Lurker > adjl

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it's reactive development instead of planned

Sure, but I still wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "updates" when it's exclusively reactive. I'm not "updating" my leg by tying a splint to it after breaking it.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

our immune system also receives definition updates regularly

Vaccines would definitely qualify as an "update," but it's one that's applied externally instead of being something the body does itself. Regular immune system function is, again, strictly reactive, in that it only addresses things that a given individual has already experienced.

faramir77 posted...

I don't remember hearing anything about the Switch in March 2015. In fact I very specifically remember first hearing about the Switch in the fall of 2016, followed by its sudden release in March 2017.

It was known that Nintendo was working on a new system for a while before the Switch was actually announced, but the window between the official announcement and the Switch's launch was indeed quite short. They kind of rushed it out once it became apparent that the WiiU wasn't salvageable, which I'm guessing was a call they made a few months after Smash 4 failed to turn it around (which would have been determined in early 2015). There were a bunch of games still to come in 2015 and early 2016 that they let play out, but then support for the WiiU trickled off and transitioned directly into promoting the Switch.

Zareth posted...

They cracked down on it after it was already released. It was known about for years. Somebody on Nintendo's legal team wanted to play it. That's the only explanation.

That, or they couldn't do anything about it until it was actually being distributed. There's nothing illegal about modding your own games, after all. The problem is distributing a ROM and/or a product that uses their IP without permission.

Honk

If you aren't doing 64 heat, are you even a real gamer?

MrMelodramatic posted...

Yeah why does making friends suck so hard. Even keeping friends is a whole ordeal.

A huge part of making friends is simply being exposed to a person for long enough to get to know them and to mutually realize you want to be friends. It's easy in school because you're stuck with same few dozen peers (who live in the same area and are a similar age to you and therefore already have a couple things in common) for several hours a day for a couple years straight, plus whatever extracurricular activities you do, and every year you get a new batch of peers rotating in to get another shot at being friends.

As an adult, though, group extracurriculars tend to fall off and work takes over the role of consistent day-to-day interactions. Work involves longer exposures than school, but tends to have lower turnover, involve directly interacting with relatively few people, and has fewer guarantees of common traits/experiences, so you get relatively few chances to meet new people and the odds of finding compatible people are lower with each attempt. Other than that, meeting new people is mostly relegated to things like going to bars/parties or chance meetings in special interest businesses (like a library or game store), and those are unreliable enough that anyone not extroverted enough to recognize and latch on to a potential friendship immediately probably won't get another chance (complicated further by the fact that so many people doing that are looking for a romantic relationship that anyone on the receiving end who doesn't want that is likely to blow off attempts at simple friendship).

Consider the last year, and ask yourself how many different people you spent more than 20 hours with in that year, whether that's actively interacting with them (in person or remotely) or just being present near them. 20 hours is an arbitrary number, but it illustrates the point pretty well: That's not actually very long (hanging out for a total of two hours each month beats it), but outside of coworkers I'm guessing you haven't achieved that for many people that aren't already friends/family. That's why it's so much harder to make friends as an adult: The structures of your everyday life rarely expose you to new people for long enough to develop new friendships, unlike the structures of everyday life when you were younger, and that means you have to actively try instead of just relying on circumstance to make friends more naturally.

If you want to make friends, the best thing you can do is join some sort of regular extracurricular activity like a sports league or musical ensemble. That gives you that structure of regularly spending time with people with whom you share at least one common interest, usually also with at least a little bit of turnover so you get some new opportunities periodically.

papercup posted...

Funnily enough, they have never gone after the Mother 3 translation, and they have to be very aware of its existence.

Given how adamantly and publicly they've insisted that they will never localize Mother 3, they might not even have a legal case to shut down a translation, especially if it's distributed as a patch and not as the ROM. It gets significantly harder to claim there have been/could be damages if they've explicitly said "we're never going to sell this or anything like it." I don't know that anyone making a fan translation would have the legal resources needed to put that to the test, particularly with no profit on the line, but I feel like the blatant doublespeak of "we will never sell X but also you're preventing us from making money if you make it so people don't need to buy X" has got to at least throw a bit of a wrench into the case.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, is "Chance Time" really a battle? If you're not the one who landed on it, there's absolutely no input from you. It's not like you had a chance - even just one based on luck - to alter the results in any way.

