dot-execute

[dot-execute]

When trans women are mocked and made into jokes in the media, I get very upset, and I am often told “Kay, you can’t go through life getting offended every time someone makes a joke.” And I sputter and object but they don’t hear me. So I want to be clear for once, about why the jokes make me angry.

I learned to hate myself for being transgender before I knew I was transgender. I laughed at the jokes in stand up comedy routines, and prime time sitcoms, and animated comedy shows, and in the movies, and in books, and in games, laughing at trans women for existing, about “men in dresses”, about people who “got their dicks chopped off”, and I learned to think that was worthy of ridicule.

And then a day came when I felt a pang of envy at what my female classmates were wearing and I repressed it, and felt guilty, and a day where I felt incomplete because I had no breasts and I repressed it and I felt disgusting And a day when I realized the only images of romance that made me feel anything showed two women together and I repressed it and I felt like a monster And a day when I realized I felt sick when I looked at myself in the mirror after every shower before work and couldn’t bear to look at my own face, and I hated myself. And then there came a day when I hated myself so much, and I thought I could never understand why, and so I just wanted it all to end. And it was just a miracle that I swerved my car back into my lane in time.

And all of it started with a joke that I heard on TV, and then kept hearing from all the voices from the ether, over and over and over, worming an idea into my mind before I was old enough to realize I was absorbing it, the idea that a man in a dress is funny, and that changing your body parts makes you a freak, and that women who have penises instead of vaginas are liars and hurt men. And they’re still making these jokes. And somewhere out there right now, just like all those years ago, there is a little girl in a t-shirt and cargo shorts with buzzed off hair watching the TV, hearing that joke and absorbing it without knowing it, who will someday have to pry herself apart to tear it out of her head, just like I did.

That is, if she doesn’t kill herself first.

[dot-execute]

"these people would have put trans women with men in this and that study or experiment" yea and they'd be wrong to do that. how are you trying to get into complex discussions about transmisogyny when you cant even get past the fundamental baseline understanding of trans women are women and trans men are men

baffling to me how many (even trans!!!) people still make arguments formed around the understanding that trans people are not the gender they say they are. quoting terf talking points as something reasonable to consider as if the whole argument doesnt fall apart the moment you acknowledge trans women as truly being actual women

[dot-execute]

baffling to me how many (even trans!!!) people still make arguments formed around the understanding that trans people are not the gender they say they are. quoting terf talking points as something reasonable to consider as if the whole argument doesnt fall apart the moment you acknowledge trans women as truly being actual women

[dot-execute]

Lines of thought that seem Normal but are actually rooted in extreme puritanism:

-Seeing the nude human body is inherently traumatic -Sex scenes in art are pointless -Wearing kink-related clothing in public is the similar to performing a sex scene in front of unwilling participants -Depicting female characters expressing sexuality is always degrading -People's sexual fantasies are always an endorsement of the behavior they want to see in real life -Sex work is more traumatic and coercive than other types of work The goal is to treat sex as just another thing people do. That is a much healthier attitude than hiding it! It's not uniquely traumatic, it's not weird to talk about it or include it in society.

[dot-execute]

i hate commanderslop legends so much

[dot-execute]

[dot-execute]

sabrinacarpenter: manchild bts take a shot every time i wear a new outfit

[dot-execute]

not really my kind of music but Carpenter's recent album cover is just good, actually. the photo's composition itself is oddly satisfying. even before knowing anything else about the album or the opening track “Manchild” which elaborates all of this, it's obvious even just from actually engaging with the cover—instead of having a knee-jerk disgust-based response—that what she's doing here is tongue-in-cheek and expresses an ambivalence. for god's sake the album title is Man's Best friend, and she's even looking toward the viewer rather than up at the photo's other figure! she may as well have a cartoon speech bubble superimposed saying “I have ambivalence about these men and my relations with them that I will be exploring in this album”

no this is not saying the art is Revolutionary or Feminist. why are you looking for that from a pop star just because she's a woman. are you stupid? or just a misogynist, or

