“pride_colors lol_comments”

I have never had a more aggravating experience online, got me logged off expeditiously.

Trans Rights Forever

zerox3d said:
“pride_colors lol_comments”

I have never had a more aggravating experience online, got me logged off expeditiously.

Trans Rights Forever

You can just set the comment threshold to like -10 and not have to see dipshits. The Report button also gets quite a workout whenever I see bigotry. Really, though, I see it as a good sign that hate is less and less popular, even if we're currently dealing with a moronic moral panic.

Third daily back to back thread complaining about site content, let's keep the streak running.
(This is a joke.)

lgbt posts get me into trouble...
I get a lil fired up. The comments don't help
considering it's the comments that bait me.
And my opinion isn't really welcomed either, tbh.
I try to stay away from such posts.

thats art

likeilaughedalotilovedit

For "non-political" rage, simply add "order:comment_count" to any search for something contentious, like "3d animated feral human", "young -rating:s", or "~gore ~snuff", to have a really fun* time.
_{*Actual existence of fun is not guaranteed. Fun is not transferable. Fun combusts in the presence of anti-homeless architecture.}

for lazy ppl pride_colors lol_comments

If I wanna have a laugh I simply look up politics.

If you think that's bad, you wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes on early 2000's internet. Lol

To my knowledge, most people already use this site to get themselves off

binagon said:
To my knowledge, most people already use this site to get themselves off

And transphobes are the biggest chasers out there.

I rarely comment ever, but there is so much wrong with this site ethically I would probably be banned or warned for saying much more

Last I checked though, trans rights aren't political issues lol

I've heard rumors the best hack to remove yourself from the internet in general is to have a healthy social life, can't verify though as I've never had one.

koosbabbi said:
I rarely comment ever, but there is so much wrong with this site ethically I would probably be banned or warned for saying much more

Last I checked though, trans rights aren't political issues lol

As a consequentialist, I don't really see anything ethically wrong with e621, per se. There's certain decisions I disagree with but they're certainly not making the world a worse place in a material sense.

Literally everything is political. Particularly given that one of the two major parties in US politics is actively working towards a trans genocide.

versperus said:
I've heard rumors the best hack to remove yourself from the internet in general is to have a healthy social life, can't verify though as I've never had one.

It's very difficult to touch grass if you don't see any because you don't live in a walkable city. I hate the US being so carbrained. (/r/fuckcars)

peacethroughpower said:
It's very difficult to touch grass if you don't see any because you don't live in a walkable city. I hate the US being so carbrained. (/r/fuckcars)

Lack of grass is an urban metropolis thing, not an carbrain thing. It turns out densely packing your cities to maximize land use is fundamentally at odds with leaving empty undeveloped land covered in grass. Tokyo is famously walkable - it also has nearly zero grass outside of parks and green belts.

The following are separate problems:

- Carbrained zoning laws that hate mixed zoning and make cities unwalkable
- Urban developers being allergic to "wasted space"

peacethroughpower said:
Literally everything is political.

I would not want to live in a world where everything is political.

Fortunately, I don’t.

scaliespe said:
I would not want to live in a world where everything is political.

Fortunately, I don’t.

You do, though. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that everything is political.

peacethroughpower said:
You do, though. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that everything is political.

If everything is political, wouldn't that make it a moot point to use the word to cover that broadly? When people say political they typically mean divisive, and not everything is divisive.

rainbow_dash said:
If everything is political, wouldn't that make it a moot point to use the word to cover that broadly? When people say political they typically mean divisive, and not everything is divisive.

Not necessarily. It's more that people who benefit or are not harmed by the status quo don't want to acknowledge or talk about people who are harmed by it. For instance, someone who points out a minority group faces certain disadvantages is often criticized for "making things political". That minority group and its challenges still exist, the majority just doesn't want to acknowledge it.

If people say political to mean something else entirely, I would suggest they use more precise language before anything else.

peacethroughpower said:
You do, though. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that everything is political.

Tell me of the politics of me falling asleep on the toilet.

votp said:
Tell me of the politics of me falling asleep on the toilet.

