Painlessly in my bed, in the warm embrace of a loved one, it would seem.

“but” is a bigot’s favorite word!

Must resist temptation to see what the comment said…

Transphobia, just like any form of queerphobia, serves the maintenance of property rights and the reproduction of the workforce that generates billionaires’ wealth. This is where the antagonism comes from.

Also, please don’t call Elon Musk that.

Nettopp, nettopp. Jeg tror dette er vanlig for de fleste flerspråklige men blir ofte mer intenst for neurodivergente.

Det virker som du har en veldig interessant bakgrunn, kan du fortelle mer om språkene du kan, hvordan du vokste opp, hva forholdet ditt er til disse forskjellige språkene? Jeg er også nysgjerrig om språkdynamikken der du bor, mtp portugisisk og spansk og engelsk osv, og forholdene mellom disse.

Well, I should note that the situation for myself is that my mom’s first language is American English, and her second language is Norwegian, and my dad was the reverse, however both he and my mom mainly spoke English to me growing up. So I ended up growing up with both English and Norwegian, but because of the language dynamics in my family and in Norway in general, and because I was comparatively socially isolated for a long time, and because of various feedback loops, my Norwegian skills ended up basically “lagging behind” my English skills. This means that my idiolect in Norwegian has a number of prominent proscribed or eccentric features. So that’s something to keep in mind for when I put my Norwegian through this Swedish “filter” — that the Norwegian being filtered is itself already “Americanized” for lack of a better term.

Russian and Japanese are two languages that I have self-studied for a number of years. Neither of them are really up to the level I’d like, but I can still take pride in the effort I’ve put in and how far I’ve gotten, because even if my progress is slow compared to some learners, most hobbyist learners burn out and quit way sooner, right? Esperanto was one language that I tried to learn but quickly gave up on, but I’ve recently restarted learning that, and I hope and frankly expect that this time around I’ll make it to a much higher level, and it’ll become the fifth language I’ll say I can speak. And there are other languages still that I’d like to try my hands at eventually, and I’ve also been conlanging as a hobby for about a decade already, and languages are fuzzy things anyways, so just like anyone else I can sometimes understand individual words or sentences in languages I’ve never studied.

I can understand a very significant amount of Swedish but wouldn’t say I speak Swedish per se — I can rather put on an accent and apply some regular changes and switch out a few words in a crude approximation of Swedish, but is that really the same thing? There is actually a term for that sort of blending of Swedish and Norwegian, svorsk.

For whatever it’s worth, despite never formally studying Chinese, I managed to read both the Chinese sentences, albeit with the wrong tones. Like to be fair I have studied Japanese, and I am generally a bit of a weirdo with a knack for this sort of thing — but I do still have to wonder if more people are just going to start casually picking up hanzi just from exposure like I have, as China becomes more prominent. I could certainly see it happening.

“China is the future” is a bit of a vague question, though. Just from my interpretation of it…

I absolutely think that the USA is currently crumbling as the world’s hegemon — interestingly enough, the USA’s flag actually has stars on it to represent a “new constellation”, using the constellations in the sky as an allegory for the rise and fall of nations; so it indeed seems like the fifty-star constellation is beginning to fall beyond the horizon, as a new five-star constellation rises.

This being said, I don’t think China’s behavior as future hegemon will be the same as the USA’s current behavior as present hegemon. I don’t necessarily know what to expect from the future, though, so it’s probably best to prepare for all possibilities until we gain a clearer understanding of the situation.

Thumb-Key, hands down!

Well, I’m not going to jinx it, am I?

“What if you stepped on dog poop out on the street, and you went home without realizing it? What if the American father and mother and eldest son and eldest daughter all stepped on poop and went home without realizing it?”

If what you’re trying to get at is that whereas it is very important to unlearn the lies and exaggerations one was told about a country, that people also need to avoid replacing these lies with an overly simplistic and uncritical understanding of that same country, and that the current social media landscape makes it very difficult for many people to have the necessary nuance to avoid this pitfall… Then I would agree with you, but I’d also tell you that mentioning the eugenicists’ favorite way of measuring “intelligence” is a very bad way of phrasing this idea, and that your standards of what counts as “circle-jerking” about a country are probably not nearly as inviting of nuance as you’d think.

We wouldn’t need a translation feature if cxiuj lernis Esperanton, just sayin’

(I mean, we would, but)

HELL yeah

Hasn’t China also sold drones to Indonesia for use in West Papua? I think that might’ve stopped, though, but I’m not sure.

I am waowin’

I am bakin’

I have lost it all

“Dumbing down” has tended to only cause problems for me, since if I’m too laconic and straightforward about a point, people will let their own biases color how they interpret my words, and their interpretations tend not to be as charitable as I’d like. It really is best nine times out of ten to just say what you’re thinking in as few or as many words as comes naturally, with whichever words feel natural.

What I’d say is that there is no-one on Earth who believes that fat people were enslaved and brought across an ocean to break their backs on plantations, with the descendants of these slaves still haunted by poverty to this day. There do however exist people who think that fat people are discriminated against, and to this I would say that the kids in order to make fun of that fat person had to be taught that fatness is something to make fun of in the first place, and whoever taught this idea to them had to have a reason to do so, and when the same thing keeps happening again and again, there is probably some sort of systemic cause for it.

My point with this is that acknowledging that people experience discrimination or marginalization on the basis of a specific trait, is not the same as saying that this or that form of discrimination is “the same as” the most infamous form of systemic discrimination: every form of discrimination has a different history, different manifestations, different roles and different causes, and intersects with other forms of discrimination in novel ways.

I’ve never been fat myself, mind you, but my dad was, and after he died far too young when I was just a kid, my mom told me that he died as a result of medical discrimination against fat people. Not that I am a physician myself — and by all means we would both be biased to look for someone to blame — but I still today feel like he would’ve lived much longer if the world were just more accommodating for people of all shapes and sizes.

I remarked the previous time this Telegraph article came up that I don’t believe Professor Anna Smajdor (who is a philosopher and not a physician) was sincerely endorsing the idea of whole-body gestational donation (WBGD). The key line in the Telegraph article is this:

Prof Smajdor argues that there is no moral difference in such circumstances between organ donation and surrogacy.

This makes it seem to me like Smajdor is really just trying to comment on the ethics of organ donation by imagining something obviously horrifying that would follow from what she considers to be the same rationale. Indeed, Smajdor’s article as written (which you can download here — I will note that I have only read it in part) concludes with this passage:

What I put forward here can be viewed as a thought experiment on one hand. But if we regard WBGD as being clearly outrageous, this suggests we have some uncomfortable questions to answer about the future of cadaveric organ donation. On the other hand, if WBGD is viewed as a straightforward means of facilitating safer reproduction, and avoiding the moral problems of surrogacy, we should be ready to embrace it as a logical and beneficial extension of activities that we already treat as being morally unproblematic.

…So I dunno, it just bothers me that we’d be taking a headline in the fucking Telegraph at face value.