|
Hopper posted:Am I overcautious? I really can't tell anymore whether I am paranoid or everybody else is insanely irresponsible... it's starting to get really irritating doubting myself on a daily basis. No. Nothing really has changed since March. We have to open up a little because the realities of our hosed up system mean that at some point the harm afflicted by an economic shutdown is worse (in a difficult and cold gesamtgesellschaftliche calculation) than the virus. That's a delicate balancing act though and only works if everybody still keeps their distance and masks on wherever and whenever possible. Every contact adds to the the chance of more harm, directly by the virus itself or because we end up with another full shutdown. People need to work and people need to be social, but there's a point beyond which things become frivolous and/or egoistic and/or unethical under the current conditions.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 10:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
What a good dog.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 10:23
|
|
|
Smirr made the exact same assertion as pidan without getting told to shut up, Karen. Smirr posted:It depends on who's saying it. Women get a K-word (
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 10:49
|
|
) pass in general. In 95% of cases where men use it, it is pretty flagrantly misogynistic.
|
Yeah, and I didn't give a reason or expand on my statement, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 10:53
|
|
|
I have no idea whether smirr is a woman or a dude. Afaict nothing in my post is unchanged, and whatever i said about pidan's statement applies to smirr's as well. It may be an honest supposition but is highly subjective. And, i guess it got lost a little, but the important part is: Whether the poster is a woman or not does not support or lessen the correctness of the claim, as it's not a report of lived experience as a minority. --- wow, someone at the spahn conference: quote:herr spahn, sie als schwuler mann dürfen kein blut spenden, warum ändern sie das nicht?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
one more interesting thing from spahn conference: they also mentioned a study of blood donations that found covid in like, 2% of donations? whose donors presumably have no idea they have had exposure? would be worth looking into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:16
|
|
|
Gay men aren't allowed to spend Blut? That's news to me, is that true? It makes no sense, like none at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:18
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Gay men aren't allowed to spend Blut? That's news to me, is that true? It makes no sense, like none at all. presumably to prevent accidentally infecting people with hiv, which, yes, throws up another pile of questions
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:20
|
|
|
Smirr posted:Yeah, and I didn't give a reason or expand on my statement, either. I mean there is a difference between the statement that "Karen" is mostly used in a misogynistic way and the statement that "Karen" itself is a misogynistic slur. The former does not demand of every poster who ever used it to explain themselves or be a MRA of the Peterson school.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:24
|
|
|
I can't find the recent tweet that was a direct call-out of men using "Karen" as a fig leaf for sexist statements, but here's one along similar lines by posting hall-of-famer getfiscal: https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1282317135142846464 And an extremely prescient one from 2018: https://twitter.com/nopoweradeinusa/status/962136029611241475 Basically, my point of view is that highlighting the gender of an "I'd like to speak to your manager" type using their middle-class and/or white privilege to punch down at people working in the service industry is generally fine if it's done by a woman, but iffy if done by a man - because men obviously also use their privileges as a weapon. This doesn't necessarily apply in situations where people call real people in real situations a Karen, but it's also often used to address imagined people, or broad classes of people (for a current example: people willing to go to indoor restaurants in the US - which includes many men!), and in those situations it's questionable whether specifying that you're only talking about women gets you any more bang for your buck, or if you're just being sexist (because class and race would be sufficient). All of that taken together means that "Karen" can of course also be sexist if used by women, but then we're getting into internalized patriarchy and all of the really fun stuff and uhh I'll drop it here. genericnick posted:I mean there is a difference between the statement that "Karen" is mostly used in a misogynistic way and the statement that "Karen" itself is a misogynistic slur. The former does not demand of every poster who ever used it to explain themselves or be a MRA of the Peterson school. OK, yeah, that's a difference. I don't think it's inherently misogynistic, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:28
|
|
|
genericnick posted:I mean there is a difference between the statement that "Karen" is mostly used in a misogynistic way and the statement that "Karen" itself is a misogynistic slur. The former does not demand of every poster who ever used it to explain themselves or be a MRA of the Peterson school. Well, I didn't use the word "slur", so I guess I have your full approval. Also, my "reasoning and argument" is how I've seen the term used online. I have neither talked to oliwan's cool friends about it nor did I run a study. Just saw a whole lot of pictures captioned "look at this silly Karen doing something unseemly, I bet she cares about haircuts". E: Smirr explained it way better, thanks Smirr!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:30
