WRT R*, I have seen hacks referred to as mods in some korean MMO communities, because client mods are lumped together with hacks in their ToS under “game modifications”. No clue if that’s what happened with R*'s stuff, but wouldn’t be surprised.

It’s funny, because I saw Omega being used on 7chan way back before it emerged into use among the rest of the alt-white manosphere guys (probably around 2012), and they (or at least, some of them) were aware of Omegaverse, and used it derogatorily as a sarcastic term for “betas” who thought they were “alphas”. I would not be at all surprised if the overlap with 4chan is how it bled into wider use, and lost the sarcastic meaning.

it’s like Duper’s Delight, but for assholes “Alphas”

Those aren’t emotions, those are urges. ^/s

So on their scale do the Omega males also become pregnant if banged by an Alpha?

Or do these people not even realize where their ‘scale’ actually came from?

First off, thank You for responding to my questions.

From the exclusionary christian’s point of view, no matter the identity of the CPU in question, we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that. And we should also respect whatever the CPU identifies as.

I have a few different converging thoughts, and I’ll try to lay them out separately to make sure my question’s premise is clear:

• You acknowledge the power dynamic which people perceive around capitalization of pronouns
• Pronoun capitalization is also used for royalty- not just divinity (e.g. ‘Her Majesty’), so this is not a power dynamic specific to religious people
• You have used un-capitalized pronouns for other people, so at least perceptually, You’re not treating all people as being of this same ‘elevated’ position
• Your neopronouns are not optional; You have insisted that people use them, which is not a universal standpoint on neopronouns; many neopronoun users are fine with people switching between their pronoun sets, or have a ‘fallback’/ auxiliary set
• Words have meaning, and You cannot pretend or decide that other people have to not care about them. That would even be directly hypocritical to insisting others accept the pronouns of Your choice.
• Just to reiterate one last time, there is unquestionably a power dynamic at play, because upending the exclusivity of that deference to figures of authority is one of Your stated reasons (or at least benefits) for using them:

we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that.

You are forcing them to extend You that same deference, or claiming that Status for Yourself, however You prefer to view it.

But I am struggling to see how Your insistence on this particular set of pronouns does not engender a requirement of people to extend You deference You are (at least by default, demonstrably), not extending to them? (and I am not referring to the exclusionary Religious here, but fellow Beehaw users)

There is a strong debate over using neopronouns like “master/masterself”, “daddy/daddyself”, etc (certainly without auxiliaries), that may create uncomfortable power dynamics for the persons needing to use them. I think this is striking some of us as similar to that, which is I think why You are seeing this much pushback.

Likewise, a trans person you meet on the street isn’t benefiting from the might of the Roman church. So you’re not supporting hierarchy by using a trans person’s preferred pronouns. By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.

So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.

Worse, if you refused to use a trans man’s preferred pronouns because of this, you’d be guilty of pretty blatant transphobia. I believe refusing to use capitalised pronouns for a trans person who requests them is exactly the same bigotry.

Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected? Obviously neopronouns can be non gender-related, but the article isn’t really making clear if that is the case here or not. If anything, it is quite muddled on this point.

By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.

Wooph… The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter. Now, whether they can benefit from that dynamic in a given time and place is a different discussion, but even in places that do not afford them the systemic backing of the patriarchal system, they can still support and reify it themselves. Any person who attempts to enforce a male-dominant systemic power dynamic can be supporting patriarchy.

The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?

I think that if these are simply the neo pronouns that make someone comfortable, it is for the most part fine to request this, but the article is directly drawing the link between capitalized pronouns and religious reverence, and that is not something anyone can demand someone else extend, and not one that is inherently inappropriate not to.

There are plenty of arguments over the limits of neopronoun usage within the neopronoun-using community, but generally neopronouns like “master”, that confer or denote a power dynamic, are considered inappropriate.

This feels like this is skirting that line to me.

There is something very uncomfortable to me about demanding the use of a deferential title, while also insisting that not to do so is a moral wrong, while also claiming not to support hierarchy of peoples… which the creation of distinct and deferential titles would seem to contradict.

Sadly, there will always be people pulling “All lives matter”-esque b.s., even on the Left. What’s even sadder is that they’ve (consciously or otherwise) bought into the Right-wing narrative that not including every group equally when showing support is exclusionary to people or characteristics that are not in fact in need of that support, but also, as we see here, sometimes even taking the stance that only they get to determine the version that is ‘properly’ inclusive, not anyone else.

To wit, if the standard Pride flag is meant to represent everyone, equally including cisgender straight white folks, then it’s by definition not a symbol of especial support for marginalized folks. If it’s not inclusive of cisgender straight white folks, then who else is it not inclusive of, if the colors aren’t actually being mapped to specific groups?

It makes perfect sense to me why variations have emerged, and there’s no need to try to pare the field down artificially. New flags emerge all the time, and fall in and out of use. Flags are a choice about how you present yourself, in choosing to fly them, and it’s not anyone’s place to be telling other people they are beholden to use a certain flag.

