Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
  • Debate

    Things to debate to.

    6 articles in this category

      Gender pronouns and why they don't make sense to me

      For the past years, Gender Pronouns have been causing hate and confusion on social media. People have lost careers and even lives in the frantic screaming from both sides of the opinion pool. In this article, I want to sort through my own thoughts and hopefully rational minds on both sides can share their opinions to help me better understand this very confusing social phenomena. Please note that I do not claim to have any factual truths and that this is completely anecdotal seen from my perspective where I try to take the information at hand and apply logic as I see it.
      The issue of Gender is a bit tricky for me because it is not something that is used in everyday conversation in Sweden, and it seems to be mixing multiple things when screamed online. So, for the purpose of this article, I will define gender as well as a person's sex as I see it. Not as some form of truth, but as a starting point so we have the right foundation to stand on. For me to make sense, I am going to add a prefix and a suffix to extend the two terms to be more representative of the terms as I see them.
      Biological Sex - This is the genetic makeup of what makes us male or female. I know there are some claims that biologically we can classify people and animals into more than two groups, and I am open to discuss the validity of those claims if you so wish. Unless someone wants to claim that there is a strong social need to reclassify into multiple groups of biological sexes, which would require a complete rework of language, social structures, legalities, and scientific reclassification of the entire area of biology I think we can conclude that this is not a claim that will have any impact on this article.
      Gender Roles - Merriam-Webster define gender as "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". The way I see it, Gender Roles are defined socially in accordance with the geographical culture.  By that I mean that the definition of a Man for example will be different in Japan compared to Kongo, France, Sweden, or the USA. It will also differ if you look at how it is defined in big cities or in rural areas, for example. While we share a baseline definition, gender roles have multiple subareas that extends that. Things like profession, group affiliations such as sports or gaming, religion and many more all add nuance to the gender definition.
      Relation between biological sex and gender roles
      If you are still with me so far, then let us talk about how the biological sex is connected to gender roles. In my opinion, there is a direct connection between the biological sex and the corresponding gender role. A biological Male is defined by the gender role of a Man. A biological Female is defined by the gender role of a Woman. A gender role without a corresponding biological sex becomes problematic because we use the combination of both to identify other biological entities (people and animals).

      What I mean by that is that when our minds identify other people, we do that with the biological intent to determine if that person is someone we can reproduce with (attractiveness), but also if the person a competitor or threat. The way we do that is to first visually identify the person's biological sex based on physical attributes such as facial compositions, bone structure and muscle mass.
      To this we then add mannerism, body language and behavior to see if the person match our internal list of what potential partners should have. Once the basic attributes are fulfilled, then we look at the sub-definitions based on personal preferences.
      Based on this, I would argue that having a gender role that is not tied to a biological sex would simply not work.
      How about multiple gender roles for each biological sex?
      We actually already have that in a way with the extended gender roles. The base definition of what a man or a woman should have in terms of traits, behavior and cultural expectations differ depending on multiple factors and in practice we have multiple roles for man and Woman.  This does not however mean that we have multiple gender roles, only minor variations in the definitions of man and woman.
      We can see this by the fact that we can identify who is a man and who is a woman, no matter where in the world we go, despite the small changes to gender roles. I would argue that this is because the biological sex is a very important part of gender roles, as it defines our physical traits.
      Transgender and their gender roles
      My definition of a Transgender person is that it is a person that is the happiest living according to the gender role opposed to their biological sex. So, a biologic male living as a woman, or a biologic female living as a man. I do not think physical alteration is a criterion for being transgender, as that is invasive and expensive, so not everyone is able to perform those surgeries.
      I also think that anyone trapped inside their biological sex due to legal and social nonacceptance are transgender, even if they are unable to live according to that gender role.
      This definition means that we can easily map between the biological sex and the gender role. We just cross over to the opposite gender role instead.

      A Neutral Gender Role?
      As I have stated earlier, I do not see a gender role without a corresponding biological sex as a valid option. A Neutral gender role however do have its place, but not as a gender role per se, but as an undefined gender role. This can be useful as a temporary substitute when a person's biological sex is unknown, or if a person just don't fit into the general roles of man or woman.