It's at least a point of conflict that involves you. Functionally, Chance Time is identical whether you land on it or somebody else (disclaimer: there may be some hidden weighting based on who lands on it of which I am not aware), so if you would consider it to be a battle in which you participate when you're the one doing the formality of punching the dice, I don't know that it makes sense to not consider it one when somebody else is doing it. Of course, conversely, that same argument could be used to say that it's not a battle regardless of who's doing it or from whose perspective you're considering it.

Mostly, though, I'm just using "battle" as a catch-all term for every event in the game that contributes to the progression and final outcome in some way. Some of those are more active than others, but I think it makes sense to apply the term that broadly.

Lynyrd_Skynyrd posted...

This ruined 30XX for me. I played the first early access release to death and have barely touched it since then

Vampire Survivors comes immediately to mind as an example for me. I got in early, and for a while I was keeping up with content patches enough to maintain 100% achievements, but eventually I just lost my drive to keep doing that. It's since gotten tons more content, including a couple proper DLC packs, and I'm sure I'd enjoy getting back into it to experience them all, but because I played it enough before to be satisfied with what I played, it's hard to find the motivation to go back to it.

Heck, even with Factorio, despite it being one of my favourite games ever, I've never actually built a Spidertron because I played it enough in early access to be mostly done with regular games, meaning whenever I do pick it up again it's either a vanilla-based challenge or some giant modded playthrough that I end up burning out on before I get to endgame stuff like that. The upcoming expansion will almost certainly change that, but I'm still keenly aware that playing so much of the game before it launched has cut back on my drive to experience launch and post-launch content.

In Hades' case, I can say that I enjoyed getting the true ending, but if I'd instead played the game to the point of being satisfied before it was implemented, I wouldn't care enough to go back to the game to unlock it when it was added. If Hades 2 is mostly content-complete but just lacks an analogous true ending, I'm going to steer clear for now because I know I'd just burn myself out of seeing it later.

https://imgur.com/NLUS8zi

https://imgur.com/ttk4Opi

Sufferedphoenix posted...

Does blow my mind how many of these juvenile sex cases are a case of incest though. Like so far its been every single one

That's likely more a matter of it only being treated as a serious sex crime if there's incest involved than an indication that juveniles aren't committing non-incestuous sex crimes. Happening at home also generally makes it easier to catch.

Yellow posted...

They cracked down on Mario romhacks before Mario Maker and emulators before virtual console, and another example I can't remember. Other times they crack down because something goes viral, like an ambitious mod. There's generally something that triggers their lawsuits.

Those are specific crackdowns, though, not just a broad strokes crackdown of "stop pirating the thing we're still actively selling." Those just reflect that Nintendo's actively selling the Switch and its games and would prefer to limit people's ability to play them without paying for them.

The problem I have with early access is that I end up getting my fill of the game when it's incomplete, then the complete version has to add enough stuff to motivate a replay for me to come back to it and experience the whole package. With the number of unplayed games I have, replaying old ones isn't exactly a high priority for me most of the time, so I'm not a huge fan of gating the finished game behind that kind of motivational hurdle.

In practice, Hades was amazing and I'd definitely want to replay 2 to experience the whole thing, but I can also just wait for it to be done first and eliminate the issue altogether. I am hyped, but I have no shortage of other stuff to play in the mean time, so I'm fine to wait.

Not surprising.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

nintendo always cracks down on stuff like that regardless

Indeed. I'm still expecting something very similar to the Switch, at least keeping backwards compatibility so they can build on the Switch's success (particularly where the Switch is the first system Nintendo's released without any form of hardware BC since the Gamecube, and even that arguably had it with the Gameboy Player), but them cracking down on emulation is just a normal Tuesday. It doesn't indicate much of anything about their future system plans.

Bern, Switzerland. I had to actually check if it was further away than Vancouver (from Halifax, NS), but it's about 5300 km away and Vancouver is only about 4400.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

While this truck is crazy if I'm not mistaken you can slapped with a sex offender label just for pissing outside and getting caught. Something I'm betting 90% of men have done at least once.

Indeed. The sex offender registry is far easier to get onto than it ought to be, with consequences that are much further-reaching than they ought to be in many circumstances. I am, however, very comfortable assuming that the owner of that truck is somebody who belongs on it.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

humans are in a constant state of updates

I'd argue it's more a constant state of repair than updates. "Updates" suggests that it's a preemptive measure to prevent something from going wrong or otherwise preemptively change things, but most changes the body makes to itself are in response to something that's already happened and needs correction. The only real "updates" we have are puberty and our growth into adulthood, both of which are suites of changes that happen to prepare us for a future need (respectively, babymaking and aspects of life that require adult size/strength).

wpot posted...

