I can't help wondering what is up with all those people fighting in comments about encryption. You make the point time and again that having encrypted media is somehow suspicious. I see where you are coming from.

• There are cases where people have gotten in trouble for using TOR/Signal, because it was presented to the court that "this is what criminals use".
• There are those Wall Street companies that got in trouble for using encrypted messengers with trading partners.

We know about these, because it makes headlines when it happens.

Yet, there are people here, in any similar discussion, not just this one, that keep telling us that encryption is useless because authorities can more easily break your bones than brute force your private key, and you are going to be in trouble just for having encrypted media.

Is that so? Remember the fuss when federal regulators wanted Apple to install backdoors to encrypted i-Phones? Why so? No no, bear with me, if you people are correct, then every person with an encrypted i-Phone should be in a watchlist? What about all these Linux laptops all with LUKS on the main hard drive, flying around?

How come we don't hear about those people being prosecuted and brutalized every other day in all of these alternative media we are following?

Regarding encryption, I have a right to my fucking privacy and if you want to know what is in my hard drive, then you are the weird one. Now let's discuss criminal prosecution. If the authorities have something on you and they need whatever is in your encrypted drive to convict you, then they do not have anything on you unless they break the encryption. The more people practicing encryption the less fruitful their efforts will be. Your argument amounts to little more than the very authorities slogan "if you don't have something to hide". More people using encryption should make it sink that not only people with something to hide will use encryption, and indeed, all these everyday, non-criminal people are already using Encryption in i-Phones and Linux without having their bones broken.

Yet you keep repeating this rhetoric, which seems to have no other purpose than deter people from using encryption.

Now let's discuss brutality. If you live in a police state that can kidnap you and rough you up to forgo your protected right to privacy, then you don't have a problem with encryption, but a huge political problem. In that case encryption won't liberate you, but at the same time you have much bigger problems, and an entirely different threat model.

So the only thing you people could, in good faith, add to the discussion is "If you live in a police state, don't rely solely on encryption, and update your threat model". The other things you keep going on and on about are essentially a rebranded "if you don't have something to hide" and they only seem designed to discourage people from adopting encryption altogether, and the fact you don't let go can only mean one fucking thing.

I agree on the intersex thing in unsubstantiated, but I still don't understand. Nazis claim that a person's sex should be the one "observed" at birth, legally binding so, end of. Do they fucking anywhere state that this definition excludes intersex conditions? This is the very definition of moving goalposts, and they should eternally stuff it after that, like Rowling did.

(Willie Wonka: Watching conservatives claim there is more to biological sex than genitals at birth, lmao)

Let's not forget that Rowling accuses the "Trans movement" of dehumanizing people, and then goes on to misgender a born woman for her appearance.

(weeps for humanity then laughs hysterically)

[S]ome of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, “We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die.” They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them. I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety.

I hope this asshole regrets this quote now. Fuck Rowling.

there are people who would rather explain

There are people who are transphobic to the degree of investigating born women, time and again. (Are you aware of the lesbians "bathroom problem"? It predates the current antitrans moral panic by a decade.) It seems their hatred is so rotten that eventually they are the ones unable to define what a woman is. Now even a vagina at birth is not cutting it. Just not beat around the bush, this is about transphobia, and Khelif naming Rowling, Musk, and Trump in her suit (all of them billionaire transphobes with a platform) is no coincidence.

Ah and don't forget that trans women are not men either. Too many let that slip in this debate because Khelif is cisgender, but let's not forget that when nazis say "men are stronger than women" they mean trans women as men. They aren't. Nazi punks fuck off.

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.

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

Add universal heath care including addiction treatment. This might or might not include de-penalization of addiction, depending on the jurisdiction. Breakdown this more to make clear what I mean. Besides the obvious complementarity between UBI and universal health care, people get to do this because they are also addicted, not just poor. Some are also manipulated by means of being addicted. The current approach that punishes the addicted instead of treating them only makes this worse. Countries that have made addiction a healthcare issue rather than a criminal one have seen results.

Alright, hear me out. We go with the 10 months of 35 days and a special month of 15 days, but the 15 days is just one giant celebration. Just 15 days of nothing but arts and crafts and hanging out with friends. (For Context)

Enter the Igbo calendar, a balanced calendar without the particular complications of the Western Julian/Gregorian calendars.

The calendar has 13 months in a year (Afo), 7 weeks in a month (Onwa), and 4 days of Igbo market days (Afor, Nkwo, Eke, and Orie) in a week (Izu) plus an extra day at the end of the year, in the last month.

I was about to post about it, as a suggested replacement for the POSIX time standard, now I have to think that our imaginary month off is at stake.

The illustration neglects to show how the mass incarceration and death row system will be set up and function in order for death penalty to be inflicted on those littering. Of course it does, it wouldn't be as pretty otherwise.

And as I read some where here, if testosterone levels is unfair advantage why aren't there limits in the men's league too? It is so just they police women bodies (cis and trans alike). Here is the original comment but I did not record the username, so sadly I can't credit them

If testosterone is a PED and it doesn’t matter if the athlete is cis or not, then there should be a hard limit for both male and female athletes to ensure fairness. If too much testosterone is only a problem for women then clearly it’s a sexist attempt to police women’s bodies. Every human body produces some amount of testosterone, either too much is an unfair advantage or it isn’t.

I wonder if by the same criteria the opposite also holds true. Are misspelled words dishonorable? And if yes does it matter if they're nouns or other functional words like there/they're/their ?

Absolutely cool. I will have to revise all my internalized cyberpunk imagery though.

I suppose that :

1. "ugly ugly caveman" -> homo sapiens neanderthalensis
2. "ugly caveman man" -> homo sapiens sapiens