All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I for one am 100% in favor of forever adding "who halved the value of Twitter" after every mention of Elmos name lol
Is it even worth half what it was before? It's probably better to say something less specific, like "tanked", so it stays accurate.
That figure is based off of a recent internal valuation that was made public because it kind of had to be, because Twitter now pays employees partly in equity (I'd rather take monopoly money, but I digress lol).
So basically that's the number Elon himself admits the company is worth today - some people say less, but honestly it's impossible to pin an exact number on these things unless someone is actually offering to buy it (or if it's public and you can just look at the market cap)
They're saying it in this article because Elon is being transphobic on purpose to manufacture controversy on the same day it's announced that he's now halved the value of Twitter. He doesn't want people talking about what a financial loser he is, so he's trying to make people talk about what a transphobe he is
A useful rebuttal in LGBTQ Nation explained why “cis is a slur” is total bullshit: People who say that cis is a slur don’t offer an alternative term to use that is non-offensive. Because they don’t offer alternative inoffensive terminology, as there is with all other slurs, it’s clear it’s not the word cis they’re objecting to, but the existence of any words to describe the fact that some people are transgender, and some people aren’t.
If you were to ask one of these morons, I bet they'd say that the alternative non-offensive term is "normal". "Normal" is a safe and reassuring blanket that tells them that they don't have to change, that they're in the right, and that all these other people are abnormal deviants.
The other portion of it is that they themselves didn't choose the name "cis" and so they feel as if they are being labeled, and labeling is what they do to others to subjugate and humiliate them as abnormal, so that's how they feel now that they are the ones being labeled.
Yep that's exactly what they do.
"I'm not 'cis' I'm normal"
or
"I'm male, you don't need any other term."
They don't like the idea of the term cisgender because it implies that there's another option, and they don't believe there is. So why define a disparity where none exists?
There's no logical argument that can alter their perception
Really love the idea that "cis" (which means you're the same gender you were at birth) has anything to do with heterosexuality. It's truly groundbreaking. /s
There are many many many cis people that are not heterosexual.
And by the way, cis is the opposite latin prefix of trans. Trans means "other side," cis means "same side." That's literally it. It's not complicated.
You've got to remember that these are just simple twitter posts. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new social media age. You know... morons.
Remembering the good ol' George Carlin bit about thinking about how dumb the average person is.. and then realizing that half the people are dumber than that.
Candygram for Mongo
Mongo like candy!
Mongo only pawn in game of life
Land Shark.
Oh, for fucks sakes. Can we just shut him up already?
I fucking wish. Ugh. I can't believe I used to admire that guy.
I remember thinking him a unicorn among capitalists when he was pushing for Tesla as a means to combat climate change
But ah well, he was a piece of shit all along
Same. Are we doomed to hate all our heroes eventually? Sometimes it feels that way nowadays...
I just remember that it is impossible to be unfathomably wealthy and a good person. You cannot get that rich without being shitty
Tis a hard thing to keep in mind, but keep it in mind we must.
You can be wealthy and a good person, maybe even rich (up to a point) and a good person, but when you reach the level of Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk, and other titans of this second Gilded Age, it is nearly impossible.
I wouldn't say impossible, but so improbable due to the inherent corruption of the sheer wealth of the position they're in that it takes a titanic level of inner willpower to maintain one's humility.
Most people at that level of wealth—hell, most people—are not that strong.
A wise person once said, "It's not possible to make a billion dollars in a year. It is, however, possible to steal a billion dollars in a year." You have to be stealing value from somebody along the production chain to be accumulating that kind of wealth.
For some reason, Lemmy is not letting me see your comment outside of my inbox. Weird. However, yeah, I agree completely with what you're saying.
Lemmy moves in mysterious ways. It is not our place to question the actions of a higher being such at this. 😄
I don't even think it's about inner strength or humility. Competitors will force you to make unethical choices in order to succeed. Your own empathy will get in the way of accumulating that kind of wealth. I call it impossible because the actions needed to be taken in order to acquire such wealth are inherently unethical ones. It demands exploitation; It demands narcissism; It demands that you not have empathy. Bezos would not be where he is if he actually paid his workers and let them take piss breaks. Musk would not be wear he is if not for his family emerald mine fortune, and for his delusions of grandeur, taking credit for the inventions he payed people to have. None of these people would have this kind of wealth without political dealings with shady figures, and without lobbying against worker's rights
So is it impossible? Well not technically, but if someone does get to those levels of wealth without the exploitation and lobbying and ruthless business practices, they won't stay there for long anyway, because the other billionaires won't let them
So is it impossible? Well not technically,
That's what I was saying. It is not, strictly speaking, absolutely impossible. But so improbably as to be nearly not at all possible.
Although, that being said, you made a lot of good points in that comment, to the point where I have to change my mind a bit and say that I agree with you. Humility can take you far to preserve a sense of empathy, but the sheer corruption of the decisions you have to take to become that wealthy inherently make it infinitesimally improbable that you will come out the other side even half as good a person as you went in.
In short, technically improbable but not impossible, yet practically impossible.
Your mistake is making heroes of real people. Reality is crap. Your heroes should be people like Superman, Yoda, and Atlacatl. Ideas will always be purer than a person can hope to be. Ideas can give you inspiration that will not be corrupted.
he's speed running his divorced disaster graham linehan arc
Any word can be used in a derogatory fashion. I'd say the non-binary community knows this better than anyone.
Like the word "Gay" has been used in a quite derogatory fashion for many years now. It's original meaning, the people it's being used to refer to and how it's being used are, objectively, three very different things.
Deeming singular words as slurs or hate-speech, in and of themselves, is by far the most idiosyncratic way to get around an actual problem. I'd say the 'Intent' behind it matters more. And the 'Why' of it all.
Regardless, I don't think dear old Elon is in a position to call-out anyone for anything at this point in time.