^ But it's by design, right? It's primarily meant to be played by groups at parties and allow anyone to potentially win via random mechanics (such that whoever owns the game doesn't have an insurmountable advantage...as with many others). Irritating for me, but possibly fun for casuals.

Yep, for better or worse, that's the design. Personally, I'm less keen on party game design that makes it so anyone can win regardless of how well they play than I am on party game design that makes it as fun to lose as to win, but it does mix things up to prevent people that aren't as good at the game from feeling like they have no chance the whole time, and that's not bad. Mario Party can just be a little extreme about it sometimes.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Most current events discussion (both on this site and in general) always devolves into stupidity. And there's no real reason for it to be here in the first place.

Video games news? Sure. Pop culture news at a stretch, maybe. But global events and outright political discussion, no.

There's "no real reason" for any of the social boards to exist at all. To single out any particular topics of discussion (especially such broad, poorly-defined ones as "politics") as being pointless makes very little sense. Aside from those with defined topicality (like Sports or Religion), social boards have evolved naturally to just be places where people talk about whatever's on their mind with no concerns about topicality. Certain topics have had to be made off-limits for the sake of keeping everything civilized and in line with the ToS, but other than that these are boards where pretty much anything goes.

If you're going to start nitpicking about what discussions "belong" here, PotD should be wholly replaced by the Actual Poll of the Day board, and if that's what you actually want, you should probably just leave.

Having fun isn't hard/

I usually have a bit of cash on me, but the vast majority of my transactions are debit/credit.

The earlier games were also pretty bad for "It's the last turn and you've been leading all game? Oops, looks like it's time to give all your stars to somebody else and there's nothing you can do to stop this." That's not strictly "winning every battle and still losing," since your overall loss is a consequence of losing that one critical battle (a loss which was entirely luck-based), but it's no less frustrating for it.

ItIsSoOver posted...

you make it very obvious you've never played a high stakes game

Uhh, duh? The vast majority of people have never played a high stakes game, by simple virtue of the fact that vast majority people don't have the money to play a high stakes game. You shouldn't need any actual observations to help you make that assumption.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/s/drBNoqoHzn

"We're still learning what's best for PC players"

Translation: "We didn't realize PC players already have too many accounts to manage and would resent our efforts to sneakily bring them into the PS Network ecosystem to make it easier to sell Playstations to them."

There's no such word as busalooey.

Hotel California was already inexplicably stuck in my head, so that's kind of weird.

ListerineStrips posted...

I get that you left "native" in lowercase and are correct to do so but I still had to repeat this 3 times before I didn't read "Native Americans."

That wasn't even deliberate, nor did I consider that interpretation. I probably should have worded that better, but alas, is too late.

Prebuilt PCs usually come with some kind of support warranty from the vendor, at least for the first couple of years. It's still a modular system and diagnosing/fixing problems involves figuring out which part is responsible, but you can often just get somebody else to handle all of that for you. Build it yourself, and you get warranties for each part, but you've got to figure out which part's warranty you need to cash in on.

Dikitain posted...

But yea, once a computer hits about 5-6 years old, I know I am replacing the HDD. Although I have never had an SSD fail on my yet. Oldest one is about 10 years old, and it still works. My work computers are even worse, never had a HDD last more then 4 years on one of those.

I'm still using the 500 GB HDD I put in this machine in 2011. It and the case are actually the only remaining original components, after I replaced the mobo, CPU, and RAM a couple months back. Meanwhile, I'm on my third SSD. On the flip side, the HDD that came in my laptop died in like a year and a half, but the one I replaced it with in 2017 is still going strong (well, as strong as anything in that laptop goes, but I never use it anymore). It can be a bit of a crap shoot.

faramir77 posted...

Consoles malfunction too, and are usually harder to fix.

Indeed. By and large, I find consoles fail less often, but when they do, it's harder to fix them and you're mostly reliant on the company honouring their warranty if you don't want to just buy a new one (if that's even an option anymore). PCs have more frequent problems, but you can usually fix them yourself if you're reasonably competent.

