erin (she/her)

This doesn’t pass the smell test, as someone that has followed the Greens for years. If you thought his actions were “tone policing” then I’m immediately questioning your actions, since all I’ve seen is a standup guy and educator. I’m happy to be corrected with a link, but I’m not seeing what you’re talking about.

I’ve used a variant of melatonin for my online handle in various spaces, your name threw me off for a second. Was like, I’m pretty damn sure I’m not melatonin here.

My tongue is exactly the same with the “D” in “dentist” and “dog.”

Low draw means low power and penetration. For speed shooting or distracting/stunning a target, that would be helpful, but you’re not gonna kill someone unless it’s a very lucky shot. There’s a reason war bows were such high draw weight, and it wasn’t for piercing plate. More power means more energy retained over distance and more energy delivered to the target. If you’re needing to speed shoot in close quarters in a self defense scenario, you’re probably better off using the bow as a club or stabbing them with an arrow directly. Archers usually carried other weapons for that reason.

Lmao

Whatever man. I tried, but you’re not interested in listening. I commented for your benefit, not mine, and it makes no difference to me.

Educate yourself. Numerous cultures don’t cover the female breast. Not my job.

That’s definitely not true. Many cultures around the world don’t see breasts sexually at all.

What

When they said, “I don’t care about your parents,” it was an expression of apathy, not animosity. It was them telling you that they agree, and that their point is about the greater system, not that guy’s aunt or your parents. You took it personally and got more defensive. Their absolute does hold, because it’s in regard to a system. The point isn’t that your parents are individually bad people, like you seem to think it is, it’s that they’re part of a bad system, and regardless of their individual actions, the system is still bad. Fundamentally, you, the other commenters, and I agree. They aren’t trying to argue that you’re defending landlords in general, the argument is that your defense of your parents excuses them from the system.

A fair and kind cop is still responsible for participating in an evil system, just as your parents are. They may be good people, with good intentions, and treat people well. No one is denying that. It’s just entirely besides the point. They’re still hoarding property that should be possessed by those that live in them, and housing should be cheaper. Without landlords and real estate conglomerates driving prices high, there should be a surplus of housing. Again, your parents might be good people, but they are participating in an immoral system. Even the best landlord is still a landlord, and while they are nowhere near anyone’s first target to fix the system, they’re still participating.

The best cop is still a cop, the best billionaire is still a billionaire, and the best landlord is still a landlord. It’s nothing personal against them specifically.

As a neutral outside reader, this person does not sound like they are hating on your parents specifically, and you come across as extremely defensive (understandably). Their point seems to be that the existence of a good cop doesn’t make the police state tolerable, nor does the existence of a good landlord make the system of people owning other’s homes tolerable.

Regardless of how good any landlord is, it would be better for homes to be affordable and owned by those that live in them. In the current system, some areas are unaffordable without renting, but that doesn’t make the landlords morally good categorically, it means they’re part of the problem that drives prices too high in an area. Owning property to rent artificially drives the price of real estate up. Ideally, renting should be far, far more limited or entirely phased out depending on the specific situation. No one is saying that your parents specifically are evil, but they are part of a larger system that is.

The entire second half of your comment is both prejudiced and incorrect. You are generalizing an entire marginalized group by the actions of a few people you have interacted with. I have many trans friends irl, interact in communities with people across the gender spectrum online, and am engaged to a trans woman. I have never experienced someone being rude when they weren’t treated rudely first. Additionally, trans people and “gays” are different categories entirely. You do not sound like the ally you claim to be.

Apologies! I couldn’t see any pronouns from the image so defaulted to gender nonspecific they. Edited.

Regardless of your opinion on whether dude has become genderless or not (I also use dude for my friends of any gender), the word is a gendered term that has become ubiquitous. If someone doesn’t want me to use “dude” referring to them, I won’t. It’s not good to assume, so until I know that someone doesn’t mind, I’m not going to use gendered terms contrary to their gender. I wouldn’t call a man “sis” or “girl” the same way I would women I’m friends with, unless I know that doesn’t make them uncomfortable. I wouldn’t call a woman “bro” or “guy” the same way I would men I’m friends with unless I checked. All of those terms are gender nonspecific for me, but they might make someone who doesn’t have my lived experience uncomfortable.

The user’s pronouns were in her username, OP’s client just doesn’t display additional lines.

I recommend sticking to gender nonspecific instead of defaulting to masculine.

It did. OP’s client doesn’t display it. It’s pure miscommunication.

Yes

It was a general assumption, and apparently not an accurate one. I don’t presume to actually know how you think from one comment. There are dog whistles on all sides, because it’s essentially a term for an “inside joke,” minus the humor (usually). It comes up most often with Nazis and racists not because they’re the center of attention necessarily, but mostly because dog whistles are needed primarily by groups that are not socially acceptable. You cannot be openly racist except with other racists, or openly a Nazi except with other Nazis. Dog whistles allow people to declare allegiance and signal to others that believe the same without needing to openly state it. Usually, we still know anyways, but it gives them plausible deniability in their eyes.

What? They used the word correctly. How are you gonna pull out “both sides” when they’re correct? It hasn’t lost its meaning, you just don’t like hearing it so often because, surprise surprise, there’s an awful lot of dog whistling going on in the current political cycle. It means a signal used to communicate loyalty or belief to an idea, group, platform, etc, that is understood by other people who agree, and not necessarily obvious to the neutral observer. In this case, the word “woke” is a dog whistle for bigots. It was applied correctly.