      Biological sex is hard to determine
      In the event that gender role is hard to determine because it is difficult to match the biological sex, this could be useful. This is usually because a person have mix of physical traits that are both resembling male and female traits. It can also be when gender roles are confusing, like having a full beard while otherwise perceived as woman. In this case, it could be useful to have a temporary undefined gender. Once the person's biological sex has been discovered, this would no longer be useful, which is why it is a temporary replacement.
      There is a risk however that this would feel offensive, so just asking or making a guess, as we do now, might actually be a better choice?
      It's none of your business...
      There are some situations when we are required to fill out information about ourselves where an option to not disclose our biological sex or gender role might not be a bad idea. I do not think this is a good idea for situations where your biology actually matter, like medical information. It will most likely have other implications as well for things like insurance and legal situations, so it may be limited in those situations.
      There are people that do not feel comfortable using the standard definitions of man or woman, but rather seek to break this norm. This includes clothing, physical appearance, behavior and more. For these people, I think it makes sense to have an undefined gender role, especially since many of these people can also be difficult for others to determine what biological sex they belong to.
      Transgender and the undefined
      Earlier, I said that my definition of transgender people is that an individual cross over to the opposite gender role from their biological sex. For me, I do not see choosing to be undefined as a transition or transformation of gender. I base that on the fact that choosing not to be defined is not something I consider a transformation to another gender. It is simply defying the gender roles defined by society and biology, which is more an act of rebellion than one of transformation?
      I know there are quite a few people out there that do not agree with me on this, but consider for a moment the difference between transitioning to the opposite gender role and wishing to be undefined of any gender role. Will both groups benefit from having one identity that defines them, or does it make sense to speak for each group separately? Perhaps introducing a new term for the undefined, like Un-gendered would make sense and can improve conversations in some cases? As an outsider it makes sense to me, but ultimately it is up to members of these groups how they wish to represent themselves.
      I might be completely wrong about this, and I am open to changing my mind if you want to present arguments that oppose my current view.
      Gender Pronouns, where do they fit in then?
      This is where I start to struggle because as far as I can see Gender Pronouns do not fit in the structure defined above. Gender pronouns are presented as Gender Neutral, which suggests they are detached from both gender roles and biological sex. This suggests that these gender pronouns do not refer to:
      Physical traits Mannerism or body language Behavior Cultural expectations Psychological traits Consider the definition that "Genders are classes of nouns reflected in the behaviour of associated words", this does not seem correct. Gender Pronouns seem to relate to behavior, which is a part of gender roles, which in turn relates to biological sex. The idea of removing that behavior and instead impose a set of gender pronouns with, what I perceive to have no actual grammatical, importance as undefined tokens is something I can not really wrap my head around?
      If we consider adding an undefined gender role, then all these new gender pronouns would fall under that as far as I can see? This since the definition seem to be that they are presented as gender-neutral. Since these new gender pronouns seem to also be undefined, meaning that the words themselves have no descriptive definition, I conclude that these are simply different names for this undefined gender role?
      So then the question is, what are these new gender pronouns, and how do you use them in any language structure?
      How will this be implemented?
      Because this is what we are talking about after all, to change the language structure of all languages in the world. A pronoun is defined in each language in the form of grammar rules. Every language in the world has these rules and what we are talking about is adding a set of what I perceive to be an unlimited arbitrary set of new pronouns.
      While every language has its quirks and several areas where logic are absent, I fail to see how we will define these new pronouns in a way that make it possible to not only add it to any form of grammatical rule, but also how to add it to our schooling system? Who will oversee defining these new pronouns, how do we translate them into all languages and how do we deal with languages where this might clash with the entire foundation of the language?
      There are languages where introducing these gender pronouns will be a problem because they are either genderless, or do not have gender pronouns. Even English seem to lack grammatical gender, which makes the argument to implement these new gender pronouns even harder to understand.
      If they do not relate to anything, what are they?
      This is the hardest thing for me to grasp. Because if they are just words, with no relation to anything, then what are they? When I use, he or she I use them to refer to a person’s gender, which in turn refer to their biological sex. If I use an undefined pronoun, like we have in Sweden , then I use it either to obfuscate a person's gender (for legal reasons for example) or because I am unsure of the person's gender role.
      I do not see any way to manage an extension of this undefined pronoun that to me seem arbitrary and random. In many ways it reminds me of titles for royalty, which to most people outside of the royal family is difficult to understand. Even those though have rules that define the usage and the new gender pronouns do not as far as I can see?
      If I do not understand how to use these new gender pronouns, then how can I adapt them into my language?
      Things that are undefined cause frustration
      As humans we react to things that are unknown as potential threats. This trigger our fight or flight instincts and we react with avoidance or aggression. I fear that by introducing the new gender pronouns the way some people do on social media is causing a great deal of harm to the Transgender community. I also think it alienates the un-gendered in ways that I am sure have severe consequences.
      While it is easy to point your fingers to those that oppose these new gender pronouns, it does nothing to help the situation. It only make it a lot worse and I think most of us agree that the transgender community do not need more struggles in their lives?
      By this I do not mean that you should bow down and just drop gender pronouns to make life easier. I suggest that you take a step back and try to explain the value the new gender pronouns have in your life and then find a way to explain the logic behind them.
      The cure of all bigotry and hatred is understanding.
      If it makes you happy, then by all means, use Gender Pronouns!
      In no way do I presume to tell you how to live your life. If using gender pronouns make you happy, then by all means use them.
      All I ask is that you do not spread hate to those that do not understand the logic or agree with it. I know that conversation about this is not easy, and you will face people that spread hate, but I promise I will listen if you are willing to talk to me. Openly or in private as you feel comfortable.
      My mind and heart are open for you to help me make sense of gender pronouns.

