In general I agree with other responders, in that it is best to let them explain their bigotry. Having said that, and for the record:

• a stealth trans woman will face misogynist discrimination at work
• a non-stealth trans woman will face transmisogynist discrimination at work
• a stealth trans man might be able to take advantage of passing privilege and male privilege combined ^[1]
• a non-stealth trans man will face transphobic and misogynist discrimination at work

If any of the above people are non heteronormative they will face homophobic discrimination either way.

Let alone that these legal transition procedures are wildly imperfect, and it would be unreasonable to assume that a person can as easily transition in law as they imply. In fact it might take years and $$ just to get just the most important paperwork done^[2]. And then what? Do they think that legal name change is like a Permanent Polyjuice Filter that allows you perfectly pass and live as the other gender?? P r e p o s t e r o u s

Besides, why would anyone transition in paper if they are not transgender? This is the most basic comeback. Ask them “Why don’t you switch genders then? Grass might be greener on the other side.^[3]” They will probably respond “But I am not trans”. “Neither am I”, continue, “I just want equality at work, trans rights included”.

(Source: Old social studies coursework on transgender issues, but some info might be outdated.)

This

These are chemicals found in every single human, how can you think they cause insanity? Also environmental stressors play a big role on mental health issues, but what you call “insanity” might be better defined as neurotransmitter imbalance, and it has not a lot to do with sex hormones, but a totally different set of chemicals.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/twitter-suspends-elon-jet-account-that-tracked-elon-musk-plane-rcna61718

Musk tweeted that the accounts violated Twitter’s “doxxing” rules, meaning they revealed nonpublic personal information.

ban posts on other people’s live locations because of “increased risk of physical harm.”

1. Shall we expect he shows consistency in case of troll harassment campaigns, which feminists have been bringing up for a lot of time.
2. Also reinstate the API that made feminist anti-harassment apps possible?
3. How does this (obviously personally motivated) cater to personal safety generalizes to his free-speech absolutist views about yet other platforms: KiwiFarms for example.

He rather questions modus ponens? Things can have many causes, that is why the presence of the effect in absence of the cause does not mean there isn’t a causal effect. Rain makes grass wet, even if the grass is wet without it having rained first, because there are presumably many reasons the grass can be wet (eg sprinklers), even if they are unknown to us. That having been said, this specimen is a hilarious face palm, all the same.

Very good point indeed.

In a society that values money above everything else, his status as richest person for lots of people makes his views seem relevant, even if unconsciously so. Then there come the fanboys to idolize him. But let’s consider the obsession with wealth that creates this halo effect even in the “non-fan-boys”. Musk, Trump, Tate, should all be irrelevant, but they’re not, which is in fact a systemic problem.

As for your original question: Musk helps oppressive states enforce censorship on his platform .

His passion for free speech is only for white supremacists and conspiracy theorists now running rampant on his platform (there is a John Oliver segment about it).

He opposed an anti-hate-speech law in Ireland, although the law makes clear that it is still allowed to express unfavorable opinions and offend others, but forbids incitement to violence.

This shows he is not interested in defending “unfavorable reasoning” against the “woke” inquisitors, rather than advancing hate-speech and white supremacist causes in particular. This is not only a hypothesis, but a reported outcome of his actions with X/Twitter, which is now a nazi bar.

Don’t forget Russel’s tolerance paradox: If you tolerate nazis in order to defend freedom (of speech, political association, and the like), they will overtake the state apparatus and verbot freedoms for everyone, not only speech, but freedom of life as well.

He is doing exactly that, not only permitting, but promoting white supremacy, and at the same time treating the term “cisgender” for example as a slur.

This shows he is not all in for defending free-speech for all sides, but he is out to “destroy to woke mind virus” because it “stole his son from him”.

Musk is a nazi apologist, a big cry baby, and a media gatekeeper who enforces censorship both as a platform owner and as a service to totalitarian states.

He is a national security risk, according to Wired.

All this is speculative of course, but those domains you listed are vanity domains in lucrative markets. I call them vanity domains, because it can easily set you back 3-4 figures to get a domain like me.blog , let alone yourname.cars which is quite desirable if you sell cars. As with everything else, domain prices are simply subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Regarding .io , compared to average country code domains, such as .de for example, that tend to be quite modestly priced, .io has seen substantial increase in the past 5 or so years, transformed from a geeky exoticism to a symbol of AI-hype tech companies.

At least from my perspective.

Are you my …therapist?

(Read this as in the butterfly meme LOL)

Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.

Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition’s view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.

You might have a different type of person in mind than other commenters. Most commenters had such people in mind who won’t install a password manager or an ad-blocker, or won’t hard reboot their Windows unless supervised. Having said that, I don’t think that even if you had technical people in mind this fits the question. They tend to take substantial more effort to learn and use effectively than the scope set by the original question. I thought this question was for little things that have a quick, lasting, and substantial effect. Learning awk and sed is a different thing entirely, I think of those more as productivity tools you can invest in mastering, and pay off in the long run.