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Gay men aren't allowed to spend Blut? That's news to me, is that true? It makes no sense, like none at all. They are not, yeah. The exact wording is "Fur Männer: Hatten Sie in dem letzten Jahr Geschlechtsverkehr mit einem anderen Mann?" and if you say yes to it, you're out. You can technically still donate blood, but the doctor will then have you use the FSA (freiwilliger Selbstausschluss, a barcode with which you can tell the machines but not any humans to not use your blood for other humans) accordingly and your blood will be tested and dealt with regularly, but once done they will dump it after taking a part of it for medical research. At least that's how it is supposed to go, in my experience of my past uhhh 18 donations, I tried to come out officially a few times but whenever I did, the doctor denies you completely as they are not willing to allow the risk donating blood technically comes along with for someone they can't use the blood of. The DKMS dropped this policy three years ago for Stammzellspende, the DRK just made it more open going from "If you ever hosed a man ever you're out" to the one year rule. I disapprove both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:30
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:They are not, yeah. The exact wording is "Fur Männer: Hatten Sie in dem letzten Jahr Geschlechtsverkehr mit einem anderen Mann?" and if you say yes to it, you're out. Though this sounds like you can just evade those dumb rules by openly lying, since they're probably not going through the effort of researching your private life. Is there something equally inane for gay women? Or do the clowns responsible just forgot those exist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
pidan posted:E: Smirr explained it way better, thanks Smirr! pidan posted:The whole Karen thing is nothing but egregious woman hating Smirr posted:OK, yeah, that's a difference. I don't think it's inherently misogynistic, yeah. And: pidan posted:Also, my "reasoning and argument" is how I've seen the term used online. Compare to my experience being that in 99% of cases i see it applied to a specific person attacking workers or minorities in a very specifically entitled way, and i mainly see misusage when i venture into areas with chuds, tankies or Critical Social Justice people. Note: That doesn't mean i'm right or wrong. Just that depending on who looks at it when, how, in what context, you come away with different perceptions. Mithaldu fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Jul 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
That is just hosed up stupid. By that logic, in the age of Tinder you'd have to exclude anyone who ever had sex from donating. That is so.... Is there a word for "institutional anti-gay agenda" that isn't "homophobic" ? Because labeling it a phobia is just making excuses for being asshats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 11:52
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Though this sounds like you can just evade those dumb rules by openly lying, since they're probably not going through the effort of researching your private life. Nope, the rules specifically target men who have sex with men irrespective of other factors, e.g.: quote:Vorübergehend von der Blutspende zurückgestellt werden Menschen, deren Sexualverhalten mit einem höheren Risiko verbunden ist, eine durch Blut übertragbare schwere Infektionskrankheit zu übertragen (wie Hepatitis oder HIV).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 12:01
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Though this sounds like you can just evade those dumb rules by openly lying, since they're probably not going through the effort of researching your private life. There are two ways to weasel your way out of it, which I do, too, because I refuse to be denied doing something good over this: Lie once, or lie twice. You can lie once by saying No to the question and avoid the talk with the doctor entirely, but then be honest when it comes to the FSA, which leads to you being able to donate blood regularly and no one could notice, only in the anonymized blood sorting process after your donation a machine takes your blood out and it's handled separately. This is to ensure that you are not pressured into coming out if you are donating with a group, e.g. if you are donating along with friends, you are not forced to lie to them about something else or forced to coming out to them by obviously not donating blood. The other option is to lie twice and do so in the form to avoid the talk and also lie in the FSA and say your blood can be used despite their rules saying no to it. This can open yourself up to be guilty of fahrlässige Körperverletzung though, if your blood happens to be dangerous to someone and they didn't notice because it wasn't detectable before (HIV infections are impossible to detect 4-6 weeks after infection) and if you willingly lied about it despite their warnings. This policy and these options also go for other Risikogruppen homosexual men are thrown into a Topf with, like Häftlinge (only if you were in custody for more than one day over the past 4 months though), if you ever took money for sexual activity, if you are