      Google down votes - a touchy subject

      Yesterday I noticed a Tweet from YouTube about them testing to hide the down vote feature. It is not surprising that Google test that considering the absolute dislike bombing happening in recent years. I tweeted that that sounded like a good thing because down votes are a negative action and nothing good comes out of it. O boy, did people take offense to that!!
      I have stepped into some nasty areas on Twitter where people go ballistic, but I was not prepared for the absolute mayhem that followed something as, in my eyes, trivial as the dislike function on YouTube. The very fact that YouTube was even testing to hide, not the dislike button, but the count of dislikes, sent people into a self justified rage. Here is the tweet:
      So what about this is causing people to react so negative to this change? Well, that is a bit difficult to find out because as you can imagine when people want to defend a negative behavior they have a hard time explaining it. Like most trolls they stoop to insults and proclaiming that you are wrong, but without any arguments. That is what trolls do after all and I suspect that is one of the aspects why some people don't like this. Trolls like their hammers after all.
      Things are not simple...
      As always things are not quite as easy or one dimensional. I did get a few arguments, from people who know how to actually formulate them, that made sense. For example the lack of functional reporting system that actually have any effect or that removing the dislike count will increase toxic comments. Both very valid and accurate arguments in my opinion.
      Most however stooped down to name-calling and I even found someone who actually was prejudice towards Sweden. Apparently we are too Open-minded and Progressive to be able to form logical discussions. Not quite sure if that is an actual insult or just someone who had a bad day trying to make the insult. I ended up banning quite a few people that were just mad and impossible to talk to in their affected state. It seems to be a common practice on Twitter these days if you want to talk to rational people.
      Why are people so upset though? Let us break down the logic why there is a down vote and what it is used for, according to the people that responded. The dislike button is a relic from the old rating system. A long time ago YouTube had a star rating system, like so many other services back in the day. With the rise of voting features, like for the now dead Digg platform, YouTube changed the rating to an up and down vote feature back in 2010. The reasoning was that the star rating was not using the 2,3 and 4 ratings much, which explains a bit of what we now see. In 2019 YouTube said in an interview that they are looking into ways to combat the dislike mobs that seem to be growing in frequency lately.
      What do people use it for (according to Twitter)?
      One content creator said it was "invaluable" for learning what content was appreciated. To warn people of malicious content such as scams or honeypots To "hurt" people (yes, really) that deserved it As a warning to content creators before unsubscribing Visualize quality of the video Now, there are some good points here, especially when considering not trusting the report system. It is also clear that people are using it in a lazy way, so it does act as a form of honey trap that does prevent some toxic comments. It fits well with the short attention span of today's young, but again that is not the full picture of course.
      You want to hate, admit it!
      There is another aspect to why people want to keep the dislike, even if most are too coward, or ignorant, to admit it: They like the power it provides. Some people just love to have the power to shut down people they don't like or just hit them with their virtual long finger of disdain.
      These are the people that will join others that descend upon a creator to flood their content with dislikes and toxic comments. We have seen it with celebrities and companies that attracted the wrath of cancel culture. It gives them a sense of belonging and purpose while at the same time make them feel in control for once in their lives.
      In a world where most people, especially young people, feel that they have no control and no power this is nothing to take lightly. I noticed that several people expressed feeling "muffled" or having the freedom of expression removed if the dislike button was removed or the count hidden. That is of course not true, but an important thing to consider when trying to understand the strong reactions.
      So what should YouTube do?
      Unfortunately I don't think there is much they can do at this point. Removing the dislike button would not stop the problem. As some of the people who actually showed an ability to carry a conversation pointed out, haters will hate and removing the dislike button would only lead to more hate elsewhere. It is a valid point and one I share, unfortunately.
      Some things that YouTube might do to make the dislike mobs less problematic for the content creators:
      Use AI to detect large aggregation of dislikes with low video interaction. This can be used to temporarily disable the dislike button, or to hide the count. It can also trigger a flag for YouTube to manually review the situation. Use BigData analysis to detect users with disproportional amounts of dislikes versus video interaction. This can be used to block/ban accounts that are prone to trolling temporarily and then long term. Add function to disable all dislikes for all videos. This should ease a potential flood from a dislike mob by quickly turn on or off dislikes for a period of time. Add function to disable dislikes per video. Same as above, but for individual videos to counter specific attacks. Improve report functionality. This should not be a fire and forget process. It should be followed up as legal claims are and many reports should bury the video for a short period of time. False reports should result in warnings and consequently a ban. Add easy functions to administrate videos in the front end to disable functions with ease. Make it easy to enable/disable functions per video would make it faster and easier to respond to dislike mobs. Add a more rigorous validation process to force people to identify themselves. This increase the threshold to make accounts, which should lead to less offensive behavior. Probably would have negative side effects though, so it is a very aggressive approach. Force a certain degree of video interaction before you can vote. It was suggested by one user and it does not seem to be a very bad suggestion, except that it might again trigger people into comments instead. Overall this has been an interesting experience into a world of complex social behavior that is more nuanced than first perceived. That is usually the case when you dig deep enough and it feels that for a day I got to dig slightly into this sub-culture and it was a pretty good experience.
      Except for the nutcases of course, but I am used to those by now on Twitter 🙂