5 wasn't bad, but it was thoroughly disappointing compared to 4, which is one of my favourite games ever. In every regard, it just felt like a cheap 3D knock-off of RF4, cloning most of the core mechanics and items, then filling in the gaps with characters that weren't as interesting, really cheap-looking world design and assets, and really weird pacing that meant I'd done pretty much everything except get married by the first week of the first Summer (and I didn't really care about getting married because none of the characters were compelling enough to make me stick around for another three months of watering crops whose progression tree I'd already mostly finished and making incremental progress through the maze). I had fun for like 60-65 hours, which is respectable enough, but I didn't feel like taking it any further than that, in stark contrast to coming out of RF4 after 200+ hours and still wanting more.

Also the fact that you can't place furniture right next to walls is the most infuriating thing ever and I have no idea who thought that was a good idea.

Lokarin posted...

and how is a part 4 the best in the series?

There are many who would say that applies to Resident Evil and 2D Mario (SMW being #4), off the top of my head. RF4 also wasn't the 4th RF game, since there were a bunch of non-numbered games before it.

Pandora's Tower has several different endings based on your performance across all of the levels, and some of those endings could definitely be called "losing" from a narrative standpoint.

BUMPED2002 posted...

Little did I know, I have over 200 games combined between the 3 systems and I do not want to even calculate how much I have spent on these games.

$60*200=$12,000. It gets a bit more nuanced than that in that you likely didn't pay the full $60 for all of them and $70 has become the norm in the last couple of years, but it's a reasonable estimate for the maximum you could have spent.

BUMPED2002 posted...

I could have invested that money or made better use of it at the very least.

$12,000 since November 2006 is only about $675 a year (and again, this is the maximum). If you've been making $7.50/hour working full time that whole time (and you've probably made more than that), you've made a total of about $275,000. You could have invested the money instead, certainly, but in the grand scheme of things it's not all that much. Meanwhile, that money has given you tens of thousands of hours of entertainment in those 18 years, to which end I don't actually know that you could have made better use of it.

ItIsSoOver posted...

And there is no way you can see 2 royal flushes in the same hand of Texas hold em.

To elaborate on this in a way that's actually helpful, in Texas Hold 'Em, 3/5 of your hand is comprised of the cards on the table. If you've got a royal flush, that means the three cards on the table contributing to your flush are the same suit and therefore the only possible royal flush that can be made with them is the one you've got. Somebody else could have a straight flush in the same suit, but it's going to lose to yours in value.

Zareth posted...

Everyone assumes the bear will be docile and the man will be a predator.

Nobody assumes anything. It's a matter of predictability:

• Bears are dangerous, but generally only in specific situations that you can avoid to mitigate that danger. In addition, if you do find yourself in one of those situations, there are fairly reliable ways to deescalate or escape them and avoid harm
• People are dangerous less often than bears, and often less dangerous than bears when they are dangerous, but if they're dangerous it's because they've decided to be, for reasons known only to them. You can't mitigate that harm by avoiding certain situations (other than "don't be alone with them," which has already been defined as not being an option by the scenario) because you can't know what situations are going to be dangerous, and you can't really know the best way to deescalate those situations to avoid harm if you do get caught in one.

It's not a matter of assuming that the man is a predator, it's a matter of not being able to know that he's not. The bear, meanwhile, is a known variable: It's a bear. Choosing the bear is a matter of choosing a predictable hazard over an unpredictable element. Even if the unpredictable element is probably less dangerous overall, the fact that you have less control over the situation and less ability to proactively mitigate the threat makes it scarier.

Now, on the flip side, odds are the dude is going to be more helpful for becoming un-lost than the bear is, and personally I'd be inclined to consider that value enough to mitigate the associated risks (which are actually fairly low for any randomly-selected guy), but I also don't really have to worry about the whole sexual violence angle and that skews my assessment. I fully understand why so many women would rather stick with the devil they know than roll the dice on an unknown factor. Not being in control of the situation is scarier than risks you can reliably predict and mitigate.

Nade_Duck posted...

wait so the bears people have been talking about aren't big hairy gay guys

There's no reason they can't be both.

I hereby pledge to write twice as many FAQs and guides for Strategywiki as I have for GameFAQs.

Most of the mods that had a problem with the new leadership have already dipped out. The rest, I guess, are just following along with the new rules because they hope Fandom's got the right idea for how to improve the community.

Entity13 posted...