Well, why did you fall asleep? Are you exhausted from having to hold multiple jobs to support a family? Do you have a drug addiction and can't get proper help for it? Are you narcoleptic and lack insurance for meds? All of those possibilities are political.

Who manufactured the toilet? Who laid the plumbing necessary for it? It was likely someone engaging in wage labor and thus having their surplus value stolen. That's how capitalism works. That's political.

You have running water, right? Much of the world doesn't. Maybe your pipes have lead because your city won't fund new, safer ones. Maybe prices are getting higher due to climate change and you're lucky enough to still afford it. All of those are political.

Maybe you stink up the bathroom because of some dangerous, unregulated additive that the State refuses to ban due to corporate bribes. That's political.

Were you able to use the appropriate bathroom for your gender? Some states make that a crime. That's political.

Just scratch beneath the surface.

peacethroughpower said:
Not necessarily. It's more that people who benefit or are not harmed by the status quo don't want to acknowledge or talk about people who are harmed by it. For instance, someone who points out a minority group faces certain disadvantages is often criticized for "making things political". That minority group and its challenges still exist, the majority just doesn't want to acknowledge it.

If people say political to mean something else entirely, I would suggest they use more precise language before anything else.

That's what I mean. That's not how people use that word in common parlance, and common parlance is typically not precise language.

Pulling adjacent political topics on typically non politicized issues is disingenuous to call everything political. It's not that I am ignoring a minority group, it's that my choice of ice cream is not immediately related to that to any significant degree.

If I roll into work tomorrow and say I didn't sleep well last night, you would be the one office worker to say that's political because any of the following:
1. I may have a sleep disorder and we don't have accessible health care in this country
2. Perhaps I was kept awake by the sound of cars because zoning is poor where I live
3. Maybe I have a stressful job and don't get paid enough, therefor I get poor sleep
4. Any other host of issues that are political but not relevant

You are taking benign issues, scratching to the bottom of a lake, and dredging up the political bits that were largely unrelated, then going back and saying because C is political, by extension so is A via B.
No, not everything is political. You drag waaay too much seepage of contention into things. It's rather tiresome actually.

votp said:
Tell me of the politics of me falling asleep on the toilet.

You've passed the vibe check

rainbow_dash said:
That's what I mean. That's not how people use that word in common parlance, and common parlance is typically not precise language.

Pulling adjacent political topics on typically non politicized issues is disingenuous to call everything political. It's not that I am ignoring a minority group, it's that my choice of ice cream is not immediately related to that to any significant degree.

If I roll into work tomorrow and say I didn't sleep well last night, you would be the one office worker to say that's political because any of the following:
1. I may have a sleep disorder and we don't have accessible health care in this country
2. Perhaps I was kept awake by the sound of cars because zoning is poor where I live
3. Maybe I have a stressful job and don't get paid enough, therefor I get poor sleep
4. Any other host of issues that are political but not relevant

You are taking benign issues, scratching to the bottom of a lake, and dredging up the political bits that were largely unrelated, then going back and saying because C is political, by extension so is A via B.
No, not everything is political. You drag waaay too much seepage of contention into things. It's rather tiresome actually.

Okay, so, how would you objectively prove that, in common parlance, when people say "political" they mean "divisive"? Unless you can provide some form of objective proof, it essentially just becomes two people contradicting each other.

It's not adjacent, so much as under the surface, or buried. It's hidden to most people because they don't scratch beneath the surface. Think vertical, not horizontal.

Here's the definition of "disingenuous", as defined by dictionary.com.

adjective

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

I've provided absolutely nothing lacking in frankness, candor or sincerity, nor have I stated anything falsely or hypocritically ingenuous or insincere. Everything I've said is my genuine belief and I've backed it up to the best of my ability.

Choices of ice cream are, indeed, political, given that it's manufactured under capitalism, the availability of labor or certain goods is a factor to what is available and indeed, some manufacturers may engage in boycotts. https://www.benjerry.com/about-us/media-center/opt-statement This is sure as hell political!

