Kobolds with a keyboard.
That’s pretty funny. Unfortunately for them, I and probably almost everyone else don’t really care about their brand identity, so I’ll keep calling it all velcro. I’ll also keep call all tissues Kleenex, and all adhesive bandages Band-Aids, and all the others that have become synonymous with their product. That’s what they get for being too successful, I guess.
It’s velcro all the way down!
It sticks with adhesive, and I don’t doubt it would rip wallpaper right off, but using adhesive remover before trying to pull it off lets you work it off slowly and not cause damage to paint or surfaces.
A lot of small things. I have some velcro on the wall in few rooms that I can stick a tablet to, for example. I’ve got velcro holding down a few items on my desk - a USB hub, speakers and the like, that I want to move sometimes, but that were commonly getting knocked off (by the cat). I’ve got a small whiteboard and a few places I can stick it, so I can use it to sketch something up and take it with me to our workbench, for example, and not have to precariously balance it.
All things that could be solved with other solutions, obviously, but the heavy duty velcro just happens to be a one-size-fits-all solution that leaves no permanent marks and is very convenient to set up.
A roll of really heavy duty velcro. The kind that can, for example, stick a sledge hammer to a wall. It’s about $12 for 5 feet or so, and about a 1" piece is sufficient for most tasks, so it lasts a very long time. I use it for all kinds of stuff; it’s amazing how many uses for it you find when you have it.
The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”
Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.
It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.
It wouldn’t exonerate you, unless you could prove beyond a doubt that it was you using the phone. It’d be easy, if you were planning a murder, to give an accomplice your phone and have them use it all night to cover for you. It might be able to be used in conjunction with other evidence, though, to assist in your defense.
Maybe I should have been more specific; I was trying to convey that intersex people (along with trans folks) are the two groups in that acronym for whom gender identity might be closely tied to their ‘letter’ (due to the likelihood of being misgendered); I’ll readily admit that it’s not a topic I’m super familiar with, so, apologies if I’ve not explained it well!
I have heard that small recurring donations are more helpful in general than larger one-time donations, so that’s what I tend to do - small recurring donations to services I use or creators whose content I consume. I tend to only do this when the service or content is primarily donation-supported, though.
This is also easier for me to manage, because it becomes a monthly recurring cost and I can see easily how much I’m spending on donations and adjust them as needed, whereas with larger one-time donations, I tend to lose track of how much the total is in a given period.
I have almost never felt the need to do so, in fact, I do get a bit amused by it. As I said, I do not have a notion of male/female. If someone considers me feminine, I do not feel any different. It maybe a mental thing, or again, a by product of my upbringing.
It’s more of an issue for trans folks, some of whom feel a strong disassociation with their biological sex. If someone’s trying hard to pass as a gender that doesn’t match their sex, having someone misgender them feels pretty awful.
I used to somewhat dislike english for being confusing, but it is effectively my first language. I have read/written English more than any other languages combined (4 others) and also spoken it the most/ 2nd most. I find it good enough. Especially, since it’s lingua franca in academia
Fair enough! For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have known you weren’t a native English speaker if you hadn’t said so yourself (though it did provide useful context around why you were confused about gender vs. sex!)
I want to ask one more thing, I have never asked/thought of my gender. When you say “you identify as male”, I do not know what that means, what does it mean to identify as a male or female or something else. As I wrote above, in my native tounge, there is no separation.
In your original post, you said:
I am a male, and If I get my terms correctly, I am possibly Aero Ace. I am (possibly) coming of a privilige that my percieved gender identity is same as that of what I accept myself to be.
Which I took to mean that you are biologically male, you consider yourself to be male, and your outward appearance is male. (Apologies if I misinterpreted your meaning.) ‘Identify as male’ simply means that that is your preferred gender (as in, do you prefer to be thought of / referred to as male or female), whether or not it matches your biology. It’s most applicable to trans people, who might be biologically male but identify as female (which we’d refer to as a trans woman, or more concisely, ‘a woman’), or vice versa.
