That's also a logical fallacy.

You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.

In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren't effectively contributing to said position.

Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.

"Our genocide guy is better" is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.

Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.

What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don't want to be "in support of parties involved in committing genocide"?

To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.

Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity)

Sure, but that's a fairly narrow definition that ignores a large proportion of the actual dictionary definitions.

I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity

A somewhat subjective take that doesn't really explain how the term cult would imply "unjust apology"

Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic

Not true, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.

edit: the term cults can include groups "targeted by the Satanic panic" but that isn't a strict definitional requirement.

The fact that Christianity is not a cult

Christianity does in fact meet many of the dictionary definitions of the word "cult".

You could argue that the normalisation of christianity excludes it from adhering to the definitions that mention "unorthodox" or "small" but those definitions are relatively few.

and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important.

How so ?

Other than power and money i mean.

We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.

I can't find any reference to the word "cult" that, when applied to christianity. would absolve them of the egregious historical shitfuckery perpetrated by and for them.

They do yes, this is clearly marked as an opinion piece.

What i was trying to convey is to not expect stellar journalism, opinion or otherwise, from a media source that has built it's readership on sensationalism and tabloid shenanigans.

That is of course, just my personal opinion.

The guardian is three tabloids in a trenchcoat.

They don't generally outright lie, but unbiased journalism it is not.

To be clear, the interview was a shitshow, I'm just saying you'll need to manage your expectations about journalistic quality when reading the guardian.

"News outlet" might be the most generous interpretation I've ever seen.

I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.

Let's try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.

"I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are."

A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.

If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn't be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.

The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.

The whole point of having a women's competition is to separate "men" from "women", if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we'd be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.

You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop "women" from competing in "men's" competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.

Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase

"it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition."

This is not a good argument.

As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.

It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.

In this case i can't see any big red flags.

The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn't an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.

To be clear, I'm not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people's backs up.

It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.

I don't think it's what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as "Somebody didn't accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn't even though i was clearly correct, this is grating"

Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.

Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.

That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith "debaters" around, but just because you consider something petty doesn't mean the other person does.

This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it's worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.

Like, I don’t even want to argue.

So don't, if you don't want to continue the interaction then don't reply.

Meaning what, it’s also me?

Possibly, yes.

lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?

Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.

Again, to be clear i don't mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.

"Stop acting like a child" is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.

However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.

Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”

I mean, i specifically stated it wasn't related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.

Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.

Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.

If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it's your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.

Can't say i care either way, but i'd be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )

To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.

If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you're wrong.

It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.

Drug doesn't automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.

So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.

I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site

It's entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.

If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it's time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.

Do you have an example of this ?

Randidly Ghosthound, from the series with the same name.

Feel free, if you can't deal with counterpoints to something as basic as this, a full conversation is probably off the table anyway.

Based on what you've written it seems you're assuming:

• Users will get any protections from this.
• That giving advertisers what they need is considered a win by everyone.
• Advertisers aren't just going to do exactly what they did with the "Do not track" option.
• Attribution is the only thing they are using the collected data for.
• This will somehow disable their ability to collect fingerprinting data.

I'm not generally one for absolutes but i would put a significant portion of my current and future earnings on the fact that even if there was 100% adoption of this new privacy preserving by everyone in the world, advertisers would still be pulling some shit.

They would be performing elaborate privacy ignoring shenanigans because privacy gets them nothing and data is potential profit.

AdTech companies have a rich history of doing absolutely everything they can to profit from anything they can, it is naive to think they will so anything different in the future.

So pencils and screwdrivers are also illegal in the UK?

Not generally, no.

The 'rules' are stated here

Who was the victim?

No-one it's a stealth tax on the poor.

If the 'fine' isn't based on the financial status of whoever is paying it then it's not a fine it's a tax.

Github is going in a a different, subjectively more harmful, way.

But it'll probably be a round for a long while yet.

• Regular Ignorance
• Wilful Ignorance
• Bad Faith

Pick One, possibly two.

There will of course be some who haven't considered this perspective and some who disagree.

I'd put money, however, on the vast majority arguing in favour of tolerating intolerance are the people this concept is talking about.

The actively intolerant using the tolerance of others to enact further intolerance.

Actually the shooting at gay night clubs in the states are usually not white Christians

citation ?

(legitimately, i've been looking for a useful resource for stats like this)

Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?

Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.

Various back and forth emails, a completely "justified" performance review program because of your "falling standards" and several meetings with various managers at different levels of "importance".

Also the "You're absolutely correct, ENJOY" is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your "redundancy" exit interview.

That "rape aside" is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn't the "had sex, your fault" narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the "this book is the literal truth" christians i suppose.

or you're trolling, in which case, congratulations...i guess.