If you were a coworker and you mentioned being tired, I'd likely only bring up the political aspects if it came up in some other way, as it has here. I only brought up plumbing, wage labor, availability of proper healthcare and lead in pipes because I was specifically asked to do so. Perhaps in the sense of unionization. (This only even started because someone said trans rights weren't political, when, by definition, they absolutely are!) If other coworkers disagree with me and one says I'm wrong because of that, it's just an argumentum ad populum. Climate change is objectively a problem and evolution is objectively true, even if only 53% of the American population acknowledges them.

I've provided pretty objective proof that everything is political. If you choose not to acknowledge that, well, I have no control over that, but it's not a defeater to my point.

I would also add that I'm not the only one who believes this, if you would prefer not to take it from me.

https://daily.jstor.org/paul-krugman-everything-is-political/
https://jacobin.com/2022/01/hyper-politics-annie-ernaux-moralism-identity-media-individualization
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/05/15/everything-political-but-politics-isnt-everything/101591696/

peacethroughpower said:
snip

How do you have the extra energy to attempt to rile the populous as frequently as you do?

versperus said:
How do you have the extra energy to attempt to rile the populous as frequently as you do?

I set up an IV bag next to my desk and every so often I top it up with coffee, Monsters and occasionally some melted Ben & Jerry's.

peacethroughpower said:
Okay, so, how would you objectively prove that, in common parlance, when people say "political" they mean "divisive"? Unless you can provide some form of objective proof, it essentially just becomes two people contradicting each other.

It's not adjacent, so much as under the surface, or buried. It's hidden to most people because they don't scratch beneath the surface. Think vertical, not horizontal.

Here's the definition of "disingenuous", as defined by dictionary.com.

adjective

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

I've provided absolutely nothing lacking in frankness, candor or sincerity, nor have I stated anything falsely or hypocritically ingenuous or insincere. Everything I've said is my genuine belief and I've backed it up to the best of my ability.

Choices of ice cream are, indeed, political, given that it's manufactured under capitalism, the availability of labor or certain goods is a factor to what is available and indeed, some manufacturers may engage in boycotts. https://www.benjerry.com/about-us/media-center/opt-statement This is sure as hell political!

If you were a coworker and you mentioned being tired, I'd likely only bring up the political aspects if it came up in some other way, as it has here. I only brought up plumbing, wage labor, availability of proper healthcare and lead in pipes because I was specifically asked to do so. Perhaps in the sense of unionization. (This only even started because someone said trans rights weren't political, when, by definition, they absolutely are!) If other coworkers disagree with me and one says I'm wrong because of that, it's just an argumentum ad populum. Climate change is objectively a problem and evolution is objectively true, even if only 53% of the American population acknowledges them.

I've provided pretty objective proof that everything is political. If you choose not to acknowledge that, well, I have no control over that, but it's not a defeater to my point.

I would also add that I'm not the only one who believes this, if you would prefer not to take it from me.

https://daily.jstor.org/paul-krugman-everything-is-political/
https://jacobin.com/2022/01/hyper-politics-annie-ernaux-moralism-identity-media-individualization
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/05/15/everything-political-but-politics-isnt-everything/101591696/

Sadly, you still pull in unrelated or irrelevant nonsense and run with it. Ice cream is hardly political because the sum of its products down the line have political issues associated with them, and I don't think you are able to see that, or just choose to ignore it. Also, stating that language works objectively, pretty much means you objectively do not understand that that is not how languages work in societies.

Oh well.

rainbow_dash said:
Sadly, you still pull in unrelated or irrelevant nonsense and run with it. Ice cream is hardly political because the sum of its products down the line have political issues associated with them, and I don't think you are able to see that, or just choose to ignore it. Also, stating that language works objectively, pretty much means you objectively do not understand that that is not how languages work in societies.

Oh well.

Everything I said quite literally is related and relevant, though. How do you think we have toilets and running water? Or ice cream? You can't just pretend we magiced these things out of nothing, convenient as that would be. Having these things relies on exploitation and political modes of organization. Choose not to acknowledge this if you want, but that's not an argument for me being unable or unwilling to acknowledge anything. If anything, I'm far more willing to acknowledge truths. The entirety of the Global North is based off of exploitation of the Global South, and that is as political as it gets.