All corporations in general? That is a no, no brainer. Mega corporations that are "too big to fail?" Break them up. Kroger and Safeway/Albertson's should be broken up, for example, into smaller companies, not merge into a larger company with as-of-yet-determined store locations divested to C&S. No one should hold so much power over the economy and livelihood of everyone who depends on that economy.

Indeed. Near-monopolies are bad, and have led to price gouging, stifling competition, and impactful lobbying that works directly against the interests of citizens. Incorporation is fine as a concept, though.

HornedLion posted...

So unlimited texting isnt really A thing in other countries?

In some cases, but more saliently than that, unlimited *international* texting is very rarely a thing even for American phone plans, which means they need something like WhatsApp to keep in touch with family or friends in other countries. That's not really a thing for many native Americans or Canadians because it's significantly harder for us to travel to other countries than it is for just about anyone else (and at least in Canada, I know phone plans that include texts/calls to the US aren't uncommon, though it comes at a price), but for the many, many countries in the world where people can get to a new country with a 2-hour train ride, it's a lot more common for people to need to keep in touch across international borders. Wanting to use it for domestic communications as well is just a matter of trying to keep all of their communications in one place.

By and large (this applies to any medication), if it makes you sick, talk to your doctor about it. He'll be able to either tell you that it'll get better as you get used to it, or tell you how to wean yourself off of it safely and look at alternatives. It's very unlikely that the medication will cause any irreversible damage, it might just suck for a few days/weeks.

And that's really the problem: To get useful information, you need to find people who are trustworthy and have had experience with the medication in question, and on top of that you need to find quite a few of them to get an accurate picture of what the risks are (2/2 people saying "it made me feel nauseous" is not enough to conclude that nausea is a common side effect, nor is 2/2 people not mentioning blood clotting problems enough to conclude that it can't cause clotting problems).

Your doctor has ready access to literature discussing the medication, has likely prescribed it before and managed the prescription for other patients, and knows enough about the broader picture of your health to make guesses about how this medication will fit into that picture. Personal anecdotes often feel better than a formal professional opinion based on statistics and whatnot, but they're decidedly less useful for risk analysis than accounts that look at the bigger picture.

Your pharmacy may have packaged a medication information sheet with it, or can provide one if you ask for it (pharmacists can also be a good source of information about what to expect from the medication, sometimes even more so than your doctor). That can provide you a high-level summary of what to expect/watch out for, though it won't capture any of your personal nuance.

You should really be asking your doctor about side effects, what to expect, and worries you have about any new medications he prescribes you. He's going to be able to offer significantly more comprehensive, accurate, and useful information than you're going to get by relying on the opinions of a handful of Internet strangers who are under no obligation not to lie to you.

Sounds like a gouda idea.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

nintendo also just calls their new consoles

"the new xxx"

To be fair, they only did that once (maybe technically 2 or 3 times if you count 3DS, 3DS Xl, and 2DS as separate instances, though I wouldn't). But yes, Nintendo's naming practices don't dictate anything about Sony's.

Cacciato posted...

Didnt he say his last purg was like 9 months?

He did, but he said that six months after the post that got him purg'd.

argonautweakend posted...

Adjl better hope he didn't diminish my preconceived notion....or else. OR. ELSE.

Your butt diminished your preconceived notion.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

thinks that online represents real life

Even then, trans people "going on and on about their trans identity" online tend to be doing so because it's contextually appropriate to do so. They're discussing their experiences with other queer people (online being a good place for that because it's significantly easier to find other queer people there than in meatspace), discussing current events and politics related to trans issues, or are just blogfaqsing about it for the sake of getting their thoughts down on paper (which is fundamentally no different from blogfaqsing about anything else). If you're seeing trans people talk about being trans a lot, it's because you've put yourself in a context where people are expected to talk about being trans, in which case there's really no room to complain about it.

In a way, I'd say it's mostly just selection bias: For many people, they're only aware of the vast majority of trans people of whom they're aware because they see them talking about being trans. They don't experience the silent majority, which skews their perception about how vocal the total population is.

Sarcasthma posted...

Oh no, what happened to Skard's account?!

Not the post I expected to do him in, honestly.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I see no reason they can't identify themselves as being trans and then move on to discuss something else.

We're talking about you deliberately misgendering them. They likely have moved on to discussing something else, but they've had to come back to the issue of their gender because you insisted on getting it wrong. Even that's just your own addition to the scenario; perhaps they haven't said anything because they're uncomfortable trying to correct you after you've deliberately misgendered them.