currently abusing drugs or if you had more than 10 different sexual partners in the past 2 years. Homosexual women are explicitly taken out of those rules and not mentioned anywhere, because statistically it is not proven that sex between two women is any more dangerous than sex between a man and a woman. The only rule for woman (outside of pregnancy) is that you are not allowed to donate blood if you took money for sex or if you had more than 10 men in bed, which also is loving hilarious. The official reason for this is that statistically homosexual men are more likely to infect themselves with HIV due to a higher likelihood of injuries during sexual activity. As this is true in relative but not absolute numbers, they follow the general rule of denying this Risikogruppe entirely, due to the mentioned 4-6 weeks window during which an HIV infection is undetectable in a patients blood. Why on earth they go with one year now and until three years ago indefinitely is only answered by "Yeah, well, it's just like we do it with Häftlinge, too!" which isn't even true. They get to donate sooner than we do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
maybe we need some Karen content https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1281941568996302849?s=09
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 12:16
|
|
|
pidan posted:Well, I didn't use the word "slur", so I guess I have your full approval. Well, I don't think my reading of your post was unfair, but obviously I have only the words as written and my battered reading comprehension to suss out your intentions. I can't make any statements about how it is used online, since online is pretty fragmented. Having said that, I still disagree with the sentiment. If the Karen meme serves to stigmatize tattling to the manager over trivial bullshit it's a net good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 12:25
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:The official reason for this is that statistically homosexual men are more likely to infect themselves with HIV due to a higher likelihood of injuries during sexual activity. I feel like a lot of the german government's failures lie in pretending that something that must be repeated and updated regularly (see Arbeitslosengeld) is only ever done once, or after pushing, and never with an intentional plan to repeat and update.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 12:32
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:Do they name a study they base this on? If yes, how old is that study? The original ban is straight out of the 90s when HIV turned out to be quite bad. They have not reviewed this process until political pressure caused the Bundesärztekammer to re-evaluate following a sue at the EuGH in 2015. Since then they and the DRK are basing their rules on the numbers released every year by the RKI: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Archiv/2019/Ausgaben/46_19.pdf?__blob=publicationFile The overall number of HIV infections is higher for heterosexual people, but the relative number of HIV infections among homosexual men is a lot higher than the same number for straights. A majority of new infections happens between Männer, die Sex mit Männern haben (I love this MSM shorting for that, it sounds just as kinky as everything else they publish) and based on that the EuGH ruled in 2015 that excluding homosexual men from donating blood is legal, as long as there is no safe alternative to rule out infection. Asking about details in the sexual intercourse between two men, like using condoms or whether or not you do it with 100 men or one partner you're married to, are considered to be "too private" to ask, so they rather go this way. I have yet failed to find a doctor who can explain me why it is perfectly legal and cool for me to own a Stammzellspendeausweis and why I'm cool giving not only my blood but my entire blood production system to a cancer patient who needs it, but straight up donating blood is impossible and irresponsible. Doctors are really not clear about how to deal with this issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:one more interesting thing from spahn conference: 2% isn't that surprising - roughly 200k known cases, and the assumption has always been that that is undercounting by a significant margin, like an order of magnitude. 1.5 million cases would match up with 2% general prevalence. Plus blood donors are more likely to be young and not exhibit strong symptoms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
As a cis white dude I personally am absolutely not calling a woman a Karen, even if I'm directly observing them being racist to a POC Dienstleister. I'm speaking up in that case but I don't see what using the word adds, and so far itt we've had about zero instances of it being constructive or useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 13:16
|
|
|
It's a shorthand to a demographic that exhibits certain behavior, and is useful as such in the same way as any other shorthand is. Also, claiming subjective observations as material fact is not gute Schule. Lastly, your identity should be entirely irrelevant to that matter and the fact that you do tie a judgement of correctness to identity about this specific case indicates you've stuff to learn. In fact, the way you appear to be comparing Karen with the n-word appears to me to be dismissive of the history of people who are by birth part of a demographic, which has been subject to murder and similar. Basically, to me "Karen is a slur" appears to be of similar value as "Bulle is a slur".
