Light

Other account: https://noc.social/@light

Last Notes

2026-05-09 23:04:51 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…6e53
From the comments:
> Questioning everything used to be considered a valuable part:of scientific enquiry and critical thinking. Not questioning anything is religious dogma
> Is that a new phenomena? So what? When Tucker had that ww2 revisionist fool on I spent days afterwards arguing with people in the comments and correcting his mistakes - precisely how free speech is supposed to function. The problem is that many now want the easy route of censorship than the hard route of engaging. If you and everyone else complaining did engage in these discussions then these errors can be countered. We know that.
> And? The comments are open. Go engage. Challenge. Question. Discuss. That is what we are supposed to be doing with our free speech. It's fun.

2026-01-02 21:25:16 UTC

Contrary to popular misconception, critics of the transgender movement do not disagree that trans people have "rights" as a monolith. They're talking about whether trans people have specific rights including:
- not being misgendered
- tax-payer funded gender surgery/hormones
- (specifically children) to get surgery at all without their parents consent (or with)
I don't definitely disagree with all of the above, but it gives you a sense of the reasonable criticism people can have with the concept of "trans rights" as "allies" actually mean it (not as the basic human rights they claim to mean).
I do definitely disagree with the right to not be misgendered, as that goes against the right to free speech, which I value a lot.
Trans rights I definitely agree with:
- having surgery with their own money as an adult
- social transition (excluding the bit where they force other people to play along calling them by their preferred pronouns using laws such as the German self-identity law)
- freedom from violence from bigots
Human rights are not just a stand-in for "things I like". They actually mean something. Namely, government force applied to protect a property of a human being or group thereof (legal right), or a moral obligation on someone to do or not do something to/for someone (moral right).
A legal right to not be misgendered means that the government passes laws prohibiting misgendering trans people. Think about that.

2025-10-17 22:03:22 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…g67x I never do the dishes. I lie in my bed like a potatoe and browse fedi. IIIIIIIII have become, comfortably numb.

2025-10-17 21:59:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…g67x Well, my incentive is feeds and labellers, like I said.

2025-10-17 21:53:13 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…g67x
Bluesky (or rather, the "ATmosphere") isn't entirely owned by one person. It's actually a whole ecosystem of open source software. It's just that the architecture makes it hard to be fully independent from Bluesky PBC because relays are hard to host.
https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
Despite that though, there are alternatives, such as Blacksky and a frontend using https://constellation.microcosm.blue/ that I can't remember the name of that pulled directly from PDSs (which are self-hostable).

2025-08-18 12:16:48 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…xnqn
All those other things are not essential to being trans.
Simply being trans and political advocacy in the way that you describe are different things.

2025-08-15 22:38:15 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…775a @nprofile…q9zx Apple made server equipment?

2025-08-07 17:59:55 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…775a
>I think the article is misleading because it completely disregards women's agency.
>...
>What is written there implies a woman was treated as an object.
How so?
>The way to fewer abortion is scientifically correct sex ed and availability of contraceptives.
Agree.
>forcing people
I was not suggesting anything like this.
My position is that (expect in extreme cases like rape (incl. marital rape)) if one or both members of a heterosexual couple don't want children, they should, as you say, use contraceptives, or simply don't have sex.
>Clicked a few other articles, seems this wiki is meaning to be misleading and i didn't find any source links at all, so it is patently an opinion, not anything else.
Yeah, it does seem pretty crap. Which is a shame.
>Btw i think the term "MRA" is very widely regarded as meaning "wanting rights for men, but no rights for women", so if you use that term you might get feedback based on something you, as i know you, do not support.
There will always be bandwagon jumpers who believe the bias of their tribe. There's nothing really you can do about them apart from trying to reason with them and, if it comes to that, block them if they get too unreasonable.
Probably, if that idea exists at all, it comes from ingroup bias within feminism, experiences with unreasonable MRAs who are not sensitive to women's concerns, or a combination of the two.
And vice versa for MRM/feminists/men's concerns, as IIRC I have seen.

2025-07-08 21:17:13 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…xnqn Does "anti-semite" in this instance mean "anti-Israel" or "anti-zionist" by any chance? :thinkingwithblobs:

2025-07-06 20:13:02 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z7es
@nprofile…9wrc So, where's the evidence that this is going to happen?