You’re still doing it. What you’re calling the irrelevant part of the post was more than 90% of it. You chose not to address any of it and to act pretty condescending in your reply. Now I’m telling you how some people are going to interpret that and you’re refusing to acknowledge it as a valid interpretation. I don’t give a shit if you accept what I’m telling you or not but at this point you can’t say you’re unaware that you’re coming off like an asshole. Do with that information whatever you like.

Not in any practical sense of the word but that didn’t stop them from removing headphone jacks in order to shave an additional 1/16 of an inch off.

I’m pretty particular about my there, their, and they’re but what you described happens to me all the time. My phone defaults to using “it’s” and, unlike many other scenarios, I don’t feel like correcting that one is worth the time it takes to do so.

I don’t get the fanboy culture around phone manufacturers. None of them have done anything innovative in a decade. They’re just adding more cameras and trying to make them thinner even though I’m pretty sure most people don’t care about either.

You didn’t explicitly state it you implied it by ignoring almost everything the guy you responded to said. Again, I don’t think you meant to come off that way but that’s what happens when you pick one small part of a large post to respond to and do so using negative and corrective language. You imply the rest was received in an equally negative fashion but was even less worthy of response.

That’s a very dismissive attitude as well. I’ve never listened to Jordan Peterson or any of these other people but I totally get why some people do and this conversation is a great illustration as to why. The person you responded to was trying to have a discussion about the issues men face in society, in a thread about that topic, and your response to them could easily be interpreted as “shut up idiot those aren’t real problems”. I don’t think you necessarily intended to convey that message but you definitely ignored the larger point they were making in favor of a short and dismissive quip that was only tangentially related to what they said.

There are a bunch of examples of things like this happening in society, especially to white men. I can feel people reading that statement thinking “white men don’t have problems” and that right there is the issue. Of course they have problems, society just doesn’t want to hear about them. They’re focused on other things instead, often for good reasons, but ignoring people when they talk about their problems while preaching open-mindedness and tolerance doesn’t exactly help the group you’re ignoring to embrace those ideals. They’re going to gravitate towards people who listen to them and at this point in time the people who listen them are telling them things that you don’t agree with. If you actually care about fixing that problem then the least you can do is commiserate with them when they complain about their problems. You already go out of your way to do it for everyone else so it should be easy.

People are downvoting you because they don’t want to hear what you’re saying even though it’s true. Biden is objectively better than Trump but that might not be enough. We can debate the how’s and the why’s of that statement but I don’t think there’s any reason to dispute it.

I don’t have a bidet but toilet paper is objectively insufficient. As an illustration consider your response if you spilled peanut butter on the carpet. Are you reaching for a dry paper towel?

What do you mean about the controls? I have no complaints in that realm but maybe I’m overlooking something.

Wilson said that he likes the idea of a multiparty democracy in theory, and would not be bothered by No Labels’ presidential ambitions in a more traditional election, but that the stakes are too high this year — even if it means depriving voters of options and making them choose between two candidates they might not be excited about.

When was this not the justification for forcing people to accept a candidate they don’t like? It’s like every four years we all forget that the last candidate was sold that way too. Obama is the only semi-exception in that his first campaign was all about hope and change but we all know how that turned out.

The funny part is that we could have taken Obama’s victory as proof that promoting progressive policies works to get a President elected but instead we decided to go back to calling that approach wishful thinking and impractical. Almost as if the goal isn’t to represent the people but rather to ensure Progressive ideas reach as few people as possible.

Where queer people might take issue with your comment (I’m definitely lightly irked) is that cishet people never say “I wish we would stop focusing on labels” unless the discussion is about queer labels.

That’s exactly what I’m saying though. Labels (for the purposes of the point I’m trying to make) aren’t generally helpful except as a generic indicator of the prevalence of a particular group in society. Even then they tend to get in the way of the discussion that those labels and percentages are trying to promote.

Any group trends towards latching on to their label in an unhelpful way. Often saying that anyone who isn’t making the advancement of the group described by their favorite label a priority in their life is an enemy of the cause and therefore is against them personally.

It doesn’t really matter what the label is. LGB and T are some common labels you see this happening with, from both angles I’ll add, but they are far from the only ones. You see it with large groups like countries and political parties all the way down to mundane stuff like being right handed or which band you prefer in some hyper-obscure music genre. It’s all the same mostly unnecessary categorization of people that generally serves no useful purpose beyond making one group of people feel superior to another. That just seems so pointless to me. It reminds me of hunter gatherers protecting their tribe by ensuring no outsiders are allowed in.

I will concede that there are instances in which in can be useful to speak in such terms but the vast majority of the time it seems archaic and shallow and needlessly exclusionary.

I wish we could stop focusing so much on the labels people give themselves. Pretty much any label you could give a person only describes a tiny fraction of what their experience of life is like and yet it feels like that kind of thing is the focus of most reporting on just about any subject as well as the primary way a lot of people identify themselves. I think it contributes significantly to the division we see in all aspects of society. We seem to have a natural tendency to use those labels in a negative way instead of as the helpful descriptor that they are largely intended to be. Let’s try to focus on the fact that we’re all humans for a while and maybe we’ll feel a bit better for it.

I’m not sure why the sex of the ancient person who did it, matters.

Make that a common sentiment and a good chunk of the division surrounding modern discourse goes away. People care way too much about genitals both in the past and present.

Exactly, and if we don’t have a functional “fence”, so to speak, at that point then we’ll end up using guns to stem the tide. We might end up doing that anyway but the system we have now doesn’t even work under current conditions, which are about as good as any of us are likely to see again in our lifetimes. There’s no way it’s sustainable if the number of people attempting to claim asylum continues to increase and that appears unavoidable.

That leaves us with the uncomfortable question of what do we actually do with these people? Republican solutions aren’t particularly good, and their basis for having the discussion seems more racist than humanitarian, but at least you can say they’re not afraid of talking about it. Democrats seem content to pretend it’s not going to be an issue because there’s brown people in the crowd at the border and saying anything that could be perceived as less than perfectly inclusive about them is not pc.

Life isn’t fair, as evidenced by the fact that this hypothetical migrant family has reason to migrate in the first place. Your question presupposes that fairness is the default state of things and it simply isn’t.

Worsening climate change is going to make this whole situation even more unfair going forward. The longer we wait to set up a better system the more inhumane the eventual solution is going to be and I don’t think anyone wants to find out how much worse it can get.