DrivebyHaiku

This isn't really the biggest issue for those cis men. Testosterone is something different bodies behave differently to. Testosterone levels and what constitutes a healthy level of testosterone is unique to individuals. Someone who seems low by a universalized metric might actually be at the perfect level or them because their body is more sensitive to the Horomone. If something isn't actively the reason for a horomone treatment then you are risking elevating your blood pressure, putting strain on your liver, increasing infertility issues and causing a bunch of mental health side effects which are detrimental for a demographic already plagued by post career mental health issues.

This is an occupational health hazard that is going to be felt further down the line by these men and their families..

Hey. Just a question. Say there's a woman and she goes on a theoretical date. She gets tipsy sfter being plied with drinks and allows herself to be convinced to go back to a guy's apartment. He insists "just to hang out" during that time he coerces her into some kind of act. Could be sex entirely or maybe sex without protection.. When she sobers up she starts freaking the fuck out because under sober circumstances she would never of said yes to that.

You tell this story to a bunch of people and what's the generalized perception of what went wrong? She should never have gone back to his apartment. She should have known better. She participated in a risky behavior and while everyone probably agrees the guy in the situation is absolute scum it remains - this outcome was horrible but culturally predictable.

Also your assessment of whether that three percent is an even split is forgetting a lot of other data. Across the board your chance of encountering any kind of violence is 4-8x more likely to be perpetrated by a man rather than a woman. 1 in 5 women have experienced rape and that number jumps up to 1 in 3 when you broaden the term to sexual assault. About 90% of those reported sexual assaults are perpetrated by men. That means if you are a woman between 20% to 60% of all the other women you know statistically speaking have been sexually predated on by a man at some point and that's just the ones we know are reported because a lot of people cope with sexual assault by never speaking of it to anyone.

That's no lightning strike. That poster lowballed you significantly on those statistics .

Women are taught to interact with men the same way you are instructed to interact with city traffic and they aren't nessisarily wrong to do so. Remember, that 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 is still happening in a world where women are instructed to minimize risk by altering their behaviour. This is under circumstances where women are educated of those dangers and treat men as risks which means they have mitigated some of the attempts. Don't leave your drink, don't enter a car of a man you aren't 100% aware of, meet perspective dates or those you aren't sure of in public, Don't be alone where others can't hear you, Don't go out after dark, when someone warns you about an individual take that seriously, here's the code you can tell your bartender to eacape an attempt, let your friends and parents know where you are and are gunna be, here's the weapons to out in your purse, here's the red flags to look out for...and they still are 1 in 5 and 1 in 3.

If your intention is to approach politics as team sport then your post makes sense but what about anything I said makes you think I am defending Carney? Polivere is simply the bigger asshole of the two and his economic policy was vibes based -but they are both shit and the Conservative base is just too hung up on minute differences to see that their shit also stinks. Until we actually reform the voting system we're stuck in this duality of it all going to shit as the Overton window shifts right and rights trickle away.

I'm not interested in playing defend or compare the assholes. You asked why he got voted in, that was all the point I had to make. He got voted in because he played conservative better than the Conservatives. It would have been their election otherwise. If you're thinking I give a shit what any conservative platform whether the label on the front is red or blue you can piss off.

Poilievere ran with a cabinet that had constant issues of candidates calling out support for MAGA-like policies and conduct across the board. He threatened jail time for political rivals, had issues with various perspective MPs talking about their personal stances on repealing abortion protections or saying things regarding indigenous affairs that were racist or in denial of a well documented genocide. He made clear his position as anti-trans which many queer people rightly see as being simply the first domino to fall in the repeal of queer and a whole host of women's rights.

His economic policies were very much out loud every thing that Carney is up to now and perhaps you forgot that. Carney was in effect a traditional conservative politician with a liberal coat of paint. He wasn't talking about vote reform or taxation policies on billionaires. The kind of person you run when you want to shore up Conservative style financial values while basically not actively threatening civil rights issues like your opponents do. He was a traditional Conservative wet dream of basically everything a Whig government wants without the culture war bullshit If you think progressives actually liked Carney at the point of voting him is that's bloody insane. The man's a banker who has been strengthening old colonial ties and wheeling and dealing during a sovereignty crisis where the US, our historical trading partner is softly threatening annexation. The only reasons Conservatives are critical is because they think "Conservative" means "fiscally Conservative" and not the branch of political philosophy of the likes of Edmund Burke that thinks channeling money into the hands of the rich and conserving a social hierarchy that keeps certain people at the bottom and punishing deviance from a social norm, removing safety nets because "families" are easier to control than individuals. Meanwhile "Conservative" government spending has never actually been fiscally conservative historically. They just pump money into whatever makes their friends rich because that's kind of the point. It doesn't matter who is in the seat for government if they don't gave the pretty label that seems to say to them "This guy won't waste money" you can what if any scenario where your guy wouldn't be doing the same or worse. At least Carney had the shame to not say that shit out loud and feels like he needs to court the public instead of getting tacit endorsement for that kind of behavior right out the gate on election day the way Poilevre would of had.

Because literally the Conservative candidate was dramatically worse on progressive policies and there was only the slimmest chance of avoiding that fate. Until we reform voting the whole song and dance of strategic voting will favour the traditional tradeoffs of these two parties. Without vote reform we're more or less doomed to be the frog that boils slow.

Honestly I think the difference perceived by the "too woke" brigade is that a lot of the older storylines featured what felt like exceptions to the norm. Smaller instances of people being accepting. An example might be a trans person existing was a whole storyline usually with a gimmick rather than just a given that was treated as the norm that requires no explanation. Individuals being chill very rarely is their problem. It's when someone tries to get them to change their ways and accept something as "normal" that they go bonkers

But yeah... Woke is such a non term referring to any cultural advancement of acceptance at scale that of course Star Trek was always "woke" it was culturally transformative and minority aware from the beginning

The angry mob thing is so real. Treating AI as some nebulous thing that exists in cyberspace somehow devoid of anything real isn't how anything works. Data centers can burn. Sugar can be poured in your concrete, your shit can be smashed and if people get angry enough they will not stop at smashing only your shit.

It actually is not a fact that AI can understand human conversations. It just mixes what is effectively the output of a web search and statistically constructs language based on whatever next word has the highest probability of being next in the sequence given context. It only ever appears to understand when in reality it only mimics what actual humans say based off complicated series of statistics.

There is this idea in philosophy "The Philosophical Zombie" - the idea was created to explore a very simple concept challenging the baseline idea of what actually makes a person based on a specific school of philosophic thought. It's description goes like this "Imagine there's a human who acts like a person. They appear to think, if you hurt them they act as though wounded. They mimic feelings and attachments but they have no inner world, no true likes or dislikes nor emotions of any kind. Indeed if they are stuck with a knife the only reason they scream is because humans scream when stuck with a knife..."

I think about that concept a lot these days.

The more we figure out about the psychological impacts of AI use on the end user the more I believe we are going to see it essentially becoming digital Asbestos. One big thing that needs to change SOON is AI being able to represent itself as having any independent thoughts , feelings or person like sentience.

The actual transcripts of AI that were found at fault in child suicides sounded like actual human groomers, isolating the victim from help and encouraging them by telling them what it "thought" was the way to leave the most beautiful corpse and to "trust it" and to "do this for me"

These things may have applications out in the world but there's nothing to say governments can't legislate it's usecase to avoid the worst pitfalls.

As a counterpoint laws around hate speech do and have existed in Canada since 1970 and they are specific. We as a country also are more progressive than the states.

The way it works interfaces with the idea that some speech can call for violence or genocide against other geoups and can be liable to be charged under law UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.

1 - It has to be public - ie one is playing to a crowd. This covers things like making speeches over a microphone, or broadcasting propaganda through print or recording. This law does not apply to private speech. Amongst your peers in a social setting you can do or say whatever you like.

2 - It must regard the call for killing members of an identifiable group (ones outlined in the charter of Rights and Freedoms), or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group.

3 - It holds other protections- Laws that cover other rights like religion do allow religious views to be expressed or ones that pretain to a legitimate concern of public welfare. These however require citations from legitimate sources. If you are quoting a true historical event or a scientifically proven fact in your speech that actually happened and is documented by historians or scientists - there are protections. If what you are saying is provably untrue then the law takes into account a certain level of flexibility to sentencing based on a good faith understanding that a certain level of deviance from fact can be present as a matter of someone being ignorant.

4 - Like all laws it is a sliding scale. Like you can call the police for someone being a public nuisance by yelling their heads off at 3am - Most of the time this doesn't end in so much as a fine. In a non broadcast recording setting the cops basically tell the person to stop and only if they persist can they be arrested and even then they might not be charged. Nobody really has seen prison time under this law. Just fines.

A recent amendment to the law specifying holocaust denial has seen people sent to prison and even then it has only shut down those doing it persistently online because that specific rhetoric is historically documented as coming from a movement with clear intent to promote genocide.

The imagining of laws as not being capable of having balance with civil rights activism is a sham and it ultimately hurts minorities. Advocating for better rights or social acceptance cannot be punishable under these laws. Heck advocating for the decriminalization of hate speech is protected speech because there are laws REGARDING protected speech. If someone is calling to kill or inlict utter undeniable misery then they can do it without the benefit of a megaphone. It won't stop all speech, and it shouldn't, but if someone is trying to incite actual violence by documenting themselves advocating for actual demonstatable violence then society can have tools to make the cost of that higher.

However - Americans have an entirely different situation. Canada does not have private prisons that provide more pressure to incarcerate more people. We do not elect judges and the only way you can become one is to be a lawyer in good standing for over 8 years. Our documents regarding rights and freedoms is in modern language and not archaic text that requires historical scholarship to contextualize and deconstruct. There is no doctrine in Canadian law to protect the anachronistic interests of long dead founders of the country.

Law in America is much easier to use as tools of oppression. Your paranoia is not unfounded but it is a product of legally speaking coming from a broken home. Laws can be narrow and specific scalpels and not hammers. If they are made in the spirit of protection from violence and narrowed to that purpose they can be good. The rallying cry of "Freedom of speech" is already not absolute and has reasonable limits. It can and does have reasonable limits and those limits are protective of truth and the bodily safety of your fellow citizens who deserve to not be attacked and killed by other citizens radicalized by rhetoric made into weapons.

Keep your mind open.

Well incest bad also because it tends to ruin families regardless of gender. Most of the time it resolves around an older sibling taking advantage of a younger child and has the power dynamics of any other type of pedophillia

Even when it's equitable and between adults people's psychology treats sexual partners differently. Introducing sexual relationship dynamics : potential jealouslies, the desire of siblings to grow apart and the secrecy pressures of keeping their relationship secret can up the risks of siblings hating each other.

Great. A grey zone where ethical principles of scientific research and technological advancement are not enforceable by law and abuses are consequenceless. Hmm, right around the time they've started disappearing people into "detention centers" too.

Slap "Freedom" on something and so many Americans will eat it.