I am a linguistic descriptivist, however, there are absolutely more objective ways to analyze how words are used. That's what etymologists do, after all. For instance, you can look at usage frequency and context. The point I was trying to make is that if "political" means "divisive", then, well, I'd love to see proof of that because I've never heard it before.

Let me put it this way. Sportsball teams are divisive. Does that make them political?

peacethroughpower said:
You do, though. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that everything is political.

I think you misunderstood the purpose of my statement. In the world YOU live in, everything is political. In the world I live in, nothing is political outside of politics itself, ie. elections and presidential debates and such. Are you seeing where I'm going with this now?

You state that "everything is political" like it's an objective fact, but that's not even a falsifiable statement. Everything is political in the same exact way that everything is spiritual to a religious person, or everything is a conspiracy to a conspiracy theorist, or everything is psychological to a psychologist. You see the world through a particular lens, and everything you see and experience is interpreted via that lens. We all do that in some way or another, but your lens is politics. Your "proof" is very good evidence of this, and the articles you provided are just other hyper-political people who see the world through the same lens that you do. You aren't seeing things objectively, exactly as they are with no filter - nobody can do that. It's a fact of psychology that everybody interprets everything in their own way before even being conscious of it. It's just that your filter is highly political. So you see any inherently non-political thing, and find some incredibly tangential connection to politics because those are the connections that align with your biases and beliefs. I could find such connections if I wanted to, but I don't generally see them because I don't look for them because I regard them as meaningless. So again, I live in a non-political world because I choose to. I studied psychology in school, and my interpretation of things is mostly psychological. Even politics I see as nothing more than psychological forces at play. Mostly as a festering ground for humanity's darkest desires and as a pseudo-religion for atheistic fanatics to exercise their fanaticism without having a religion to be fanatical about - that zealotry, too, being nothing more than a psychological drive that manifests in a certain percentage of the population, whether it be in service of a religion or a political party. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that everything is psychological.

...anyway, this thread is starting to get a little out of hand, so don't be surprised if it gets locked soon. Political discussions generally aren't a good idea here as they easily devolve into pointless bickering, and we don't want that.

edit so I don’t have to make a new reply: I think you’re still missing the point- it’s all perception. Everything can be viewed through the lens of politics if you so choose, just as it can be viewed through the religious or psychological or any other lens. Because everything that exists has some extremely tangential and irrelevant connection to all of these subjects. But none of that changes the arrangement of atoms that make up the objects of the physical world. It has no bearing on the things in themselves. Everything is physics and chemistry if you want to perceive the world through that lens, but even that is merely a subjective interpretation of objective reality.

To say that I don’t regard the world as political doesn’t mean I ignore the political aspects of it; I just don’t prioritize the political over the physical, the chemical, the emotional, the historical, or the psychological aspects that are also involved. To identify and prioritize the political aspect beyond all of the other aspects that make up the landscape of our perception of the world is the true myopia.

I hope everyone has a good day, Dood!
◠‿◠)~★

scaliespe said:
I think you misunderstood the purpose of my statement. In the world YOU live in, everything is political. In the world I live in, nothing is political outside of politics itself, ie. elections and presidential debates and such. Are you seeing where I'm going with this now?

