If you have to worry about it getting in you and disturbing your gut biome, hell yes. That thing is for external use only.

…how high are you setting the pressure on that thing?

If they aren’t either of those then that’s good then.

So you understand that it doesn’t apply to all men. You just don’t seem to understand why those men would be unhappy to be lumped in with the rest, especially when we’re talking about the perks of men dying.

I’m not interested in talking about other groups at the moment as this is only about men, please stay on the subject, if you intended to compare or contrast that isn’t helpful and is just a distraction.

I don’t think it’s true that it’s unhelpful or a distraction. Its purpose is to highlight that people expecting everyone to take a nuanced understanding and stance on “dead men can’t <X>” claims don’t carry that same expectation for other groups, especially groups that they themselves are in. They don’t actually live by or uphold the standard they’re setting, they just want to benefit from it. Probably at least in part because they’re spouting sexist crap and don’t have a better defense for it than that. It’s a hypocritical double standard.

Ultimately what I want is for men to work on themselves and each other without either blaming other groups of people, or requiring other groups to sort out their problems for them, and for them to stop harming others. Yes I don’t think that this should stop other groups or individuals from those groups caring or helping if they want to but it shouldn’t be an expectation.

Here’s the double standard again. Any man is responsible for the behavior of the group as a whole, but I’ve never met anyone who thinks like this and applies it to all groups. Men are expected to police men, but women aren’t really expected to police women, nor are minorities expected to police the rest of their own group. Or, if they do apply it to a broader range of groups, it once again most certainly doesn’t include groups they themselves are in.

And don’t get me wrong, we should all stand up and say something about wrongdoing more often. But I can’t agree with this idea that all men are responsible for the behavior of all other men and that men need to collectively and internally address it. We aren’t a collective. We don’t all associate with the shitheads, and we don’t all let our friends slide when they fuck up.

Why is it reasonable to lump me in with the people who upset you when I’ve never even met the assholes, or if I did, don’t associate with them? Am I expected to spend my life surrounded by people I don’t like so I can hopefully maybe change their minds? How much of my time am I expected to dedicate to this despite it being wildly outside of my skill set when there are other ways I could more effectively help improve the world? Why is this my responsibility when I’m already tending to my corner of the world properly?

From the way you’ve spoken so far, it seems to me there’s still some misunderstanding or miscommunication.

The more optimistic take is that we use the word “men” differently. You use it to mean “problematic men” where I use it to just mean “men”. You don’t mean all men, but you don’t communicate that effectively. If you’re the type to roll your eyes when someone complains that “not all men”, those sorts of people are ALWAYS hypocrites because I guarantee they won’t want the same nuanced understanding if someone said “dead women can’t <problematic thing>” or if something similar was said about a minority instead of women. Only when it’s about men is this level of nuance and subtle understanding required. Be more specific and don’t shit on the people you don’t intend to shit on. Don’t expect them to know your intent when it doesn’t align with your actual words.

The pessimistic take is that you think it’s true to some extent of all men, so all men deserve it to some extent. It’s similar to the male incel who thinks all women are gold digging bitches and whores, but once again, the people who think it’s true of all men would be absolutely appalled to hear a man say something is universally problematic about women. It’s sexist, it’s untrue, and it alienates people who want to help.

This still ignores the implication that men dying is a good thing. I understand that’s not what YOU mean by it, but… That’s what it says. That’s the implication of the statement in a vacuum carried to its logical conclusion. That’s how a non-negligible portion of people are going to interpret it.

It comes across as having an overall favorable outlook on men dying, and most people don’t want to associate with someone who views their death as a net positive.

Literally all this graffiti says is that men who catcall can’t do that any more if they’re dead.

I don’t think that’s quite right. Very close, but not it. It may be what was meant, but it’s not what it’s actually saying. It’s saying dead men can’t do bad things, which is like saying there are perks to men dying, it’s kind of a good thing. There’s someone who already responded to you who clearly favors that interpretation.

Don’t forget that loans are probably deferred through the PhD, so that’s like 4+ years of accumulated interest on top.

I don’t think they ever publicly stated what the flaw was. Would love to know, too.

I didn’t say anything about “turns”.

Yeah, you did. You likened it to skipping position in a queue. The whole point of a queue is to collectively manage turn order. It heavily implies that it’s someone’s turn next. Maybe you didn’t mean to, but that’s the obvious implication of the phrasing.

On the rest, we’re just going to start going in circles, so I’ll leave it there.

Maybe kinda, but it’s also a third party whose certificates are almost if not entirely universally trusted. Self-signed certs cause software to complain unless you also spread a root certificate to be trusted to any machine that might use one of your self-signed certs.

For me it would effectively be like skipping the queue.

It’s not about whose turn it is. Arguably, that’s how we got Hillary Clinton in 2016, which was the failure that gave Trump a political career.

What it is about is representing your party members. And your party members supported Bernie Sanders.

Yes, it did eliminate competition. They’re no longer competition once Microsoft buys them. They’re employees, possibly if a subsidiary, who contribute to Microsoft’s profits.

In a sense, you are hosting the content. You’re retaining a copy (so long as the window is open) and constantly attempting to spread it. It’s literally built on bittorrent protocols if I remember correctly, and it’s already very well established that you can be held responsible for seeding copyright infringing material, so I see no reason at all they’d give you a pass for CP instead. You may not intend to, but remember, my example was someone who looks of age but is not.

Using something like PeerTube is potentially even worse because let’s say you unknowingly open a video where someone in it looks of age but technically isn’t. You as a user help propagate that content while you have it open. You’re not just downloading illegal content at that point. You’re actively sharing it to new people.

That’s why I explicitly said people would have to save the money so they could pay their taxes come next April. You’re under no legal obligation to have accurate tax withholdings. It’s only a convenience to make sure you don’t owe a ton at the end of the year. You just have to make sure you properly file and pay up come tax season.

Of course, an increasingly criminal administration might do something illegal to seize withheld funds, but that’s another thing all together. Force their hands and make them do it if they want the money.

I dunno, if we make it, I could see this being something of a turning point for us. Will we be perfect? Oh god no. But surviving will necessitate taking ownership of the mess we’ve collectively made (even if a lot of it is done by business), cleaning it up, and learning how to avoid doing it again.

I think it’d be a fuckload easier than arranging a general strike. No missed work, no lost income, no need to coordinate a universal date to act on collectively, just a little paperwork and some effort to maintain savings. As more people hear and get upset, the money faucet slowly shuts more and more.

Sure, but compared to right now where your tax dollars are directly funding ICE… I dunno, I’m not sure it’s so clear cut as good or bad.

For sheer size of the US, it can be exceedingly difficult to get all the way to DC. If you can’t fly and have to drive for whatever reason, financial or otherwise, it’s a 39 hour drive going from LA in California to DC. One way. With absolutely no time accounted for bathroom breaks, food, or even sleep. It’s like a three day drive each way. That’s basically a worst case scenario, but also, a ton of people live on the west coast, so it’s not exactly an uncommon one. Unfortunately, the sheer geographical scale of the US makes it very difficult for people to amass specifically in DC.

You’re 100% right, though, that anyone who can do it should do it.

I wonder what sort of impact it would have if everyone who’s upset with Trump’s lawlessness adjusted their tax withholding at work to not withhold anything. They’d have to save the money so they can pay their taxes next April to avoid legal trouble, but in the meantime, federal income could get hamstrung.