As I said, I understand that I am privileged. Though I have been misgendered, mostly because my voice is quite shrill, and people often confuse me of being feminine over phones.
I didn’t mean to call you out with that comment, I was just using the term you used. :) Wasn’t throwing shade. Having a voice that doesn’t match your gender identity is a great example of why you might want to tell someone your pronouns the first time you talk to them, though (if appropriate).
Also, most people LGBTQIA+ representation in media here mostly focused on the sex part.
LGBTQIA+ relates to sexual preference (mostly), so it makes sense that it’s equated to sex.
I understand it being a difficult concept when your native language doesn’t differentiate, though. That’s pretty rough, and good on you for trying to get a better understanding of it.
If it helps with the terminology:
‘Sex’ can refer to whether someone is (biologically) a male or female - basically, whether they were born with a penis or a vagina. You typically don’t disclose this to someone when meeting them.
This is separate from gender, or ‘preferred gender’, or ‘gender identity’, which refers to what someone wishes to be referred to as. Someone’s sex can be female and their gender be male (and we’d refer to that person as a male). This is what you’d answer with if someone asked you, “Are you a girl or a boy?”
‘Sex’ can also refer to the physical act of having sex with someone, which in turn relates to the LGBTQIA+ acronym, which describes sexual preference (e.g. do you want to sleep with men or women, or both, or neither, or whatever else). I think this might be where some of the confusion comes from. English is a pretty shitty language to learn, especially as a second language.
Firstly, I think you’re conflating gender with sexual identity. Gender isn’t covered by any of the LGBTQIA2+ initials; it’s important (to some people) to inform someone of upon meeting them, because it usually relates to their preferred pronouns, and if someone appears outwardly male but prefers to be referred to as ‘They’ (or any other combination of gender + pronoun), that needs to be disclosed. You’ve probably never felt the need to do this because (as you state) you’re male and you identify as male and your outward appearance is male, so I’m going to assume you’ve never had anyone misgender you, but not everyone is so lucky - or privileged, you might say.
But this gave me the thought, that why do we not use the same pronouns for everyone (for example they/them), or maybe 2 pairs, one for formal, one informal, or 1 more pair, for singular and plural. Why do pronouns have to depend on gender?
This is just how the English language works. Personally, I’ve never met anyone who got upset if someone used a gender neutral pronoun (though I understand those people do exist). If you want to make it easy on yourself, just use They/Them for everyone; English just happens to not be too well-equipped for this, and it can cause confusion in some contexts (singular vs. plural, or when trying to single a particular person out of a crowd). Some of the other pronouns that you’ve probably heard were an attempt to create a singular gender neutral pronoun but none have really stuck in wide use.
The second part is sexual prefernces. I do not know much about sex or sexual preferences. I am a young adult, and have not had to know about this for any person that I have met yet. I have never had the interest to know about this for someone, neither have I retained this information.
This is likely because you’re ace. If you had a sexual interest in someone, you might be interested to know what gender they preferred.
I understand that if you are looking out for partner/s, then you would have to share this, so we would have to use some words for it. But why do we have to keep this as a part of gender.
We don’t. This is separate from gender. The only letters in the LGBTQIA2+ acronym that relates to gender is T, for Trans, and I for Intersex, but generally speaking trans people (who I’ve met, anyway) would prefer to just be known by their preferred gender in casual conversation, and intersex people don’t typically advertise that, either (nor should they need to).
As in, why would I want to share this information with my governments (who do census), or for my visa applications. Should this not just be something personal?
You don’t have to disclose sexual preference for either of those things, at least not where I’m from.
If a person tells me their gender, how should I react/respond to it? Is my current line of actions appropriate (just address them with their preferd pronouns, and if I do not know that, use they/them; completely ignore the sexual part of it)
You say “Okay”, and refer to them by their preferred pronoun; it’s essentially the only reason it would come up in casual conversation. Again, there’s nothing sexual about gender. Gender and sexual identity are completely separate.
