Nah, it's a tone knob

IIRC, it's still common to see male friends walk holding hands in the Middle East for the same reason.

Yeah, turns out it's kinda hard to dodge the draft for a war you hate when all the countries that allegedly oppose it closed their borders to you.

Easy there, Bill.

Manufacturing concensus.

Doubly insane when the first mention of what's thought to be the Palestinians was by Ramesses III, 3199 years ago.

99% of rapists are men

...?

...!?!

...Really, you're just gonna throw this out there, with no reflection on it? Like, not even a pause? Not even a minute to go "wow, that's really high, like, suspiciously high, like, Glorious-Leader-Wins-Election high!"?

You know what, I'll rephrase my argument: The M&M argument is to be rejected out of hand, because any standard set for it's acceptance will inevitably be met by sufficiently determined bigot, and a sufficiently gullible audience.

Feel free to pick which of these two you are, I genuinely don't care at this point.

The hilarious new sequel - in theatres now.

The point isn't that you should eat the M&Ms, the point is that when a batch of food is suspected to be tainted, you throw it away. You don't keep tainted food around, you order it recalled from the market and incinerate it because merely having it around is a hazard. It's a matter of public safety. The problem of applying it to people should be obvious - this is why I mentioned "un-poisoning the M&Ms". And yes, the argument is alienating for both sides, it alienates them from each other, and that is an obstacle. Unless, I guess, we go for the incinerator solution like we would with M&Ms.

I'm "making a linguistics argument" because I don't think you understand the argument being made. An argument isn't faulty because it's used against oppressed and minority groups, it's used against oppressed and minority groups because it's faulty - it's the faultiness that allows for bigotry. Your response is you're not talking about oppressed and minority groups, so it's not bigoted, so it's not faulty. This is getting it precisely backwards. This isn't a misunderstanding, I know what you - I mean, Pyre - set out to say. But what you actually said - and, frankly, the rest of this conversation - is telling me I was right to speak up. You think I'm "arguing linguistics" because you think the problem is the words themselves, because what you set out to say isn't bigotry, because you're not a bigot, you only have a problem with people who deserve it! Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor, but it's OK, because we both agree you didn't mean it like that! That's the important part here! Because this is a conversation about you!

You're gonna think this is more linguistics, but if you read back, you'll notice I never called you a bigot. I said the argument is a veil for bigotry. The reason for this is both because essentialism isn't helpful, and because my problem isn't with you - it's with the argument.

Username checks out, at least.

Back when Russia invaded Ukraine, they issued a statement about how they're saddened that Europe has descended into violence and are calling for the region to give peace a chance. It was a solid troll.

I swear it's like formaldehyde.

I know. I normally wouldn't, but it keeps trying to lecture others on tree climbing, so I thought I could at least try and help it get the basics right.

Palestine? I'm talking about philosophy of ethics.

Unsurprisingly, no, that's not what the trolley problem is about.

Yep, if you don't have the courage to sacrifice something for a cause bigger than yourself

For example, this is fascist retoric. If you understood the trolley problem, you might realise why.

You do, of course, understand that presenting this as a trolley problem implies not voting is a justifiable choice?

What a reasonable and not at all unhinged reply!

On the contrary - yes you do. My complaint is using poison M&Ms as a metaphor for human beings. If you're not gonna present a poison M&M argument of your own, then there's only The Argument left. Though at least we now agree that it is used to justify collective punishment.

Actually, you know what, since you can't seem to find the exit, I'll point you to it. Say:

"The M&M argument is a faulty and dehumanising generalisation, but it's understandable that someone would feel unsafe after living a lifetime worrying about men hurting you."

And I'll say:

"The sentiment is not unreasonable. But generalizations are both suspect and arbitrary (see Sartre's "Jewish furrier" story), and the wariness itself is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things. It's not strange that a lifetime under threat leads to trauma, but allowing trauma to fester and calcify is the wrong choice.

The M&M argument, THE M&M argument, that the article describes, and that ...let's say Pyre, made, and admitted to making, is, in fact, a justification of prejudice. It's the argument of exclusion of an entire demographic based on "well, some of them are bad, and I'm not taking the chance." And if we're gonna shove buzzwords down each other's throat, I'm not strawmanning you, you're gaslighting me. Well, trying to, anyway.

If you wanna make a separate, different M&M argument, one that isn't the one above, go ahead - I am curious about how you're gonna talk your way into un-poisoning the M&Ms. But that new, different argument that you have not yet made is not what this conversation is about.

The stock market is fine. It's just often confused for the economy.