      Deleting Destiny 2 - I can't play it anymore

      After several years of playing Destiny 2 I uninstalled it this week. For months, I have had a bad taste in my mouth from playing Destiny 2, not because the game is bad, but because of decisions made by Bungie. This combined with a toxic and malevolent community that harass and engage in cancel culture make me sick to my stomach to touch the game.
      My feelings of unease started to grow bigger in June 2020 with the announcement of in game support for Black Life Matters. I do not think politics should be included into a game, unless it is a part of the games setting. While I have nothing against BLM per se, I do have strong opinions on people that would cause physical, mental and financial harm to anyone. I also have a strong aversion against anyone spreading hate, especially to police officers that risk their lives to protect others.
      So BLM is not a cause I support, even if I strongly support anyone who stand up against racism. The real one, not the fake "I don't like you" racism thrown around by arrogant children with an inflated ego with their heart and minds set to destroy anyone that don't like what they like. I believe individuals always comes first, not groups.
      Soon after I witnessed one of the most atrocious assassination of character I have ever seen online. SayNoToRage, a popular streamer for Destiny 2 was ambushed by several people in a coordinated attack with the sole purpose of hurting him and his career. The accusations against him were ridiculous, and I am someone who take accusations of sexual misconduct very seriously. After reviewing the so-called evidence for months my conclusion is that these women not only seem to be vile beings that abuse the disgust most people feel for sexual predators to fabricate a narrative that when broken down is so ridiculous that it actually ruin things for actual victims of sexual harassment.
      I was appalled and disgusted.
      To make this even worse, Bungie, the company behind Destiny 2, decided it was a good idea to get in on the harassment as well. One of the community managers called DeeJ publicly announced that based on the greatly exaggerated stories from the women accusing SayNoToRage Bungie would ban him from any future guest list.
      I don't know Deej and he might be a decent guy in person, but he has been the voice to promote BLM and here encouraging cancel culture by publicly endorse the claims. Even though there are absolutely no legal case to support any of the claims made by these individuals. In fact the only legal action ever taken back when the first woman expressed her discomfort was dismissed due to the fact that it was not a case of sexual harassment. So Deej is here showing that like many of the people that sit on their moral high horses he is just another prejudiced asshole that gleefully sit behind the mob and cheer on as they burn people on the proverbial cross.
      The coordinated attack and the mass outcry, partially promoted by Bungie and spearheaded by the despicable Twitch streamer DrLupo eventually led to SayNoToRage loosing his Twitch channel. Again, with no proof of misconduct other than the greatly exaggerated stories from a group of women that seem to have had their own personal agenda. Now, Twitch is a platform that is a cesspool to begin with that bend to the will of the mob no matter who they hurt. You would think that with multiple suicides directly connected to their platform they might want to enforce actual laws, but apparently it is more important to cater to the fragile five-year-olds with anger issues that are offended by anything and everyone depends on their daily mood.
      It's like high school drama, but with a far more serious consequences. Like all stories like that people do not even consider intent, but it is all about the feelings of a potentially ruffled feather and the fear that the angry mob will turn on you next.
      Bungie at this point showed what a disgusting company they are.