Another thing that I want to ask is, why do some groups use different acronyms? I remeber hearing about this the first time, and the word used was LGBT. Then I heard LGBTQ, then LGBTQIA+, and today I heard LGBTQ2. I presume that since more people are getting aware, and they are trying to express themselves, they need some newer words, and hence the acronym would keep on evolving, if so, is it not a endless exercise? Am I being insensitive If I use one over other (for quite some time, I have been sticking with lgbtqia+, in hope that + means extensions, as in, others, so hopefully it is less excluding than others, but if that is not the case, please correct me.)
Over time, the acronym has evolved to be inclusive of more groups. That’s all there is to it. As an asexual person, you’re represented by the A (or the +). I have only a few times ever seen a shorter acronym used to specifically exclude some groups, and that shit was shut down pretty quickly by other folks who heard it. If you say “LGBTQIA+”, I highly doubt anyone will be offended or feel that you’re excluding them. (The + is indeed a general addendum meant to include anyone who is part of the community and wasn’t explicitly given a letter.)
I think strict/aggressive moderation to enforce that rule is kinda problematic
Why? If you look at the interaction OP had, he made a post in the women-only community proclaiming himself to be a man, was asked politely by a mod not to post again, posted again, and was banned. Seems this is an easy situation to avoid by simply… not posting again if asked not to.
Even if you do get banned for posting when you don’t belong, how is that any different than if you’d proactively marked the community as read-only?
Why do you feel that you have the automatic right to insert yourself into a conversation that your opinion isn’t wanted in? There’s no issue with the way they’re presenting or moderating their community; they make the rules plain on the sidebar.
How about fake women profiles by men?
Again, why do you assume this is an issue? Most men can simply respect that women would like to have a conversation with other women. Why are you not able to just accept this?
Simply adding one word would have made the title much less misleading.
‘JD Vance gets briefly suspended from bluesky ‘just 12 minutes after first post’’
As it stands, it strongly implies that his first post caused him to get suspended, and that he’s still suspended now. I’m not even sure why this is considered newsworthy. Why did someone even bother writing this article? Answer is, I’d wager, because the headline makes it sound sensational when it’s in fact not, and it drives clicks.
You don’t think that the omission of the very relevant followup fact from the title is misleading, perhaps intentionally so, to someone only glancing at headlines?
Imagine if the police were looking for your neighbor, mistook your house for theirs, arrested you thinking you were them, then minutes later released you when they realized their error. Would an article titled ‘TachyonTele arrested in own home’ be a fair summary of those events?
Doesn’t actually matter.
A normally weighted die has a weight of 16.67% for each face. No matter what result the first die rolls, the second one has a 16.67% chance of rolling the number needed to total 7. Therefore, the average chance of a (total of) 7 is (16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.
Consider your example: Die #1 has the following weights:
In your example, if die 2 rolls a 6, there’s a 0% chance of a (total of) 7, instead of the normal 16.67%, but if die 2 rolls a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, it has a 20% chance of totaling 7, instead of the normal 16.67%.
The average chance, therefore, is (0 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.
Without having stats to back it up, it seems perfectly logical to me. Cishet men are the people conservative views benefit the most, and they’re the people folks like Andrew Tate specifically target. If I had to make a blind guess, I’d have said it’s cishet men, too.
The odds that the first die landed on the correct number are 1 in 6, though, so if you’re considering the throw of both dice as a whole, the chance is still 1 in 6 regardless of which die you throw first. (If you’re rolling the unweighted die first and then evaluating the chance of getting a 7 based on that outcome, then you’re correct.)
Whose happiness are we talking about? Surely if one person’s happiness conflicts with someone or something that already exists, they can’t both have happiness and harmlessness. (Also, what are you considering harm? Just harm to people? What about animals? Plants? The planet as a whole?)
Modern human life is inherently very harmful to a wide range of things.