i think one small addition

1. decrease influence of bribing lobbying

cishet and still giving you critical support in your struggles against rigid gender role binarism 🫡

t-shirt for me

Wait, I'm even more confused. Are you saying the OP who posted is creating the demarcations for groups?

The rule of law in a specific geographic area in a specific period of time isn't nearly as important as the meaning conveyed which is misleading.

Rather than missing the forest for the trees, why might he push for the title of founder? Why might some discredit his efforts and tactics in assuming the founder of title in specific contexts?

He did not play a meaningful role in the beginning of the company and is not responsible for its success. Money was responsible, the two founders' expertise was responsible, that specific person is not special enough for their contribution to matter much. Anyone can supply capital especially during the inflated economic conditions (of which we are suffering the consequences of now) and during the time where EV and technology at large was developed enough to allow such developments to take place.

It's unfortunate that the solution is as simple as it is and it's not being implemented.

contemporary feminism (and the wave immediately before) have done a lot more for me than how men have told me I 'ought' to act. fine, I'm not as manly or a man as far as some are concerned. what is really annoying is the apathy and close-mindedness of most of these men who interacted with me negatively.

asking a few questions is enough to make them emotional (which is fine when they do it and not ok when others do it in a way unlike their own) and more intensely emotional than nearly all women i've interacted with. that too is fine, it becomes a pain when i'm taken to be some kind of enemy or other by standards it seems like they cannot apply to themselves.

i want to say they are gaslighting, only, i really don't think it's intentional. there's a genuine misunderstanding and that's annoying as heck.

Hm I don't understand, could you explain? I had a different experience so it's a bit difficult for me to get. My dad wasn't around until a bit later and by then I didn't respect him all that much. My mom raised me and told me to be nice with my dad and show him affection, otherwise I wouldn't have interacted with him as much. I think I've taken on characteristics from my mom as a result. What does it look like for someone to have a man or masculine kind of person around?

i think the cool stuff the suffragettes did would be labeled way more negatively now. the civil disobedience was rad.

Huh, would it be possible to provide a source? I might be bad at searching, I'm not finding anything...

EDIT: Ok I found one with some search operators. I can provide links, most were less trustworthy, I'd reserve judgement.

1. An organization which was initially responsible for Matrix, AMDOCS, is allegedly (I say allegedly since I didn't confirm it to a reasonable extent) an organization based in Israel which appears to have products related to surveillance
2. By association, Matrix is tainted, perhaps it has sophisticated backdoors along with the other myriad of issues mentioned by other commenters

To give an alternative explanation with plausible hypotheses

1. An organization linked to intelligence surveillance, created and discarded software, which occurs with most software, and I would imagine occurs with software developed at an organization linked with surveillance as well (if it's publicly funded, i.e. by a government, I'd lean into this)
2. Though suspect in origin, the amount of time the software has been independent, and with its open codebase, means any backdoors or other nefarious artifacts can be reasonably said not to exist
3. An organization linked to an intelligence agency would perhaps be the one to expect to have a secure messaging platform, one could imagine said organization would develop a solution in-house as even with software audits, they may not be certain of any external software which may itself be compromised by an antagonist or have vulnerabilities which they could not control

Some food for thought. I'm not one to jump to conclusions, I think claims require proportional evidence, and obviously my judgement isn't the same as a security researcher or clandestine operator, so settling on what 'appears' to be true without proper investigation isn't something I do.

Thanks for the info though!!

ah ok thanks for the clarification! wish i read this before replying to DragonTypeWyvern

This really sounds like a reformulation (with more accessible language and preferable IMO) of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I have it below for your convenience:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (in note 4 to Chapter 7, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1)

Wow, appreciate the resources. Commenting to view this later...

Wish there was common nomenclature for referring to posters or parts of a comment to make the context clearer. Friends say I am on the spectrum but the Psychologist said that doesn't seem to be the case.

Like, OP1 is lame, OP2 supports genocide, etc. to clarify within a thread without having to quote or @ which I find a bit clumsy and generally gets in the way of flow.

Wholeheartedly agree. Though I am not sure I would agree with your framing of it being 'left' or 'right'. For sure the content seems to have more vitriol and divisiveness. I would use it in the past to follow scientists and their updates about research, it was really good for that.

Now the majority of those I follow post inflammatory comments or reactions to other content and I find the content writ large has decreased. I've so far increased my RSS, IRC, and mailing list usage, but it was nice to have tweets which are character-limited. I could skim through easier without having something catch my attention.

I use signal as well, might be worth looking into these two links to better manage expectations.

First here and second here.

Related post by Matrix here

Hey, are you also referring to Negative Income Tax by Friedman?

It's the right kind of doctor, it checks out!

Yeah, maybe not talking about more of what happened during the Cultural Revolution? I thought he did a good job, portraying the awfulness without getting off-topic. Or the reader may have been expecting something less banal? I've read propaganda works with a strong bend against a country's before, like Heart of Darkness, or in a more light-hearted manner, Catch-22. I'd be curious what the OP felt was too pro-china, as it was something that went completely by my radar.

I thought Liu Cixin portrayed the US quite favourably in the second book, I was pleasantly surprised. Really took a 'equal but different' approach to other cultures I feel.

Trisolarians suck though, except for that one cool one.

so yes men do get laughed at for this kinda stuff, by men and also by women. when men do it, i noticed it doesn't bother me as much truthfully.

i'll say when i'm in more women-friendly, radical feminist spaces (journals, magazines, irl events) there really isn't this negativity around. something like the scumm manifesto does say stuff that can be hurtful or seem hateful (i'd agree it is hateful; i'd also agree it's completely justified and rational given the circumstances) and honestly so much of the tension seems to me to be due to the online nature of this stuff.

are there women-only spaces where a bunch of negative things about men are said? obviously, and i can't for the life of me figure out why it's held to a different standard than other groups outside of the patriarchy being the explanation.

i think treating and seeing women as equal is accepting there are women who have awful takes. women as a group will be like many other groups, they might appear homogeneous and their's a wealth of differences between them.

i'm ok believing some men are toxic, as am i for some women, what i don't do is share that opinion with others if the circumstances aren't appropriate. i think that's where "think before you act" or "think before you talk" comes in.