      As the game started to deteriorate with what I feel were bad design decisions I started to lose interest. PVP was changed from skill based match making to connections based match making, which for me made the experience complete and utter garbage. I often teamed up with one exceptionally good player and 3-4 really bad ones, making the experience more about engaging groups of 3-5 solo as the rest of the team ran around like bats from hell. Most games ended in mercy to the point where I am sure lobby balancing was no longer turned on.
      Sunsetting weapons in a game that is built around collecting gear was the next straw. Let us be honest, Destiny 2 is not a game of loot, because you rarely get any, it is about collecting it by grinding endless hours. Usually you have to grind in a specific way, using weapons you don't like to get a weapon you probably will never use anyway because you have to use a predefined set for the next weapon chase anyway. It is just a hamster wheel where Bungie let me rent items for a limited period of time. If I put in the endless grind to get the item in the first place that is.
      The very core of the game was for me now completely gone.
      The final drop came when Bungie banned SayNoToRage about a month ago. That would be nine months after the coordinated attack.
      No conversation. No warning. Just Developer Banned.
      I know that Bungie has the legal right to terminate anyone because they state so in their TOS, but such blatant disregard for due process and with absolutely no respect for people that have promoted their game for many years... Words can not describe the rage I feel for such abuse of power. It is utterly and completely disgusting, and it makes me sick to my stomach that a company would destroy people based on hearsay and "feelings".
      Well, my feeling is that Bungie is a terrible company that should be ashamed of themselves. They don't feel shame I am sure, because up on their high horses where feelings are the only thing that matters, people mean nothing to them. Only groups and only the groups that give them good feelings to support and that they themselves approve of. Women are of course more important than men and anyone of any shade other than pink matters more than pinkish white. So if you are white and a man, then you can be cancelled at any time by companies like Bungie at the mere mention of any form of perceivable offense. Based solely on what an individual "feels" you did wrong. Intent be damned.
      Law and Order means nothing to companies like Bungie, or the individuals that still spread lies and exaggerations of the story these women has told. Meanwhile, women that are being sexually assaulted are not taken seriously, which allow predators and assholes to roam free.
      Shame on you Bungie. Shame on those of you that choose Twitter to punish people you feel wronged by instead of doing it the correct, legal way. Your feelings do NOT mean you are right. Other people have feelings to you selfish pricks and intent matters, even if you choose not to accept that because it is inconvenient.
      So I am done with Bungie and I regret almost every second I spent playing Destiny 2. Only the time I spent with members of my former clan have any redeeming thoughts in my mind right now. That is what I will remember from these years, not the vile and disgusting behaviors of cowardly and jealous Destiny streamers and not the disgusting approval of cancel culture and disregards for human lives by Bungie.
      I am sorry if this comes off as harsh and negative, but bullying hits a special nerve in me and I will oppose it fiercely to prevent more people taking their lives. If you think that I should listen to the women that made claims of sexual harassment, then trust me I have. Feel free to look into the claims yourself and if you disagree with me, then that is your right.
      I don't even think these women meant to accuse SayNoToRage with sexual harassment, just that he was "creepy", but it has since escalated with words like predator and even rapist. Words never spoken by the women themselves as far as I can tell, but by small and insecure individuals trying to impress others like them by being meaner and more "defenders of human virtues" (which is asshole talk for bigger bullies btw).
      I am just sick of these online bullies and especially companies that weaponize it to appease the masses...

      Is USA a Democratic country - and should it be?

