Jiggle_Physics

Welcome

Scentbird's CEO/founder is pretty crazy. Claims all sorts of magical medical cures on her social media account. Saying you cure cancer by "aligning your life's purpose" is one of the least crazy claims she has made. If you are concerned about the ethics of companies you buy from, especially when they are easily avoided like a perfume company, I suggest looking into her, and deciding if you still want to give them your business.

One of the first things he got rid of was a specialized intelligence unit that was dedicated to studying, and strategizing opposition to, Chinese cyber warfare. This has stood out to me since it happened. We have these for pretty much every country that is an active threat source, but he chops the one for China, and it is like at, or near, the top of his hit list. Seemed weird to me. I looked into who ran it, to see if they had openly clashed with Trump, but it didn't seem so, though there was little information on the people involved in it, as I expected.

Asking you why you are asking me, when provided with professional sources is "literally crying about you doing this to me"? See, now you are doing exactly what I expressed in my first post on this. You are taking context clues and interpreting them to make a judgement call on me. This is what women who are being condescendingly explained things to them by men. Like some, you are misreading the person you are speaking to. I also notice the word slur isn't in that definition. Highlighting that stuff isn't the correction you might think it is, if I express a term to display my disapproval, it is demonstrating negative connotations, and belittling someone does not have inherent bigotry to it. If you are being condescending, you are belittling someone, so turn about is fair play. This is calling out your choice of actions. If I call a man, acting immaturely, a man-baby that is a statement about physical development, being grown, a man, vs a child, but they are acting in a way a child would. Same thing for woman-babies, or as they are more commonly known now, Karens, with Karen butting into other terms such as man-baby too. Mansplaining doesn't have centuries of intense persecution, torture, slavery, and many other awful things, things happening to this day, behind it. You are putting mansplaining on that level. Even if I agreed it was misandry, this would be a serious miss-equivocation.

"Yeah, effort… who needs that shit huh? The easy way is always the best way huh?"

Yes clearly, I provided the way to get professional answers about the subject you are asking for, that is the best way to get information, in this case. I can lead you to water, but can't make you drink. You seem to be thinking I should also scoop up the water, and pour it down your throat for you. I am asking why you think being given a means of answering your questions, from the best possible sources, is dodging your question, or why you would desire random assholes' takes on the subject, rather than professional ones. This makes no sense, unless you have some ulterior motive. You ask for answers, I provide a means to get the best ones that can be achieved in this context, you then insist randos on a forum answer instead.

Score!

Pejorative means it shows disapproval, if I say a term that means anything negative about something, or someone it is a pejorative. If someone throw a fit about something, and I call them childish, that is a pejorative, it is not being used as a slur, it means I disapprove of your choice of action. If that person is a man and I call them a man-baby, that is not me being sexist, it means you are a man, who is acting like a baby. Saying something that means I disapprove of your behavior is absolutely not the same as saying something that means I disapprove of how someone was born. That is the difference between the term mansplaining, and the n word. One is a judgement of actions, one is a judgment of inherent qualities.

I am not saying you are victimizing me by doing this, that is a stupid conclusion to come to. I am asking why you are insisting on asking random people online for answers, when the expert opinions on the subject are right there for you? Why must you get this from people online when you can get high quality answers with a search. If you think asking you why you insist on getting answers from non-experts, when the expert answers are at your finger tips, is being a crybaby (a pejorative BTW, so did you just call me a slur?), or calling myself a victim, I guess that makes you the same for insisting others answer your questions. I refer to myself because, when I pointed you towards the better source for answers, you insisted on an answer from me instead.

Why do you want random people online to give you answers when much higher quality information is available with little extra work?

The point I was making was that a person can be a participant in the racism, while their personal intentions are not. Their personal intentions do not mean that what they are participating isn't racist, and that is what the paper says, and what you said it said.

Why must you know from random people online, rather than experts? Is it because you can argue against people who are not experts, while not so much with people bringing the data? Are you just lazy? Is that it? You can't be fucked to read anything that isn't as small, and surface level, as a forum comment section? Why require me, someone who does not have professional expertise in a subject, to be the person who gives you answers on that subject, rather than the people who have that? There is no better way to get answers than from the people who spend their lives specifically working to understand it, why be so adamant laymen answer you? What is it that makes you desire some rando answer these questions for you when the experts' publications on the subject are right there?

Also, since you demonstrate that you don't know how systemic racism works, I will provide the following. This will allow you to get the answers you need, as you read them, and use the terminology within the search on your own.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/9/1521/6631584 - more general review of systemic racism

https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00349-3 - more focusing on why the individuals intent is not a requirement for actions/behaviors, to be racism in a systemic fashion

If you are actually doing this in good faith you would do the last thing I suggested on my comment, rather than argue online. That is where you will get structured, rigorous, formal, papers on the subject, their methodology, the data, their conclusions. There are a bunch of papers that tackle the issues in multiple different ways. This is where you will get useful answers, not arguing with me, as I am not going to write a research paper for you. This is a subject that needs a large depth of analysis, and that is out there, ready to find, simply with the search phrase I provided.

If you think the term "mansplaining", to describe an identified pattern of behavior, is equivalent to a slur based purely on factors outside of the control of the person, you are too far afield to come to any reasonable conclusion from anything but actual academic publications, or, if possible, a free, online, course about such topics. If you use the search term I gave you you can educated yourself, quite a lot, on the subject. You will also be able to take topic identifiers, and parts of these papers, and their lexicons, to make it easier to further find more information.

Do this.

It is not that it is happening, it is how it is being conducted. The body language, tone, specific wording, etc. You can generally tell when someone is talking down to you by these contextual behaviors. Have you never had someone speak to you, and you can tell from the way they are behaving, that they are being condescending to you? That person doesn't have to know anything about you to behave as though they feel superior to you. While this can be done to anybody, by anybody, men are more likely to behave in this manner to women, than other men, and women are less likely to do this to men. This is where mansplaining comes from, as the propensity for men to talk down to women more often than other men, and more than women do, thus the factor here is the person being spoken down to's gender.

This disparity of frequency is what defines a lot of how bigotry is executed. Both white men, and women, are targets of illegitimate arrest, investigation, violence, and other civil rights abuse from authority. However, non-white, and also non-female, demographics show a disparity, against their favor, in frequency of this mistreatment, even when all other factors are similar.

If you search academic study on mansplaining you will get a wealth of actual academic work, rather than an internet argument. I suggest doing that.

Quit being reasonable! Gender is cooked! Withdraw from society! It hates men!