You state that "everything is political" like it's an objective fact, but that's not even a falsifiable statement. Everything is political in the same exact way that everything is spiritual to a religious person, or everything is a conspiracy to a conspiracy theorist, or everything is psychological to a psychologist. You see the world through a particular lens, and everything you see and experience is interpreted via that lens. We all do that in some way or another, but your lens is politics. Your "proof" is very good evidence of this, and the articles you provided are just other hyper-political people who see the world through the same lens that you do. You aren't seeing things objectively, exactly as they are with no filter - nobody can do that. It's a fact of psychology that everybody interprets everything in their own way before even being conscious of it. It's just that your filter is highly political. So you see any inherently non-political thing, and find some incredibly tangential connection to politics because those are the connections that align with your biases and beliefs. I could find such connections if I wanted to, but I don't generally see them because I don't look for them because I regard them as meaningless. So again, I live in a non-political world because I choose to. I studied psychology in school, and my interpretation of things is mostly psychological. Even politics I see as nothing more than psychological forces at play. Mostly as a festering ground for humanity's darkest desires and as a pseudo-religion for atheistic fanatics to exercise their fanaticism without having a religion to be fanatical about - that zealotry, too, being nothing more than a psychological drive that manifests in a certain percentage of the population, whether it be in service of a religion or a political party. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that everything is psychological.

...anyway, this thread is starting to get a little out of hand, so don't be surprised if it gets locked soon. Political discussions generally aren't a good idea here as they easily devolve into pointless bickering, and we don't want that.

You live in a world with plumbing and ice cream, too. The way we get those things is political, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it. You can choose to ignore everything outside of electoralism if you so choose - it's very limited and myopic - but that's not something I have control over.

I've provided a hell of a lot of evidence for my assertion that everything is political. It would be falsifiable if we just magiced plumbing and ice cream out of nothing, but we don't. We rely on human organization for these things, and that's inherently political. No one has proven religion or various conspiracy theories, so I don't regard them as anything but delusions. As for psychology, that actually has basis in fact and material reality so it's perfectly valid to apply your education to that. We are in a society of humans, after all. Human psychology is what drives it.

Dude, I wish that Paul Krugman and Jacobin had the exact same views I do, but they don't. I just wanted to emphasize that I'm not just making this up, personally. The third guy also has a very, very different worldview than mine, but on this specific idea, he is correct.

(Le Reddit Atheists are also completely correct about their criticisms and worldview towards religion, by the way. The stereotype was just made up as a way to avoid having to actually deal with their arguments.)

But yes, much as I enjoy going full debatebro, it's not surprising if it ends in a lock.

But what if the suffocating tension is extrinsic?
That politics, in and of itself, is not the immediate source, but rather it's commercial value? That it's an incredibly powerful way to latch on to a consumer in order to offer a wide range of goods and services or, in the case of Social Media, to simply bait users into generating data? Much like how Ratings worked in television?

What if a consequence of that exploitation is pavlovian conditioning, and it's maximalism has induced further radicalisation? Or in a lot of cases, fatigue? Maybe even Agoraphobia? A fear to even engage in politics that ultimately transforms into a learned helplessness?

People have always held strong beliefs, but they've never been easier to form, appeal to, utilize, or make money off of. Even when they've learned to reel away and cower, because that just makes Public Relations simpler to manage and control.

peacethroughpower said:
Well, why did you fall asleep? Are you exhausted from having to hold multiple jobs to support a family? Do you have a drug addiction and can't get proper help for it? Are you narcoleptic and lack insurance for meds? All of those possibilities are political.

I fell asleep because I'm old.

Who manufactured the toilet? Who laid the plumbing necessary for it? It was likely someone engaging in wage labor and thus having their surplus value stolen. That's how capitalism works. That's political.

Ifö made the toilet, I put in the domestic-end plumbing myself.

You have running water, right? Much of the world doesn't. Maybe your pipes have lead because your city won't fund new, safer ones. Maybe prices are getting higher due to climate change and you're lucky enough to still afford it. All of those are political.

It's a well.

Maybe you stink up the bathroom because of some dangerous, unregulated additive that the State refuses to ban due to corporate bribes. That's political.

I can't eat the sorts of shit that have weird additives because most of them have wheat anyway.

Were you able to use the appropriate bathroom for your gender? Some states make that a crime. That's political.

I assure you, the SS isn't going to kick down my door and send me to a prison camp for shitting in my own bathroom.

Just scratch beneath the surface.

You sound exhausting to put up with and like you're ten seconds away from screaming "wake up sheeple" and screeching about reptilian shapeshifters.

votp said:
I fell asleep because I'm old.

Ifö made the toilet, I put in the domestic-end plumbing myself.

