Oh, like German “Fach” then, I assume? That does actually make sense

I know that there were (are?) browser extensions that fetch and display “karma” on profiles, at the very least on firefox. Might be worth a search for people interested in statistics and numbers going up.

Hm, lets see if I can still get it together, it has been years since I read Lacan. All of this should be viewed as just from the top off my head the way I remember/interpreted it.

The phallus for Lacan is the imagined omnipotence and agency of our parents (or other caregivers) as we are a very young child and completely dependent on them, turned into a fundamental aspect of the unconscious. Further, it is some desirable aspect, that we imagined makes our caregiver desire other things more than our own needs. (Think: A mother may not immediately feed a child because she is occupied with something else, like the father.) It is the idea of having something, that can fulfil your needs - but is also intimidating and unpredictable, powerful yet volatile. In sexuation, Lacan argues, the “male” sexuation (note that Lacan already did not completely tie this to sex nor even gender as such, more to sexual roles that develop more broadly but have tendencies) projects this onto the proper phallus, i.e. penis, and desires to control it and use it, i.e. overcome the unconscious concept of castration (the realisation of your own powerlessness and dependency). Whereas the “female” sexuation starts to project onto the phallus the primal desire of getting back the symbolic phallus - fetishising it as something powerful that takes control of you and ultimately will enable you to reach the object of desire. Note that this object of desire to Lacan is a complex concept in the unconscious, and I can’t get it all together (and assume I already misremembered some stuff along the way), but at its core, it is an unreachable, unimaginable part of the unconscious, around which the rest of the unconscious circles, never quite reaching it.

The original image was just an image of a possessive gf holding up a guy by his dick.

*Dryena

Also, learn how to fly drones if you can, if (when?) things go shit-fan-hitting globally, that seems like a really useful skill to have in your group, considering how the face of warfare looks at the moment.

With a quick reminder: If you in any way can, don’t do this solo, connect with others, don’t get arrogant about it, either. The fascist preppers have a huge weakness in their narcissistic individualist “I am better than the sheep” prepping style. Being able to actually support and organise a community in the potentially coming chaos is important.

Exactly, what, does she think she just fell out of a coconut tree or what?

I’d say that analysis is on point. Usually, when patrilineal inheritance and patriachical power dynamics aren’t part of the ideological structure, the need to repress lgbt dynamics within the sexes and genders is less of an imperative. Although I would be cautious to simply equate third genders in general to nonbinary/trans identities of today, they always had their own, specific historical and ideological circumstances.

One example of what basically amounted to a “third gender” that was present also in western societies historically (although more so in other parts of the world), would be eunuchs. Created culturally (and very much materially by castration, of course) out of patriarchical concerns of inheritance and power dynamics, as a subset of people that won’t endanger inheritance and without the risk of them creating their own dynasty, they were seen as having completely different roles as to their sexuation and overall status. (Of course, it is interesting to note, that the power dynamics shifted and their position as reliable advisors “without ambition” actually led to eunuch shadow governments, for example in parts of Chinese history). Of note is, that for example castrated choir boys (done so to preserve their “angelic” voices) in western society were one of the few examples where we have evidence of them being idolised as desireable by a female POV sexually (most likely because there was no risk of pregnancy and thus a much reduced risk of an extramarital affair resulting in being shamed and/or even killed).

So existence of a third gender does not necessarily entail respect for inherent identities of people. There are also some instances of third-gender identities being crafted basically to satisfy the sexual needs of dominant homosexual men in positions of power, often arising out of/develooing alongside male prostitution, within history.

I am a Marxist when looking at history, so I view patriarchy as something that arose out of material conditions as a very “succesful” model to reproduce class society in the past, which is why it became so prevalent globally, even without taking colonial history into account. Reducing women to their reproductive role, while also giving them a “valued as an object” status, was beneficial to societies that impose their will violently through war and repression. You can survive and rebound from losing two-thirds of your men in war as a society, but not losing your women. And in times, where warfare and violence was much more heavily tied to physical fitness, the statistical biological differences in human sexual dimporphism further positioned patriarchical structures as a tragically succesful model - which of course did not just do good things for men at all, their lack of being valued in an objectified way also meant they were more disposable, if not in a position of power.

More and more archeological evidence, combined with anthropological studies of non-class tribal societies, shows that on average, our ancestors in pre-history were much more egalitarian, as this was conducive, even necessary, to their survival (imagine a tribal society that had hard rules against women hunting, even if they are very much capable to do so, in a season/area where hunting is the main source of food at the moment. It would have been just stupidity. Same for men foraging, etc).