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
Is that behaviour exclusively exhibited by women? And if not, why is it important to use a female name for it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
cebrail posted:Is that behaviour exclusively exhibited by women? And if not, why is it important to use a female name for it? Also "can't you use a different word" is a red herring. We can't change the flow of culture like that. We can discuss if it is harmful or not and whether claims made about it are correct or based on misconceptions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:In the USA? Almost exclusively yes, because women and men are historically mostly socialized wildly differently there compared to e.g. Germany. I've had wild experiences with indoctrinated behaviors when meeting girl friends of mine from various places in the USA, that i've been widely assured are normal and in fact only appear odd to me because i'm european. No you can't "change the flow of culture" but you can choose the words you use and if one of those words is linking negative behaviour to women you can choose to use a different word for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
cebrail posted:No you can't "change the flow of culture" but you can choose the words you use and if one of those words is linking negative behaviour to women you can choose to use a different word for it. Mithaldu took the time to write a detailed post explaining exactly why you are wrong, but instead of engaging with any of it you double down with this extremely bad and tired "actually, ALL lives matter" type post. please take some time to reflect on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
cebrail posted:No you can't "change the flow of culture" but you can choose the words you use and if one of those words is linking negative behaviour to women you can choose to use a different word for it. You request a change in behavior. Yes, technically one could. There are problems with your logic about that, but they can be ignored for the bigger logic issue: Any change in behavior requested must come with an explanation why. So far there is no explanation for why that wasn't grounded in deep subjectivity. (And backed by some further misconceptions about identity.) (And coupled with a lack of knowledge of the origin of the word.) Mithaldu fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jul 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
https://github.com/pichsenmeister/WienerScriptcode:
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
oliwan posted:Mithaldu took the time to write a detailed post explaining exactly why you are wrong, but instead of engaging with any of it you double down with this extremely bad and tired "actually, ALL lives matter" type post. please take some time to reflect on this. You were at the white lives matter boat demonstration a few weeks ago lol. Mithaldu posted:I tend not to need to refer to the demographic (i can't even remember the last time i did), so for me this is only about the logic behind the things. Okay. Why do you (not „one“, you) want to use a female name to describe a behaviour you don’t like instead of a gender neutral term? Or, if you don’t actually do that, why do you think people on reddit like to use a female name to describe that behaviour rather than a gender neutral term?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
cebrail posted:Okay. Why do you (not „one“, you) want to use a female name to describe a behaviour you don’t like instead of a gender neutral term? Or, if you don’t actually do that, why do you think people on reddit like to use a female name to describe that behaviour rather than a gender neutral term? Also, the anwers for the question you posed have already been given, namely: 1. i don't "want" to talk about it at all 2. if i talk about it because others do then i use their language if it's not provably harmful 3. as for why others use that word: cultural inertia, lack direct harm, and historical reasons: Mithaldu posted:In the USA? Almost exclusively yes, because women and men are historically mostly socialized wildly differently there compared to e.g. Germany. I've had wild experiences with indoctrinated behaviors when meeting girl friends of mine from various places in the USA, that i've been widely assured are normal and in fact only appear odd to me because i'm european. quote:the solution here is not to replace half the english language*, the solution is to have a go at people being a dick
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
dear deutschland faden please enjoy with me this "culture" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUh5exBJXBU&t=212s
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Can we discuss for a second that some deutschbag-chud managed to disarm four Polizisten with a knife and a fake gun, and is now apparently on the run with four copper gats and a loving crossbow around the area of Oppenau? I'm currently watching the Oppenauer Oberbürgermeister and he is a complete caricature of a Badenser Bockseckl. Man's literally incapable of pronouncing a single 'n'
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
I was not aware BaWü cops had gatlings.  edit: or Bavaria, whatever, it's all French to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Zwille posted:I was not aware BaWü cops had gatlings. Duzzy Funlop posted:I'm currently watching the Oppenauer Oberbürgermeister and he is a complete caricature of a Badenser Bockseckl. Link?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
I don't think the German thread should go without this post https://twitter.com/leokitty/status/1282704068457172995
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:I'm still trying to figure out what else it could mean. The copper was autocorrect from cop, but gat means gun. Cool people say gat when they mean gun. I'm cool people. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/u7QvOO0nogM
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
And thanks for the link!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 19:46
|
|