It's a well.

I can't eat the sorts of shit that have weird additives because most of them have wheat anyway.

I assure you, the SS isn't going to kick down my door and send me to a prison camp for shitting in my own bathroom.

You sound exhausting to put up with and like you're ten seconds away from screaming "wake up sheeple" and screeching about reptilian shapeshifters.

Okay, who made the pipes and plumbing? Who made the well? I highly doubt you personally did absolutely everything involved in making a bathroom.

Some people are exhausted by the truth and choose not to acknowledge it. That's not within my control. I would, however, add that none of this actually defeats my argument.

koosbabbi said:
I rarely comment ever, but there is so much wrong with this site ethically I would probably be banned or warned for saying much more

Last I checked though, trans rights aren't political issues lol

Your work place is probably more unethical than an image board of all things.

peacethroughpower said:
Some people are exhausted by the truth and choose not to acknowledge it. That's not within my control.

"I am the enlightened one and everyone else is just willingly blind to the truth."

I would, however, add that none of this actually defeats my argument.

Your "argument" is that you have a definition that is technically correct, and are asserting that being technically correct means your definition is useful.
It is technically correct that avian should imply dinosaur on e6, but this is not considered useful by e6.

potentialgoat said:
"I am the enlightened one and everyone else is just willingly blind to the truth."

Your "argument" is that you have a definition that is technically correct, and are asserting that being technically correct means your definition is useful.
It is technically correct that avian should imply dinosaur on e6, but this is not considered useful by e6.

This but unironically.

It's more useful than you'd think, if people are actually willing to acknowledge what goes into building the society we have. e621 tagging doesn't have the same capitalist systems of organization and labor that society does, therefore, that's a false equivalence. If you want plumbing and ice cream, though, that entails human labor to make it, and that's inherently political.

peacethroughpower said:
This but unironically.

It's more useful than you'd think, if people are actually willing to acknowledge what goes into building the society we have. e621 tagging doesn't have the same capitalist systems of organization and labor that society does, therefore, that's a false equivalence. If you want plumbing and ice cream, though, that entails human labor to make it, and that's inherently political.

Ah... but are the e621 staff the bourgeois?

votp said:
Ah... but are the e621 staff the bourgeois?

No, because they're not making a profit off of owning this site, per se. Bad Dragon, perhaps, but I don't really know much about how that is organized. Tagging and uploading is entirely on a volunteer basis, thus, no surplus value is being extracted.

You could probably go into what entails electricity, server manufacturing and continual maintenance and hosting, though I don't exactly know a lot about this case in particular.

peacethroughpower said:
No, because they're not making a profit off of owning this site, per se. Bad Dragon, perhaps, but I don't really know much about how that is organized. Tagging and uploading is entirely on a volunteer basis, thus, no surplus value is being extracted.

You could probably go into what entails electricity, server manufacturing and continual maintenance and hosting, though I don't exactly know a lot about this case in particular.

You actually answered the question seriously. Okay, my brother, sister, whatever you want to go by, you really need to get off the computer, head outside, get a breath of fresh air, maybe touch some grass. Unless grass is somehow part of the capitalist agenda, touch gravel, or cement, or mulch, in that case.

votp said:
You actually answered the question seriously. Okay, my brother, sister, whatever you want to go by, you really need to get off the computer, head outside, get a breath of fresh air, maybe touch some grass. Unless grass is somehow part of the capitalist agenda, touch gravel, or cement, or mulch, in that case.

I'm autistic. I take things very literally. If the US weren't so damned carbrained (the earlier post correcting me was very appreciated, I just didn't reply because I couldn't add to it), I'd be touching grass a hell of a lot more often.

That's enough I think.

Not everything is political. The fourth subset of things doesn't automagically make everything above political. The literal definition is not the in use definition. Go somewhere with grass and then touch it. Travel to another country and be baffled by streets also filled with cars. Rise up sheeple!

There, I think that about covers it. Holy shit my brain hurts from the marathon of mental gymnastics it had to read above on why ice cream and toilets are political.