🤷‍♀️

It’s 2025 and people are jailbreaking their beds.

So I was obsessively reading this manga about fish with legs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyo

And the bonus manga with the Steven Universe human sized holes in the sides of mountains. This was before Steven Universe as far as I’m aware.

While my mom was listening to the earlier song OP’s talking about on a loop while working out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY

So the two are linked in my head as if the song was used in a trailer for a movie adaption of the manga. It was a while ago, like summer of 2011, but that’s what popped in my head the second I saw “Somebody I used to know”.

It’s weird how both songs have the same intro but the new one sounds relatable. Oh, after watching the full music video for the new one it seems that the new is clearly a homage to the original:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riCP9x31Kuk

That’s cool. I’m glad they made it. They even have the people covered in the background art standing against the wall. =D

🐸

If that’s how people want to spend their days, that’s on them. But they won’t be invited to the next wizard war.

So that’s what happened to them.

What’s important is that the gorilla has to wait at least 15 minutes or 150 rounds of combat for the ketamine to kick in. edit: typo

https://www.talktofrank.com/drug/ketamine

How long it takes to work

15 - 20 mins on average.

CW

TIL CW is content warning.

https://www.eurogamer.net/nintendo-and-accessories-manufacturer-genki-settles-switch-2-trademark-infringement-lawsuit

Genki is now also prohibited from using approximations such as ‘Glitch’, ‘Glitch 2’, ‘Genki Direct’ and ‘Genki Indirect’ when promoting its own products, with these of course being very close to Nintendo’s own Switch and Nintendo Direct-related branding.

The accessories manufacturer is also no longer able to use colour schemes in any of its products or packaging which are “confusingly or substantially” similar to Nintendo’s. The court document states: “Namely, red and white, red and blue, green and pink, blue and yellow, purple and orange, pink and yellow, and purple and green.”

Wow, the idea that a court would allow a company to have powers over something that should be in the public domain like color is bizarre.

Also, I’m glad I asked, because I thought pulling a Nintendo might have been a reference to a sex thing and I couldn’t find it on Urban Dictionary.

What do you mean by pulling a Nintendo?

That’s basically the strategy, to make a long list of keywords. Any sentence structure is purely for the convenience of the prompter to be able to read and edit their own prompt. I found these AI generated videos the other day and they had a giant list of the keywords used in the video description.

That assumes a person isn’t a Hispanic day laborer at a hospital during an ICE raid. ICE seems to be focusing on places of work for their targets, but with the current pause on the federal judge’s ruling, ICE can violate the fourth amendment anywhere.

ICE doesn’t need any ID to look at a person and make a judgement based on physical appearance.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/

In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that the Trump administration, “and now the concurrence” by Kavanaugh, “has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

In Sotomayor’s view, the Trump administration had not shown that it was ultimately likely to prevail on the merits. In particular, she wrote, “a set of facts cannot constitute reasonable suspicion if it ‘describes a very large category of presumably innocent’ people.” “Allowing the seizure,” she said, “of any Latino speaking Spanish at a car wash in Los Angles tramples the constitutional requirement that officers ‘must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’”

The kind of person you are articulating, someone who would vote in favor of trans rights, is fundamentally different than terfs who actively campaign to destroy trans people. This woman we are discussing is a terf and thus a bigot. The fact she is couching her bigotry in a misrepresentation of science should not in anyway be interpreted as a sincere misunderstanding. We are way past that point in 2025.

To you it may seem uncalled for, but this is not the average neoliberal both-sides right-wing talking points instance. If you can’t recognize a person who wants trans people dead when she is pointed out to you then there are other instances where you can give terfs the benefit of the doubt.

I appreciate that you and your friend voted for the interests of trans people in your country. I don’t believe you or your friend are bigots. However the bar is higher than whether or not a person is a bigot here. Here on Blåhaj we always act in the interests of trans people. That means calling terfs bigots. And banning people who insist on having a problem with that. edit: typo

You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.

But this comparison completely fails to encapsulate the disagreement in question between terfs and trans people. The theist argues that god(s) exists in some capacity while the atheist argues that god(s) do(es) not exist in any capacity. The relevant debate between the theist and the atheist only references god(s) not the theist or the atheist.

The relevant debate between terfs and trans people inherently references the trans people. Whether or not trans people get to exist as their gender is the debate.

One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.

The reason transitioning doesn’t change our underlying gender is that we are already our underlying gender whether we transition or not. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Despite not having transitioned physically I am a woman. Before I knew I was a woman I was a woman who thought I was a man. Some people are gender fluid. A gender fluid person’s gender can change at any time. Physically transitioning isn’t the standard we use to determine who is or isn’t trans or what a person’s gender is.

Transitioning is for the benefit of trans people, not how gender is changed. Physically transitioning involves changing sex characteristics. Gender is a social construct. A person’s lived experience is going to be how a person determines their gender before anything involving physically changing sex characteristics is relevant.

I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway.

You don’t need to believe that trans people exist. I, a trans person, am writing to you right now. What about me do these friends of yours respect if not my right to exist as myself? I am a woman. I am going to be a woman whether or not anyone believes it. If they can’t respect me as a woman then they don’t respect me.

I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.

I used the term bigot to refer to a well known kind of bigot, terfs, trans exclusionary radical feminists. But even still, people who disagree that trans people have a right to exist, which I didn’t realized needed to be said, as the gender trans people say they are, are bigots. Their intolerance against trans people is what makes a person a bigot. There is no tolerant way to argue someone shouldn’t exist.

As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights.

BIOLOGY IS NOT BIGOTRY.