      As a Swedish citizen I tend to look at the USA elections with morbid fascination. While we have our own issues with politics the USA seem to go all in and for months the country go into a state of near war like frenzy. While it seem obvious from the outside that the election process in the USA is a strange process that appear promoting corruption, one question always comes up for me: is the USA really a democratic country?
      Why would I have this question? Well, there are a few reasons why I wonder just how democratic the USA really is and to what level you can actually claim to be a democratic country. I know this is a touchy subject for some Americans and I rarely write about politics, but I write this because for every election this question is getting louder and louder around the globe.
      As I do not claim to be a political expert take this with a grain of salt. It is just my reflections based on my limited understanding of the complex presidential election process in the USA.
      Indirect voting system
      The USA is not a direct democracy, meaning that the people do not vote for a party or a president directly. They instead employ an indirect elector process where a group of people do the actual election for president and vice president.  This group is referred to as the United States Electoral College and while the presidential electors mostly vote according to the popular vote of their state, they are not obligated to. If someone cast their vote differently they are referred to as a faithless elector. In fact there has been incidents where presidential electors
      While a federal constitutional republic is technically a democracy, I can't help feeling that if you can't really trust that your vote will actually count towards the desired outcome, then how democratic is that system really? In fairness this has not been used more than 165 times in the history of the USA, but it does happen. 33 states have laws against faithless electors, though the laws in half of these jurisdictions have no enforcement mechanism. In 2016 there were 4 faithless electors.
      The Plurality System
      The plurality system, or the winner takes all system, is common in the USA. What it means is that only the winner of a certain district count. This means that all votes that is not made on the winning candidate are lost and essentially useless. Because of this system there will be as few candidates as possible to avoid dilution of votes. As a result the people have very limited choices for whom they can vote for.
      Not only will this make voting less appealing if the candidates are few and not to your liking, it can also lead to a situation where a presidential candidate loose even if the majority of the people vote for that person.
      The Design of voting districts
      This is something I did not know existed, but apparently it is the right of the ruling party to redefine the boundaries of voting districts between presidential elections. This even has its own name: Gerrymandering. What it means is that the ruling party redefine voting districts in a way that have the potential to give the best outcome in  presidential election. This to me is a very bad way to manipulate the outcome of an election by rigging it beforehand to tip the scales in your favor?
      This also have the potential to make it more difficult to know what district you are in and where to go to vote.
      Making voting difficult
      If designing the districts add a barrier and the plurality system make it less likely that you will vote the design of the vote itself and how information on voting is managed may be worse yet. Back in 2010 there was a big debate over the design of the Florida ballot and how it might have caused people to vote for the wrong candidate. This led to a guideline for better designs of ballots, but it is not enforced as they are just guidelines.

      There has been quite a few issues where legal and illegal methods of voter suppression have prevented people from voting, misinformation is used to make it harder to vote and so on. In This election we see quite a few concerns over mail-in ballots for example. Overall it seems that the fear of voter frauds seem a bit strange considering that there are almost no confirmed cases for that in the USA? To me, it seems that the risk of manipulation and corruption is a far greater threat than voter fraud?
      Considering the way people's votes are managed, the risk of manipulation through the design of districts, information and the ballots themselves is it fair to say that the USA are not a democratic country? I am not sure to be honest, but I do think that the people in the USA deserve better. I think a good start would be to scrap the United States Electoral College and use a direct voting system so all votes count equally. Then make it as easy as possible to vote and I think many of the issues currently in the USA can be mitigated if not completely fixed?
      In the end however this is not up to me to judge or demand a change for. It is up to the people of the USA if they are happy with the current system or if they want to see it changed.
      I leave you with a presentation by Mike Monteiro who is slightly more critical than I am. This is from 2017 at a Swedish event called from business to buttons that I attended.
      Mike Monteiro

      Disney+ is drip feeding content to keep you as a paying customer

      Nothing make my skin crawl as deceit and greed and Disney is pretty good at that. Their release of Disney plus in Sweden probably takes the cake however and I instantly cancelled my subscription when I realised that they are drip feeding old content, just to make me stay as a paying customer longer.
      As Disney plus finally arrived in Sweden I was happy to jump in to enjoy the Mandalorian and season 7 of the Clone Wars. I paid for the monthly subscription because like many other services they don't have enough content for me to remain a constant subscriber. Instead I cycle the services to get the most out of them.
      If you are unfamiliar with the Mandalorian, then you should know that it was released in November 2019 and season 1 was concluded in December 2019. So it is a 9 month old series with the season 2 releasing on October 30th. Even if content sometimes, for some weird reason, is realease differently in different parts of the world I was not expecting to see only 2 episodes available!

