Warl0k3

I loathe quote-replies, but like the saint says...:

Again, you’re just assuming bad intention.

Nnnnno... no I'm not assuming anything about your intention, just your message. You've apparently conflated "you've said this transphobic thing" with "you must be a transphobe". To be honest I think you're probably well meaning, you just show a real lack of social skills and you treat criticism as an attack on you personally. To be clear, I don't actually care what your intention is in saying transphobic things, only that you've said them. That's been the explicit thesis of every one of my responses.

So I guess I must do the same with you? What if my question is legitimate? How can you know I’m just trying to piss of people? You’re just persuading people that I’m acting in bad faith, and I’m not.

In order:

• You're welcome to do that.
• The legitimacy of your curiosity has never been in question.
• How can I know you're not?
• If I thought you were acting in bad faith I wouldn't have spent this long explaining the situation to you.

Still can’t see any quote. What exactly is transphobic?

I don't actually know how to make this more explicit, I'm going to be uncharitable and assume this was just you being truculent (since you go on to respond to the quote in question, this too seems like a fairly safe assumption)

Then, can you really blame me for calling this out because I believe it’s not transphobic and you’re just censoring people and bullshitting?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here (sorry)

So believing a person is homosexual if they like trans people with the opposite gender but same sex is transphobic?

Yes. It inherently implies that biological sex is their (in this case literal) defining feature, disregarding their gender - which is the much more important aspect of a person in every situation except medicine. It's the exact same rhetoric being used by transphobes the world over to justify all their horrendous oppression.

Discrimination being "The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions", your categorization of people based on the fine distinction of the interrelation of their gender expression and sex is very literal discrimination - and by your definition, that's transphobia.

Please stop trying to make this about me characterizing you as anything but a rude person that has having difficulty accepting that even well-intentioned people can hold transphobic views, and that bringing said views into a space regardless of intentions is bringing transphobia into a space where it's wildly and explicitly unwelcome. I don't care about you enough to be doing anything more than that.

Ohhh no, you're not going to trick me into showering that easily!

You just said a transphobic thing, though. It's in the quote I used. That thing you said is transphobic, ergo you have a history of saying transphobic things.

Not being able to discuss in a community focused on this subject is really sad.

You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said. You're welcome to engage with discussion within the community (well not you specifically because of the ban), but there's no obligation for the community to educate you just so you'll feel included. Just like I'm not interested in litigating the details of why 'asserting that you would consider a hetero relationship containing a trans person to be a gay relationship' is transphobic.

It's not an unfair assumption to assume that what someone tells you they believe is, in fact, what they believe. You have expressed transphobic views, so since the only information I have with which to judge you is based on what you've expressed, I can safely take you at your word that you at very least hold the transphobic opinion you have said you hold.

I suspect your inability to accept that rejection based on the things you say doesn't automatically entitle you to defend yourself is also part of the reason for your instance bans.

The problem is you're approaching interaction with the assumption it's appreciated - but Blahaj isn't set aside as an educational space, it's a queer space - and people coming in and retreating to just asking questions when challenged is a really tired trope. You can be unfamiliar with a topic yes, but people are under no obligation to explain themselves or engage in a discussion with you just because of that. Calling a group "LGBT tankies" because you don't understand this may be justified under your own guiding principals, but it comes across as the same kind of petulance as when incels encounter a women's-only space.

You're mad because you were banned, and you have a history of expressing transphobic opinions regardless of your internal motivation. It seems pretty straightforward what happened here.

I mean, it's more that you say inherently transphobic things like:

I would personally say a cis guy dating a trans woman is gay

that shines some light on the potential reasons you might have been banned from the instance.

Man, I bet that's gonna work out just great for you. Hopefully it's just fraud and not a disability...

slrpnk and dbzer0 are both fine, and .world is a bit fractious but still quite solid. Blahaj is good too! Really the only instances I'd suggest avoiding are Hexbear, Lemmy.ml and Lemmygrad

If you're so certain in your victory, why not simply accept it and move on yourself? Why is my ascension to your proposed scenario so important here? Why attack me, instead of discuss the merit of the arguments I'm so eager to talk about?