Right enough, I came across a Wikipedia article “Politics of Harry Potter” yesterday, it was weird to read. Especially under the light of Rowling’s (um… post 2015ish?) transphobic saga, most of the cringe article reads as a complete trainwreck in hindsight, since Rowling had been celebrated by the Left and condemned by the Right at the time. Hilarious.

Some random quotes for your entertainment

Bill O’Reilly joined in the political fray over Harry Potter character Albus Dumbledore’s outing by asking if it was part of a “gay agenda” to indoctrinate children. He called J. K. Rowling a provocateur for telling fans about Dumbledore’s sexuality after the books were written. His guest, Entertainment Weekly Senior Editor Tina Jordan, called his “indoctrination” claims “a shallow argument”, saying “indoctrination is a very strong word” because “we all know gay people, whether we know it or not.”[11] O’Reilly continued the following day, saying that the real problem was that Rowling was teaching “tolerance” and “parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals”. His guest, Dennis Miller, said that tolerance was good and didn’t think you could indoctrinate a child into being gay.[12]

(Replace gay for trans in the statement above and try to not roll on the floor laughing)

Catholic fantasy author Regina Doman wrote an essay titled “In Defense of Dumbledore”, in which she argued that the books actually support Catholic teaching on homosexuality because Dumbledore’s relationship with the dark wizard Grindelwald leads to obviously terrible results, as he becomes interested in dark magic himself, neglects his responsibilities towards his younger sister and ultimately causes her death.[46][unreliable source?]

Rowling herself says:

“I do not think I am pessimistic but I think I am realistic about how much you can change deeply entrenched prejudice, so my feeling would be that if someone were a committed racist, possibly Harry Potter is not going to have an effect.”[21][non-primary source needed]

“People like to think themselves superior and that if they can pride themselves in nothing else they can pride themselves on perceived purity.”[25]

“I’ve never thought, ‘It’s time for a post-9/11 Harry Potter book,’ no. But what Voldemort does, in many senses, is terrorism, and that was quite clear in my mind before 9/11 happened… but there are parallels, obviously. I think one of the times I felt the parallels was when I was writing about the arrest of Stan Shunpike, you know? I always planned that these kinds of things would happen, but these have very powerful resonances, given that I believe, and many people believe, that there have been instances of persecution of people who did not deserve to be persecuted, even while we’re attempting to find the people who have committed utter atrocities. These things just happen, it’s human nature. There were some very startling parallels at the time I was writing it.”[78][better source needed]

Might I add, the latter statement (likening DeathEaters to terrorists) and her expressed belief that the trans movement are like the Death Eaters, leads to the logical conclusion that she thinks trans activism is …terrorism? I would not put it past her, and I can’t fathom what a real Ministry could do with such a false equivalence.

Since this vile comment goes against Lemmy etiquette I need not provide a response. But I will.

how other people call themselves

You must be another level of stupid to write this out. Perhaps you mean, I shouldn’t care what other “governments” or “majorities” want their citizens to call or not-call themselves. Only a nationalist would say such a thing, that your government has the right to self-define (or …impose?) how its people call themselves. This is some true Orban-level shit you managed to fit in your, well, fit.

And, yes, this is a politics issue I want to see in the same maps we monitor US gender politics with.

obviously not German

Very proudly not so. I cherish the fact that German nationalists tend to end up shot or hang, as one of the few things that provide meaning to my post-WWII life. The historical equivalent of a narcissist man-child demanding attention to himself, a real small-dick energy nation, that enthusiastically voted for a mustached idiot for the job. So, not German, and so happy about it.

obviously scared about inclusivity

The fact that you fail to understand this is a pro-inclusivity post means that you are so dump that you would have been euthanized in your own country, less than 100 years ago, unless you enrolled to a specific party of anti-intellectual idiots. Ah I forgot, you already are. Sound survival of the fittest strategy.

Now, let’s sit around waiting you to ridicule yourself with another one of these comments ROFL

Good point

But aren’t all these technicalities to undermine the inclusion of one or more genders on the basis of some linguistic purism?

This makes me smirk, because a single course in college linguistics will persuade you there is not bigger amalgamated bastard in town than a human language, which is any non-formal language.

For example, you say they ambiguity of they/them, isn’t this comparable to the ambiguity between you/you in plural/singular.

Ambiguity is like, an inherent feature of any language and there are hundreds of languages that resolve ambiguities based on context. Plus, the scholars said that singular them is in usage since the Middle Ages or sth.

So to me all this is a tension between A and B, where A is either linguistic purism or typographical convenience, and B is always including women/trans/non-binary folks. At the same time most people won’t accept the feminine gender as all-inclusive because of their fears of emasculation.

It is a deeply laughable situation.

This always makes me wonder why isn’t the feminine that is all inclusive. It occurred to me it is because males would take offense to be called women, where (at least traditionally) this is not the case the other way round.

I am pretty sure gender norms, even strict ones, occur to grammatically genderless languages, like Hungarian IIRC. So if a Hungarian student used a ‘*’ to be non-binary inclusive, this could not have meaning in this society, because their language is genderless? I doubt it.

I see. Probably most North-Americans would confuse “gender-neutral” with “non-binary inclusive”.