I feel like this analysis is serious enough to warrant a bigger response, but as I am short on time I will just say that sometimes I simply don’t have much to add and would rather mostly observe.

I suppose it depends on if you count colonization as immigration, but the cutoff there gets murky anyways.

I was giving your boss the benefit of the doubt for the first statement-- you could call the different time controls “kinds of chess”. No idea what would possess someone to say that second one though.

What about that guy who posts a game screenshot every day

Honestly? Not much.

Account metadata. I should be able to keep my contact info, personal data, friend list(s), notification settings, etc. on a server (personal or trusted) and use that account on different websites. There’s no reason for these sites to all keep a separate incompatible record of these things!

Rip I’m sorry about that

I do hope we can figure out how to repel people like that. It’s a hard problem to solve but it would go a long way towards making this a better place.

It’s pretty funny that Sciencephile the AI can be recommended as a good non-AI source of info now that more capable AI is real and not just scifi.

I respect your willingness to defend yourself in here. I think your position is one that could be valuable to people on lemmy who are willing to listen.

Username does not check out

Maybe there’s a different reason that people were yelling at you?

Must you resort to personal attacks? Why assume anyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because of a character flaw?

Bro did NOT get the joke

No worries! I apologize too for some of my earlier comments.

Yes, those comments get too much support here. There is resistance, but not enough. Maybe I will spend a bit more effort doing that instead of arguing with people who I largely agree with. I will never entirely stop doing the latter (I believe to reach the truth I must vocally disagree with the flaws of arguments even if I agree with the premise or conclusion) but I could shift my priorities towards fighting the most egregious views first/harder.

I don’t think I have much more to say here but I do appreciate this conversation. It started a bit rough but I always appreciate when someone is willing to stick it out and really discuss something.

No therapist can defeat me

explain why you’re like this

Well I guess it’s “not my job to educate you”, is it?

Fair enough. I think that does happen, it’s just that that doesn’t eliminate the people who are making sexist comments. I do think there’s a difference between someone who’s a part of an ideological movement (their chosen group clearly expresses their views) and someone who is just using a particular website for various reasons (their choice to use that website does not imply general agreement with the website’s views) but I see your point.

That’s true, it’s kind of a grey area. I could see it being argued either way whether it’s an identity group given it’s defined by both identity and choice. I guess it’s not? I still think it would be better not to make a generalization like that, given you will be ascribing negative qualities to people who do not deserve it, but I’m splitting hairs at this point. The sentiment expressed had value I suppose.

I’m not ignoring that, and women should not see a leftist man as significantly less potentially dangerous than any other. I’m saying that regardless of what percentage of people in an identity group have a certain quality, it is wrong to make an unqualified statement about that group, or to assume an individual within that group must have similar qualities to the average member of it. That is the very basis of why racism, sexism, anti-lgbt sentiment, even microaggressions, etc. are wrong, but it applies to men too.

Yes, I agree that the amount of men who treat women badly or don’t respect them as people or their opinions is concerningly high in this thread, and IRL as well tbh.

My argument is exclusively that expressing that sentiment by making a generalized statement about “men on lemmy” is incorrect (it does not apply to the entire group) and immoral (you are talking badly about some people who do not deserve it by applying a property of one of their identity groups to every member of that group individually). But again, “not all men” vs “too many men” has been discussed to death already so I don’t think I’m really adding anything new here.

Edit: Just saw your edit. My sympathies to Dolores Huerta. Even men who do good things can be revealed to have evil within them.

Yes, the part I took offense to was this:

Men on lemmy are 100% the socialist boyfriends who don’t do the dishes, you can tell by what they support and get pissed at.

Not anything related to how that perceived character flaw of men on lemmy makes OP feel in terms of attraction. Again, I do not care who they are attracted to and I believe the primary point of the comment was to express this negative belief of the men on this site.

My objection specifically is that I don’t think this generalization is accurate as you claim. It is for some people, but not for all. And this is now turning into a “not all men” debate… I’m sure you have also had this argument hundreds of times so let me know if you want me to give an explanation my best shot but honestly if you believe generalized statements about men are valid then I probably won’t be saying anything you haven’t heard before and vice versa.