this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
179 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15681 readers
225 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this.

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Okay, let's run with it:

Hydrogen and helium can be determined scientifically through observation. You can't just point at a gas and claim that it's hydrogen without first determining the makeup of the gas scientifically.

They're claiming that this is an accurate analogy for gender identity.

So then the logical conclusion of this argument would be that a person is non-binary until we have scientifically determined their sex (and therefore their gender). Given how rare it is for someone to undergo sex testing, this would mean that the overwhelming majority of people are of indeterminate gender, especially when considering the entire history of the existence of humanity.

That would mean that Dick Dork's claim about molehills applies to both sides of the traditional gender binary and that it should be disregarded as a statistical outlier.

Obviously none of this actually makes sense, for reasons that I'm not going to bore anyone here with, but it's impressive how these facks & logick types will immediately agree with any statement that superficially affirms their worldview, even if agreeing with it would undermine their entire argument upon closer examination.

(I use this argument in a distilled form to bait the "gender is a scientific fact" types - I start by asking them their gender or assuming their gender based on pfp/name etc. when they tell me their gender I ask them when they had this determined scientifically and if they identified as non-binary until that point.

For people who are at least not an irredeemable shithead about it, I might actually engage in a discussion with them and ask them that if they got results back tomorrow that they proved they were biologically the opposite of their gender identity, would they immediately change their name, the clothes they wear, and the pronouns they use to refer to themselves by. Obviously this is a near-impossibly difficult pill for them to swallow [almost like gender is something that you feel as your identity and it's not your chromosomes or your hormonal makeup...] but it's really interesting to observe the beginnings of an earth-shattering realisation for these people when they begrudgingly admit that they wouldn't be able to just wake up one morning and swap to a completely different gender [and to likely have their sexual orientation completely upended in that process as well].)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

pronouns No, hydrogen is objectively male, can't you see?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

More like Bidrogen

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago

This is genuinely infuriating. Like, you’re both saying things that disprove this theoretical binary you are so weirdly invested in. Most of a given thing fitting into two categories ceases to be a binary when you have outliers that don’t fit into those categories. At that point it becomes more accurate to describe what you’re looking at as a SPECTRUM.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

This is your brain on the metaphysical world outlook

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago

For a guy whose whole schtick is jerking off to evolution he really doesn't understand biology

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Liberals and there endless need to deliberately misunderstand very basic terms like “spectrum” and “binary”

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

nobody should care about dick dork in 2024

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

What is bro (Dawkins) yappin abt bean-think

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

i don't get it. is the graph accurate or not?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

No. Atoms exchange electrons and change composition all the time. Calling them binary is weird.

Hydrogen can literally become helium

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's accurate, there do be a lot of hydrogen

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

This dork never listened to van der graaf generator

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›