𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Johnson’s position on Ukraine is one of the few things where he did in fact show some strong leadership. Couldn’t fault him for that.

He failed in a lot of other areas unfortunately.

Unlikely. In the age of globalism, it’s much more likely that manufacturing will leave the US to dodge counter-tariffs. The combined markets of Europe and Asia is for most products larger than the US market, and that trend is only likely to increase in the future as Asia develops. Manufacturers know making stuff in Asia is just cheaper, and that American consumers are more likely to go into debt to buy stuff than other consumers. They also know that these tariffs are unlikely to last for long, because if the US takes the expected economic hit here then it becomes less likely that Trump/the GOP remains in control (eg midterms flip control back to the democrats).

Not much reason to move factories to the US, which is wildly expensive, when taking the hit and waiting it out is ultimately most likely cheaper.

Different network layer. MAC addresses are layer 2 iirc, whereas IPv6 is layer 3.

Women ended up not really voting for her either. She got worse results than Clinton did with women.

Trump is currently > 1,5 million votes behind his 2020 numbers with >99% counted almost everywhere. I don’t think he has a chance of getting even close to Biden’s numbers, and beating his 2020 numbers seems unlikely at the moment.

They are pedophiles. I know it’s a wild thing to state but I don’t like pedophiles.

This makes sense and all, but a pedophile who hasn’t harmed a child hasn’t caused any harm. These people have a disorder that should be treated, but this isn’t always easy. If this can give them some outlet that prevents any actual harm being done to children, then that can easily be argued to be a net positive.

I prefer these people jack off to AI porn over real child porn or worse, them turning to actual sexual abuse of children. What’s wrong with preventing child abuse?

Do you have any research that backs this up? Because there is research that claims the opposite and that this can work as a preventative measure.

We’re not talking about basic biological functions here. We’re talking about issues that men and women may experience differently. This example is apples to oranges.

I see, but the point of the comic is that women don’t seem to agree with you and find that way of thinking about it fairly exasperating at times. In many cases there hasn’t been a serious attempt to address the issues raised, so claiming that you can’t address them without also addressing men’s issues would be perhaps a bit premature.

the direction I take to “steer it away” is to look at it as something universal, which is simply more helpful to understand why it happens, not to tie attention to men’s issues specifically.

I understand your intentions, but it doesn’t have the intended effect. By doing this you are making the assumption that the way women experience these issues is (close to) the same as the way men experience it. But you can’t really assume that, and often people disagree.

When women want to talk about problems they face, it’s important to hear them out and address their issue, instead of what amounts to ‘deflecting’ to a “grander” issue. At its core it’s a whataboutism that derails the conversation, and that’s not what you intended.

So my genuine advice is: don’t. Address these problems one by one. The solutions can often be different.

You have to assume that

I believe we’ve come at the point where women and men issues are so intertwined, so much permeating each other that it’s no longer helpful to see them as separate issues to begin with.

may well not be correct, and it can feel incredibly invalidating to people by assuming that this is the case.

As much as you may be right that both men and women are experiencing this, the post was talking about how women experience it. And when women speak out about it, it’s apparently hard to talk about just that and instead the male experience has to be discussed as well.

Again, I really don’t think you intended anything bad here. But as you said:

If all sides have an opportunity to say things without being interrupted, there is no point in chiming in and saying the other side has it worse.

Women try to talk about it (e.g. via this topic), but you interrupted by chiming in how men are also affected. That might well be true, but it’s also the kind of interruption that can be frustrating because, and I say this as a man, the experience women have is probably different (on average) from the experience men have.

You’re not one of the voices in the comic shouting “misandrist” or anything, but it is a kind of “and what about the men?” type of statement. And I don’t think you’re trying to be dismissive here at all and I do believe your intentions are good, but the result here is that what women want to talk about is once again not talked about, which is what the comic is about.

Your well-intentioned statement I think perhaps unbeknownst to you is steering the discussion away from the intended topic. And it’s exactly that problem that this comic addresses.

Morality is a product of civilisation and community. It’s the ability of groups to decide on a single set of rules by which they would lime to be treated by, as breach of those rules can cause physical or emotional harm. And then there’s simple evolution, where certain “moral rules” allowed civilisations to survive and thrive better than others.

At no point is “god” required here.

LinEUx

Funnily enough you’re in the comic. Not that I think you intended that.

Currencies going up in value tends to not be great for an economy, as people will save instead of spend. It stops being a currency and becomes somewhat of an asset. A slowly depreciating currency tends to foster the most economic growth.

Our company has directly profited from a competitor that leaked sensitive data, because some of their large corporate customers decided to switch to us.

Business don’t like being on the receiving end of a data leak either you know.

I think you’re being too pessimistic about IT security, particularly in the Financial sector. A lot of the security rules and audits aren’t even government-run, it’s the sector regulating itself. And trust me, they are pretty thorough and quite nitpicky about stuff.

The cost of failing an audit also often isn’t even a fine, it’s direct exclusion from a payment scheme. Basically, do it right or don’t do it at all. Given that that is a strict requirement for staying in business, most of these companies will have sufficiently invested in IT security.

Of course it’s not airtight, no system really is. But particularly in the financial sector most companies really do have their IT security in order.

That’s not entirely true. In order to be allowed to keep processing transactions you have to adhere to strict rules which do get regularly audited. And then there’s the whole “customers will switch to another more reliable party in case of outages or security problems”. And trust me, I’ve seen first-hand that they do.

Not Tesla though, it relies on cameras only.

Bezos might expect Trump to win and wants to avoid retaliatory actions from Trump if he does.

He knows Harris won’t hate him for the lack of an endorsement, or at least won’t vindictively come after him. Trump is… less mature.