[dot-execute]

gave her a ciggy :3

[dot-execute]

SABRINA CARPENTER Manchild — dir. Vania Heymann and Gal Muggia

[dot-execute]

https://x.com/zanyfen/status/1933484581526577534?s=46&t=HlQ93hIgEo4j5M2967xoUg

[dot-execute]

No your honor i would never kill out of anger. I killed that guy for sport

[dot-execute]

in general it's easy to discern between liberal idealism and dialectical materialism in any given discussion over the merit of anything. if an action is a line drawn between two states, between subject and object, then the liberal perspective is one focused on the line, while the communist perspective is one focused on the endpoints. a liberal consideration is whether a certain action can ever be justified, whether something - violence, bodily automomy, authority - as an abstract movement, is acceptable or not, which can then be applied down to individual situations. the communist consideration is, as always, 'who stands to gain?' - violence by who, against whom?; whose autonomy to do what?; whose authority over whom? - in the specific and real case being identified. liberal idealism is certainly easier, once you establish a universal human right you can simply apply your principle without having to do much thought - but it's always a weak and immaterial argument. as an example: abortion should be allowed not because of an abstract principle, but because, plainly, restricting abortion in the real world is harmful, and carrying out abortion in the real world is not harmful. the idea that these two facts aren't important to the safeguarding of abortion is ridiculous - and plainly will not work in the real world. the people who say 'well maybe abortion is murder, but either way, it's my right' will convince absolutely nobody; let alone the absurd implications should the logic of absolute rights be extended to other real-world situations. there are a million other examples on the focus on 'means' over 'ends', and they're very easy to spot once you start looking out for them.

[dot-execute]

Entry level jobs haven't existed since the 2008 crash. 90% of hiring managers won't hire recent graduates. A quarter of job listings are ghost jobs. Companies hire part time so that they don't have to give benefits. Federal minimum wage hasn't increased since 2009. The True Unemployment Rate is 25%. Master's are the new bachelor's. For most the job search takes over a year. 75% of resumes are never. actually seen by the hiring team.

[dot-execute]

This isn’t simply the norm of a digital world. It’s unique to AI, and a marked departure from Big Tech’s electricity appetite in the recent past. From 2005 to 2017, the amount of electricity going to data centers remained quite flat thanks to increases in efficiency, despite the construction of armies of new data centers to serve the rise of cloud-based online services, from Facebook to Netflix. In 2017, AI began to change everything. Data centers started getting built with energy-intensive hardware designed for AI, which led them to double their electricity consumption by 2023. The latest reports show that 4.4% of all the energy in the US now goes toward data centers.

Given the direction AI is headed—more personalized, able to reason and solve complex problems on our behalf, and everywhere we look—it’s likely that our AI footprint today is the smallest it will ever be. According to new projections published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in December, by 2028 more than half of the electricity going to data centers will be used for AI. At that point, AI alone could consume as much electricity annually as 22% of all US households.

Meanwhile, data centers are expected to continue trending toward using dirtier, more carbon-intensive forms of energy (like gas) to fill immediate needs, leaving clouds of emissions in their wake. And all of this growth is for a new technology that’s still finding its footing, and in many applications—education, medical advice, legal analysis—might be the wrong tool for the job or at least have a less energy-intensive alternative.

[dot-execute]

i just cannot emphasize enough how much the financials of any tech company, including the few tech companies that make real actual products with an obviously profitable business model, are reliant on constantly selling the narrative that explosive transformational growth is just around the corner, even if doing so involves setting gigantic piles of money on fire. i could be proven wrong about this, sure, but i simply believe that by 2028 we won't be using all of the datacenters in the world to have AI smart agents do stuff for us, we'll be seeing sam altman & co say "by 2031..." and i don't think anything about the current state of the tech, the current state of the business models, the history of these companies or the history of 'tech booms' in general suggest otherwise

[dot-execute]

everyone else is so hot and then there's me, also hot. hotter even