      Not only are they not releasing the full 8 episodes of the 9 month old Mandalorian series, they are releasing one episode each week. The same is true for Clone Wars and it is an obvious attempt to keep people subscribing to their service for at least 2 months. It's such a bad way to treat new customers that have waited almost a year for Disney plus to even be available.
      I see absolutely no reason to pay for old content only to get 1-2 episodes of old content. I am pretty sure we will not see season 2 of the Mandaorian anytime soon either.
      This is such a douchebag move from Disney and it pissed me off to the point where I will just skip their content, or pay for a month next year to get access to season 1 and 2 and then cancel again.
      That is a solid way to treat potential customers.

      Cancel Culture is very real - the inquisition has returned

      Not a day goes by it feels like, without another angry mob lash out at someone online over an allegation or perceived misbehaviour.  People loose their income, their relations and some even take their own lives. The Cancel Culture has gone beyond cyber bullying and gone full inquisition. Burn the witch!
      To say that the Internet these days are hazardous to venture is an understatement. The social injustice mobs are everywhere and it seems any reference to race or incorrectness gain the response of blind hate with little to no reason. Sebastian Stan for example are under fire because his girlfriend posted a picture of her in Kimono going out for asian night. It's not even Sebastian Stan doing anythin wrong, but the mob want his head because of something his girlfriend did 2 years ago.
      Seriously, if clothes piss you off, then there is a whole fashion industry to be mad at...

      Ellen Degeneres is getting flailed over allegations of being a terrible person and J.K Rowling is called the transworld Voldemort because she has an opinion that is considered transphobic. Now why would you get upset over the fact that Ellen Degeneres alledgedly treat people poorly and unless you are a trans person why would J.K Rawlins poorly worded attemtps to explain her view on transgender issues offend you?
      You have literally thousands of people in management and leadership positions that are absolute assholes and I bet there are far worse things out there than Ellen Degeneres. That is if the allegations are even true, because as far as I know there are no formal claims of misconduct yet and even if there is, she has not been convicted of any wrong doing. You might want to wait for that before you light your torches.
      J.K Rawlins misguided view of transgender people is unfortunate, but how will burning her on the cross for heresy change things? Misguided and misinformed people need to be educated, not cancelled or having their lives threatened. If other people have opinions that you do not agree with then you discuss the matter with hem. You do not grab the pitchfork and put on your red robes of blind mindless  hatred.

      There are countless others as well like SayNoToRage that was accused for harassment by several women. Harassments that never was filed or investigated, but instead was spread around the community as being "true". Once made public by a tweet of all things the angry mob climbed on their high horses to crucify him, with no evidence or due process.
      While it may not be the direct cause of his suicide, the twitch streamer known as Reckless faced hate in his chat daily and he even begged the viewers to stop telling him to kill himself before he took his own life. Byron Daniel Bernstein as was his actual name died on July 2nd 2020 and was mourned by thousands online. He was only 31 years old.
      Stop Hating and start thinking
      I know the Internet is a place where hateful people roam free and trolls take out every frustration their actual lives subject them to, but please don't join them in their hate. People will do and say awful things. People will accuse others of wrong doing just to be mean or because they are hurt and they want revenge. This is why we have laws and processes to protect people from being falsely accused and to put those that break the laws in jail.
      Taking the law in your own hands and form lynch mobs online is not the answer. Reacting as if someone comitted murder and should burn by the hand of the inquisition because they have a different opinion than your own is not justice. It is madness and fanatisism. Although it is hard to conceive for many, you are not obligated to post every opinion and thought that you have online. It is fine to think or even say that you think someone is doing something you do not approve of.  You do not need to go online and publish it for the world to endure.
      If you are hurting because of things in your life, then ask for help instead of making things worse by hurting others. You can not counter hate and anger with hate and anger, it will only feed the negative spiral.  Just because no one hold you accountable for the hate you spread does not mean you are not responsible for the outcome. Proclaiming that you just expressed your own opinion becomes hollow when you express it to be read by thousands to whom you are considered a person of importance.
      You do not stop harassment by harassing others and trying to avoid being harassed by doing it first. That is how the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazis was created.
      Do good, not evil.
      ...and take off those damn robes and start thinking for yourself.
  • Create New...