There is also evidence, that organised warfare as we know it today only started alongside the creation of class society, as soon as a surplus of food and overall resources allowed for a surplus of people - where taking the risk of losing 2/3rds of your men to conquer territory, slaves and the surplus of others suddenly became a viable strategy. (Although, it is important to note, that there is evidence of sporadic, often genocidal conflict in pre-history as well, but it is reasonable at this point to assume those were exceptional cases, and more often than not, conflict was avoided if at all possible. For a deeper exploration of the cultural differences that arose from that avoidance of war-like conflict, I’d recommend checking out Raymond C. Kelly’s “Warless Societies and the Origin of War”)

The material conditions of post-industrialised society open up the possibility again, of overcoming class society and with it, patriarchical society. Including finding a new dynamic for lgbt sexuation, sexuality and identity. That’s one of the main reasons I view myself as a Marxist communist, pleading to re-invent and re-organise the communist movement without following Marxism-Leninism like a religious doctrine. IMO, the world will face crises in the coming decades that, on average, people today do not have the analytical tools and contexts to understand, many fleeing into either “maintain the status quo, we can do this somehow” or “everything will be destroyed anyway (so leave me alone and maintain the status quo)” narratives for the future. I say: learn how to organise, how to fight if you are able, connect with people, and be ready to take advantage of the coming chaos. There’s no shame to be a bit of a prepper, but please without the individualism and conspiracy-mindedness of what the stereotype would be.

OK, sorry, I went on a bit of a rant there, hope it was structured enough not to completely overwhelm. History, philosophy and politics are my special interest, I can get easily triggered into just typing out a wall of text.

Eh, this is a bit of a half-thruth. Ancient Romans did not really categorize by sexual preference, but by gender roles taken on during sex. They basically had a penetrator-penetrated dichotomy, and taking on a “female” role was definitely shameful for men in their society, and taking on a “male” role as a woman would have been seen as a pretty big transgression, too.

This more or less continued into medieval and early modern times, until homosexuality was understood and categorized as an identity and concept. Together with a complete ignorance towards women’s sexuality, this lead to punishment of lesbians being rather rare (non-penetrative sex was basically not recognised as sex), while homosexual men were punished for basically perverting gender roles of sex (also for “forcing” a “female” role on another man), instead for viewing them as having a differing identity.

While religion played a huge role to justify the discrimination of homosexuals, I’d say the root cause is the ideological imperative of maintaining sexuality as something to produce offspring, patriarchical dominance, and having women maintain their identity for sexual gratification and reproduction unless they manage to get into a monastery or similar exceptional roles (and an inherent fear of men to fall out of the male gender identity and being objectified in the same ways). That’s why this is also not just an abrahamic phenomenon, but has been pretty widespread in patriarchal societies overall, although often with exceptions for “penetrating” men maintaining their status and power.

So, I’m a guy, so no first-hand experience, but I know at least two women personally, who unfortunately had additional issues with PMS-like symptoms and general increased emotional/psychological issues with what I think was this category of contraceptives. So, as always, look into what might work for you and stay aware of how your body and mind react. Just mentioning that, because both also had problems with doctors, including gynecologists, basically gaslighting them about how they are supposed to feel.

Sounds like they are in the phase of trying to get their share of the market before enshittification ensues, watch it while it’s hot!

I mean - nowadays it sorta is, it’s been heavily relegated to sexually fetishised contexts.

But the reason a “Dirndl” is called that is, because “Dirne” is a word that used to mean just “woman” but went through a linguistic evolution to mean “prostitute” quite a while ago. Off the top of my head, I don’t know of an example that happened similiarly in English, but I’d guess there’s bound to be something like that there, too

Fun fact: The German original uses “Dirne” which is a very archaic word, could probably be translated as something like “harlot”

I think that is the worst thing trolling has done to internet culture: People will assume that their conversation partner is not arguing in good faith as the standard assumption.

Yes sir/ma’am daddy/mommy

Don’t commend me too hard - it’s actually a copypasta I found online a while ago

“Of in” sounds similar to “oven”. In the context of the joke, “of in” itself has two meanings, while at the same time sounding like the word “oven”. When you say you “of in”, there’s a clever triple meaning at play: “of in” could be referring to three things: 1. the act of inserting the food into the apparatus; 2. the presence of heat emitted from the apparatus; 3. a pun of “oven”. The joke then makes the claim that “of out” is the antonym of “of in”. If “of in” means inserting the food, then “of out” means removing the food; if “of in” means heat is present within the food, then “of out” means heat is absent from the food.

Here’s an example of a sentence that uses all the definitions of “of in” and “of out”: When a food is considered cold, the heat from the oven is “of out” (absent from) the food; so you “of in” (insert) the cold food into the oven, then you “of out” (remove) the food from the oven once the heat from the oven is “of in” (present within) the food.

The punchline of the joke hinges on the origin of the name given to the apparatus, oven. The premise of the punchline insists the name “oven” has to come from “of in”. If a claim is made that oven is named after the act of inserting cold food into the apparatus (of in), then according to the joke, it does not make sense, because the heat from the apparatus is absent from the food (of out). Conversely, if oven is named after the presence of heat from the apparatus within the hot food (of in), then it conflicts with the fact that hot food is removed from the apparatus (of out).

The humor of the punchline comes from the flawed logic used to deduce to origin of the name “oven”. The logic is flawed in such a way that one who uses it to find the etymology of “oven” would simply be stuck in an endless cycle of speculation and end up never finding the answer they are looking for.

But what, oh person inside my phone, what would you think of me, after hearing this shocking confession:

I…

I did not always comment…

Well, at least I heard there will be other people

How did you get this photograph of me, and how dare you doxx me like that? D:

Now that you brought it up: I only today learned the completely legit and in no way misleading translation of what is being said: