Fallynn

There’s still the issue of locality. Even with very advanced tech not every location could source the necessary materials for everything. This means you’d need to figure out how to have a globalized trade system at the same time.

Better tech is always going to help but unfortunately tech alone can not make this work.

The thing about us neurodivergent people is that we’re people, which means we’re as vulnerable as any other group. Some might be more vulnerable than non-neurodivergent individuals others might be less. There is a broad spectrum of neurodivergence. I happen to be one of the less vulnerable. My autism predisposed me to questioning and trying to truly understand what I hear and why.

Your comment did rub me the wrong way because to say that we neurodivergent folk are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of things (extremism) is belittling. I know you tried to mean well but that is simply what it is. We are a broad spectrum of people. Same as you.

I don’t mean to suggest you may be trans just want to clear up one misconception. Dysphoria is not a requirement to be trans. A person can be trans with zero dysphoria. The only requirement is that you identify as a gender different from your assigned at birth one. This can be on the simple basis of it just feeling more correct for “you” as an identity.

Or they could just hire more people so they aren’t perpetually understaffed and over worked. This is a safe proven method that has worked for decades, no unproven tech from questionable ai businesses needed.

Divorce proceedings happens to be a time in which domestic abuse tends to spike. So it’s actually a pretty apt description.

I think the heart of the difference between our views from what I’ve been able to understand from you is this. You view biological differences between men and women as having a sufficient enough reason to support gender roles if in the event the capability of a couple is known.

I view the biological differences as something that should only be considered from a health perspective I.e. crash test dummy’s designed for men and ones designed for women to ensure proper safety testing.

For me the biological differences shouldn’t be considered whether we know a couple’s capabilities or not. Humans are an extremely varied species with lots of overlap between women and men.

There are women who are tall and muscular and men who are short and skinny. There are men who are tall and skinny and women who are short and muscular.

Ultimately the biggest factor is lifestyle and not genetics. A female firefighter could absolutely out strength many males even if she’s short because she works out regularly.

In short I don’t think biological differences are significant enough to be taken into actual consideration outside of specific circumstances like described above. While you as I understand it do believe them to be significant enough a factor to be given consideration if the differences between a couple are known.

I was not angry with my original reply, it could jot in anyway be reasonably taken as angry. I am however a bit frustrated now, in particular with your response to me. To quote what you said,

“Somehow this convo became about humans being hunters and what not. And not the original conversation about dishes and dragons.”

To also quote you’re first comment you said,

“Isn't this how we function evolutionarily? Like in a hunter and gatherers society, men were predominantly the ones required to do "one-hit" labour like hunting, whereas women were predominantly the ones doing "continual" labour like gathering food.”

You are the one who brought it up. Saying it “somehow” came up like you did is disingenuous and implies my argument is unrelated and can therefore be dismissed.

That is what is now making me a bit frustrated and why I felt it necessary to clear up the way you misconstrued things in your reply to me.

You are free to not respond if you do not want to. If you don’t want to continue I will respect that.

I also want to make sure that everyone reading this understands that them not replying or wanting to end the discussion should not be taken to mean anything one way or another.

Humans were persistence hunters which requires endurance. Lots of strength isn’t really necessary when the prey has exhausted itself.

If you have a choice whether you wanted to have it or not, and you choose not to act. That in and of itself is you making a call as to what outcome you prefer. You are therefore responsible.

Choosing not to act is still a choice own it. You would choose to let 5 people die instead of 1 so that you don’t have to feel responsible but you are. You are putting your emotions over the lives of others.

There is such a thing legally speaking as gross negligence. You chose not to act and a worse outcome happens when you had the ability to stop it. Your argument would never hold up in court.

You can try to claim moral superiority all you like but in the end it’s just an excuse to allow you to put your feelings over the lives of others.

As a Canadian I’m am disappointed and disgusted by the selfishness of the US populace both left and right in different ways. Get off your high horse and own your decisions. The time for change is at the grassroots level. Stop with your mememe “morality” and do something beyond the absolute minimum of voting if you even did that.

Fix your shit American sorry not sorry

I would say they’re useful for peace of mind and better understanding of the self. But also for interacting with other people since saying you’re autistic is a lot easier for people to understand than explaining how you work. Lastly if you’re low functioning autistic a diagnosis can also qualify you for disability benefits. I personally saw a major improvement in my life from that last point.

I mean they need a “higher power” to tell them what morals they should follow so you’re right it’s perfectly on brand.

Totally agree. No one ever said they were smart long term thinkers. Late stage capitalism doesn’t exactly reward that kind of thinking after all.