“We have a flag that represents you all, but your communities don’t get to decide if it represents you, or if you would be better represented in another way, you listen to me!” - Such a very inclusive mindset! /s

Great video! For anyone who doesn’t want to watch a half-hour video, the 9 movement-agnostic, “Authoritarian Personality” traits that researchers identified as common among people who had engaged with or expressed support for fascistic ideologies were:

• Conventionalism: ‘a rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values’
• Authoritarian Submission: ‘a submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealised moral authorities of the in-group’
• Authoritarian Aggression: ‘a tendency to be on the lookout for, and condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values’
• Anti-intraception: ‘an opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender minded’
• Stereotypy: ‘the disposition to think in rigid categories’
• Power and Toughness: ‘a preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension’
• Destructiveness and Cynicism: ‘a generalised hostility and a vilification of the human’
• Projectivity: ‘the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses’
• Sex: ‘an exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on”’

Where I’m from it’s usually understood as “questioning”. I’ve seen it more recently being un-abbreviated as ‘queer’, but most people I know usually still would say “questioning” if someone asked them to say the full name.

No, and I hadn’t even heard of Soulism before now. I think I’d probably be considered a Relativist, and I’m definitely an Anarchist.

WRT the above, I just think that humans have a very narrowminded view of the universe around us, where we try to make everything conform to our own paradigms (e.g. our attempts to define animal intelligence based on them exhibiting human characteristics, rather than classifying each of their forms of intelligence by their own behavioral characteristics).

Is the less-intelligent brain the baboon one that doesn’t bother trying to tell whether something is a reflection of itself, or is it the human one that can’t see a similar-looking human without their mind doing a double-take to avoid otherwise descending into dreadful existential ponderings.

Baboon brains simply can’t create Jet Li’s The One, is I guess what I’m saying, and I think that really tilts the intelligence definition in their favor.

Science is a human paradigm for interpreting the universe. Certain scientific truths are accepted by humans, at this time, which constitutes a very small part of the universe.

I’m not saying none of the accepted scientific principles may be correct (and I’m certainly not saying they should be discounted by humans, since after all, it’s our own paradigm), I’m just saying that they are only coming from a very small and narrow ability to interact with the universe. If they are universally true, it’s not because we exhausted all other possibilities; we literally don’t have the means to say we’ve examined anything in all possible ways that can exist in the universe. We can’t know what we don’t know, after all.

I do think that saying we have achieved anything that qualifies as definitive, objective Truth, beyond the limited realm of human perception and experience, is not true. Nothing within science is universally, unquestionably settled.

For humans? With the instruments and models we have now? Sure, absolutely.

But once again, that’s very narrow.

As a little aside:

These truths aren’t necessarily rooted in personal biases but rather in the pursuit of understanding the world objectively.

That is also an agenda. Agenda doesn’t mean something nefarious, it just means an ideologically-driven plan. Wanting to understand the universe better within a certain paradigm (i.e. science) is an agenda.

Literally everything is just a concept humanity made up, informed by our very specific and limited abilities of perception.

Even numbers are represented differently in different languages, and different cultures teach different methods of interacting with them, and aliens could have completely different paradigms for interpreting physical reality than us altogether.

Anyone who tries to make claims about something being a universal or scientific “Truth-with-a-capital-T” that transcends human definitions is pushing an agenda.

The Right has always imitated the rhetoric of the Left in order to push their viewpoints once people stop engaging with their ideologies directly, including using right-wing minorities who will claim being discriminated against by the Left if they are called-out for their own anti-minority rhetoric.

I won’t speculate on the personal reasons the people in LAG have for collaborating with ideologies that in actuality hate them as well, because I think there are actually a lot of different potential reasons (e.g. being just plain bigoted, hoping to be left unharmed as ‘one of the good ones’, somehow believing that their societal acceptance is actually more threatened by trans people than conservatives, etc), but it is always sad to see, because I feel like they often deny their own oppression in order to do it.

By this framing, there can never be safety, because there are always going to be violent bigots.

Safety is about a state of mind, as they say in the article, but it has to be informed by physical reality on some level, and that will necessarily have to include the ability to not be physically victimized by bigots.

I also have a lot of issues with their choice to give a first-time shooter a machinegun (in the article they both call it a machinegun and semiautomatic, which is contradictory, but they make it sound like it had a 3-round burst, which if true would make it a machinegun, not semiautomatic), because that’s like putting a first-time driver in a supercar; it’s dangerous and non-representative of 99.9% of cars and driving. Of course you would walk away frightened/intimidated by it.

As pointed out by another commenter, they were handling a semiauto AR-15, not a machinegun as they stated.

I love Japan, but sometimes I really really hate their judicial and justicial systems, and the xenophobia and conformism that often underpins them.