This is called a dog whistle. It’s called a dog whistle because much like real dog whistles If you aren’t part of the group it’s designed to be heard by you likely can’t hear it. This idea that biology determines gender isn’t supported by any credible body of scientific research but it’s a commonly used to tactic to justify the arbitrary social norms around gender.

If you are a trans person you’ve had this argument thrown at you before and know it’s an attack line to demonize and undermine you. If you aren’t a trans person it can come off as a seemingly reasonable defense of a woman’s political views that appeals to the gender binary most people grew up with. Much like war on crime or war on drugs can sound like a politician is talking about stopping crime or drug trafficking to a white person but they mean over-policing black people.

What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot.

Being trans means a person’s gender does not match the gender that person was assigned at birth usually based on sex characteristics. So being trans doesn’t change a person’s gender. But it does mean a person may realize later that their gender was not what they thought it was. Also being trans does mean a person is the gender that they say they are regardless of what society says a person’s sex characteristics mean. That last one is the actual relevant discussion.

One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).

Trans people have existed as long as there have been people. Even as concepts of gender changed over time and people decided that this modern gender binary always existed.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/02/10-must-know-facts-about-transgender-history-that-you-didnt-learn-in-school/

If a person doesn’t believe a trans man when he tells that person he is a man that person isn’t being respectful. The same way it would be disrespectful for a person to not believe a cis man when he tells that person he is a man.

Our understanding of gender has evolved. Insisting that the word gender has some inherent meaning as opposed to acknowledging that gender is a social construct is part of the problem. The fact some people cling to the artificial gender binary at the expense of real people is also part of the problem.

The fact you agree is appreciated. So I wrote you this explanation. I recommend reading up on the topic further before commenting on these issues in comment sections of posts in communities on this instance. You gave the terfs the benefit of the doubt which was nice of you.

We, trans people on this instance, are already familiar with terfs and their talking points. We do not get give terfs the benefit of the doubt here. If you would like to continue this or similar discussions consider asking first and giving an opinion second. Otherwise I look forward to your ban. Hope that helps!

TLDR The left wins when we achieve working class solidarity. Excluding groups of people based on identity isn’t solidarity.

At first I thought that I needed to know what your argument defined as the left to respond to your argument. Then I realized my argument is the same regardless of that.

Any movement that success depends on excluding trans people or Palestinians or any minority group for that matter is not one I want to be a part of or one that I have any interest in succeeding.

If all we are willing to fight for is success for a handful of white cis straight men of European decent then we’ve successful divided ourselves so thoroughly that we are doomed to be ruled by either Republican fascists or Democrat fascists who serve the owner class.

Bigots use biology as a crutch to justify their bigotry. That’s how I know this woman is a bigot. Unless we are all willing to work together to fight for each other’s rights we won’t get anywhere. That means voting Democrat for the most progressives candidates we can in elections. It means solidarity with groups the Democrats would rather abandon between elections. It means abandoning bigotry and sticking with trans people.

I’ll phrase it another way. I support lesbians. I am a lesbian. Why doesn’t this woman who supports lesbians support me a transbian? How is her subscription to a division in the working class that benefits the owner class not the debilitating issue in this dynamic? Why is she not the reason the left is losing?

Why is my desire for rights the issue when I support her rights and the rights she is fighting for? I knew nothing about this woman before seeing this post. I still know mostly nothing about her. I know she doesn’t support my rights though. How am I supposed to have solidarity with her when she already went out of her way to exclude me? And why am I being gaslight into thinking I’m the problem?

There’s an idea that says we should abandon certain people based on the likelihood embracing them will cause a movement to succeed or fail. It of course adjusts this calculus based on preexisting notions of what is normal for race, ethnicity, gender, sex, attraction, physical appearance, personal ability, and everything else that shouldn’t matter at any given time.

The refutation of this line of thinking is straightforward. If we abandon trans people today it’s lesbians who will be abandoned tomorrow. But more to the point, this line of reasoning completely undermines the premise it pretends to stand for. To reiterate, the argument says, “We should stop caring about X group and just focus on the working class and calling terfs bigots is the problem”. But X group is part of the working class (X was gay people in a comment I saw elsewhere that seems to be an emotional appeal to rebrand neoliberal shifting to the right as socialist). Trans people are part of the working class. The only group that isn’t part of the working class is the owner class.

Refusing to care about a certain group of people isn’t working class solidarity. It’s doing the work of dividing the working class for the owner class.

Y’all are why the left is losing.

If you want to know why the left is losing look no further than your comment. I’m not going back in the closet. I’m not giving up on my rights because it will make it convenient for you. Fuck terfs. If she wants my support all she has to do is put down her bigotry. I’m still standing in the middle ground where lesbians and trans people get to exist thanks.

Wow. A bigot got owned by more powerful bigots.

How about no.

Don’t be fooled! That unmarked truck was a Decepticon! They are an invasive species that destabilizes the natural order of the Interstate Highway System depriving automobiles of their automeals.

The way to solve climate change is to stop carbon emissions. The trick is to convince everyone to do that. No one has written anything down that does that on its own or in aggregate so an LLM cannot regurgitate that answer.

Solving the climate crisis will inevitably involve the working class overthrowing the owner class, because we need power to change the systems of government and business responsible for pollution. The working class is the only class incentivized to fix the climate crisis, because the workers can’t all fit in apocalypse bunkers the way the owner class can. And again no one wrote down the thing that will give all workers class consciousness so LLMs can’t regurgitate that either.

The LLMs aren’t AGI. So the theoretical abilities of AGIs and the consequences of creating AGIs aren’t relevant. edit: typos

Open the image in a new tab and zoom in to at least 240%. It’s fine.