subtypes are somewhere in between: One group specifically experiences social challenges and disruptive behavior, and the other shows developmental delay and difficulties in select traits.

People belonging to the same subtype often share the same co-occurring diagnoses, further analysis found. Those with social difficulties and disruptive behavior, for instance, are more likely than the other groups to have a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or anxiety, and those in the strongly affected group are more likely to show cognitive impairment.

Something Cohen doesn’t address is what getting the U.S. directly involved in a war with Iran would look like so close to Election Day in the U.S. It could hurt Harris’ chance for victory, and I would argue that keeping Trump out of the White House is far more important than taking advantage of a weak moment to hamstring Iran’s nuclear program.

However, I do have to say I agree that it would be great if we could somehow deal a heavy blow to Iran that cripples it further both militarily and economically. The article mentions American refueling aircraft improving the strike distance of Israeli attack fighters, which seems like an indirect way to get involved. I’m wondering if American intelligence agencies can cooperate with Mossad to successfully cripple Iran’s nuclear program, but they’re likely already sharing intel on that front.

At the end of the day, it’s imperative the U.S. doesn’t get directly involved. I personally would like to see the U.S. give Israel fewer blank checks in the form of raw arms for Netanyahu to use on hospitals and refugee camps, but we should still endeavor to find ways to help Israel hit strictly military and terrorist targets. Destroying Hamas and Hezbollah, and disarming Iran is in the interest of peace in the entire region.

It is not surprising that a community that associates and labels itself with a negative aspect of themselves would devolve into an irrational and hateful space.

So, a community about depression or addiction is doomed to devolve into irrational hatred? I don’t think I follow your logic here.

“Involuntary” means against one’s will, which in this context implies an entitlement to sex.

??? I definitely don’t see how “involuntary” implies entitlement. It just means you want it, but for one reason or another haven’t been able to get it. Entitlement reflects the attitude that you deserve it, which I don’t think the term implies.

As for your characterization of the group, when I visited the subreddit years ago, I saw posts from men complaining about overwhelming anxiety stopping them from approaching women they were attracted to, feelings of low self-esteem or body/facial image issues, and even disabled men trying to contend with how their disabilities limited their options. You’re probably right about some of them, but definitely not all of them.

It makes no sense now to act like it still has the old meaning

I mean, yes, there’s no sense in refusing to acknowledge the present association, but the meanings of words can change, and it isn’t impossible for the term ‘incel’ to return to it’s former meaning if enough people are made aware of its history.

Interesting. Thanks for the history lesson. I have a hard time believing that all of even just most of the men that initially joined her group had “concerning views” if that’s meant to refer to the misogyny we see in those most associated with the term today, but I do know that plenty of the posters I saw on the subreddit years ago when I visited were not of that ilk.

I’m not sure I agree with you though about how the term should be used. I see your point, but I think if the term was originally coined to represent people who were genuinely suffering from external circumstances that put them in the position they’re in, it should remain for them and not those who sabotage themselves via their own toxic behavior. Even if this Alana you mentioned feels otherwise, I still stand by that. People who feel entitled to sex from the people they’re attracted to are not celibate involuntarily in the same way that people who aren’t that way are. One group deserves empathy and compassion; the other deserves scorn and derision. I don’t think it’s productive or fair to the former group to use the same term for both.

That would certainly be interesting if that’s actually the case! I visited the subreddit a long time ago out of curiosity and all the posts I saw were straight men complaining about not being able to get a girlfriend, so I dunno, but maybe. There’s certainly no reason the term can’t be used for someone regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Indeed, sad but true.

I heard about it early on and actually went to visit the sub out of curiosity when it was still somewhat innocent. There were definitely misogynistic posts there already, but plenty of innocent ones as well that didn’t blame women for the outcome. I remember later on there was even a post made by one of the mods about how he was retiring from the sub, because it had been taken over by the misogynists and no longer served the purpose it was intended to. I would bet you have met men that qualify under the original definition, but who don’t identify with the label now because of what it’s come to be associated with.