(Taking faff is one of the cutest aphorism's I've run across, thank you for that)

Anyways, you've repeatedly demonstrated a deeply fundamental lack of familiarity with the topic being discussed here. And you asserting that I agree with you, despite repeatedly explaining the nuance of my position and detailing how we disagree, is a pretty transparent attempt to establish a victory condition that has nothing to do with the content of your argument and everything to do with the submission of your opponent ~~which, listen, usually I'm all for that, but man when you're just trying to demand it like this it's a real turn off.~~

It's even wildly off topic - you still have done nothing to actually establish that your position is founded on evidence, you're just asserting that you're correct and ignoring the mounting evidence for my own position. Hell, at this point you've already agreed that there's no reason for them to slow down. I think you're agreeing with my point (not that I'm going to try and strong-arm you into that one)

So, seriously, why would they slow down when assaulting a pre-prepared defensive position? Ordinarily, that's what we'd call suicide.

(Sorry slightly pressed for time this comment, I usually try to avoid quote-reliant responses)

I’m not sure where or why you have these cartoonish visions of how tanks go about things

Getting attached to armored regiments gives you a weird degree of insight as to how they do things, I'll happily confess to that one.

or that it’s at all standard practice to just hurl yourselves barrel first into walls

You're not quite understanding my argument, I fear. You can see in the vid I posted before that a tank will happily just shove it's way through a berm of loose-packed dirt like this, it's not like I'm trying to present that as a tank driving full on at a wall. I've also never presented that a tank would intentionally foul it's barrel instead adjusting the gun lay to deflect damage (hell, turrets even have a system in place to allow free rotation in the event of strong impacts just to prevent damage to the barrel/sights/etc) because that's the entire basis of my "just elevate over it" point from earlier. The berm in the OP is only a barrier in that a vehicle might get bogged down in it, a small mound of dirt isn't going to stop anything especially not a MBT.

what any force would do is cross once carefully and push entering in and then they can just drive across.

No, what? Rapid thrusts through enemy defenses is fundamental to maneuver warfare - it was the basis of Blitzkrieg, it's the basis of modern Disorganization in Depth, it was a cornerstone of Ukraine's counter-offensive. It's what any armored force would do - exploitation through rapid maneuver, consolidation by following forces.

Here, don't believe me? 1-10. "While Army forces consolidate gains throughout an operation, consolidating gains become the focus of operations after large-scale combat operations have concluded". It's very literally textbook maneuver warfare - it's so basic it's publicly available on the US Army website.

Because hitting a wall at 50 kph in a armored can is a stupid* fucking idea unless you’re currently being shot at

Isn't the point of having a bunker every 60 meters that you'll have lots of locations to shoot at people trying to cross the tank barrier? That's kinda fundamental to the premise here.

You agree

But... no, I don't?

dbzer0 has a ton of great communities but they've had some real weirdo niche mods come to light lately. I'm hoping they address it, it'd be a change of pace from the general admin approach on lemmy which can feel extremely hands-off on most instances.

I explained the context of the video, though - and my whole point has been "but why would they slow down". Its not because of the trench, we've both accepted the evidence that it's actively detrimental to them to do that. You keep saying they would slow, but not establishing a reason why they'd ever do that, instead lashing out at me.

I've demonstrated to both our satisfactions that this little ditch isn't a notable obstacle to a modern AFV, and is only a minor one to the lowest-profile and longest-snooted MBT I know of (There's no risk of booping the berm with an Abrams or Challenger 2, for example. They're both too tall and the barrel does not extend to the same comical distance). I've even laid out why this style of ditch is an important facet of a defense in depth strategy (easy for AFVs to cross, difficult for support, separates the two very nicely esp. if the tanks are moving at speed to avoid making targets of themselves).

So... what's the issue? Is it just that I've expressed my position, that you're intelligent but very unfamiliar with the topic? I really doubt that one, it seems objectionably petty even to me, but I am curious about what your motivation is here.

^edit:^ ^clarity^

^edit_2:^ ^added^ ^edit^ ^disclaimer^