I asked for a situation in which you would be justified in deliberately misgendering somebody instead of accepting their identity, knowing the impact that can have on their well-being. You've responded with a situation in which you accidentally misgendered somebody, then manufactured them going on and on about that mistake as an excuse to just disengage from the whole issue. That's not you deliberately misgendering them, meaning it's not an answer to the question I asked.

If you can't come up with a scenario in which you feel you would be justified deliberately misgendering somebody? Welcome to the club of not being a transphobic nuggetwanker! "I can't think of such a scenario" is a perfectly valid answer to my challenge, though that comes with the caveat that you abandon your defense of Peterson by saying that (or, more accurately, if you can't come up with a scenario in which he feels justified deliberately misgendering somebody, though that's implicit in not being able to come up with your own scenario because you could have just copied his).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now I'm questioning how good of a friend they are to mix that up.

I'm not here to judge how attentive you are to your friends. Just to come up with analogies that illustrate how absurd it is to cut somebody out of your life because they corrected you when you got a key part of their identity wrong.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

What's so silly about it all is like... you don't have to "believe in" or like trans people to use the proper pronoun and name to their face. People fake being nice to people they would rather not have to deal with all the time for various reasons. It's a shame that this is something that you would even have to fake niceness with, but I'd say that's still preferable to being outright mean

Maybe it's a peer pressure thing, like they don't want their friends to catch them using the proper pronoun, but that would require transphobes to have friends in the first place

A significant amount of transphobia boils down to one of two things:

• Homophobia, specifically the fear of being attracted to somebody who could be construed as being the same sex
• Believing that gender dysphoria is just a "delusion" and that they know better and therefore have a moral obligation to not "play along" with it

The former doesn't really apply here, the latter is just factually incorrect (based on the science as it currently stands, gender-affirming care yields better outcomes on average than rejecting the trans identity). This, though, I expect is neither, and is instead Skard being overly attached to his hypothetical first impression and jumping through whatever mental hoops he needs to to hold on to that. He seems to know better than to actively disparage trans people (though he lacks the capacity to recognize that people like Peterson are not so generous, and has tried to argue on prior occasions that things like transphobia and racism don't actually happen to any meaningful degree), so he's come up with a contrived way to avoid actually doing so while still clinging to his hypothetical first impression (that is, accidentally msigendering the person). This is why we get the strawman of "why would I want to talk to them if all they want to talk about is their gender identity?": He's unwilling to accept that he just made a mistake and needs to correct himself, so he's turned the other person into the issue.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They aren't being ostracized for being trans. They're being ostracized for their conduct in the conversation.

"Their conduct in the conversation" being to identify themselves as being trans in response to you failing to realize it. So you're ostracizing them for not hiding their gender identity. Oh look! We're right back at the exact opposite of accepting them and therefore elevating their suicide risk. Funny how you keep trying to dodge that little piece of factual reality instead of trying to come up with a justification for disregarding it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/proper%20noun-vs-pronoun

Potato, potato. You'll notice I also used the term "deadnaming" in the discussion leading up to this, which was very deliberate because it all falls under the same umbrella: Accepting the gender identity of trans people includes both getting their name right and getting their gender right whenever using gendered language.

If you really want to be that rigid about it:
"This is my friend Bill, she's really good at soccer."
"She? I'm a guy, dude."
"*To yourself* (Guess I can't expect a quality conversation from Bill, I'd better just avoid her)"

Oh hey that response looks just as stupid this way as in the first version. It's almost like the actual semantics of the situation didn't change at all.

(Side note: this is an example of a situation in which you might use third-person pronouns to refer to somebody who's present, since for some reason you struggled to conceptualize that)

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You would think that, if you think trans people can only talk about their pronouns.

Where did I say that?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I do think I can't expect a quality conversation from someone who makes that an issue.

"Hi Bill!"
"My name's not Bill. It's Jake."
"*To yourself* (Guess I can't expect a quality conversation from Bill, I'd better just avoid him)"

This is literally what you're proposing. I hope I shouldn't have to point out to you how utterly ludicrous such a response is.

Also worth noting: When I talk about "accepting trans people as their target gender" reducing their risk of suicide by half, that doesn't just mean using the right name/pronouns when interacting with them. Cutting all contact with them as soon as you learn that they're trans isn't some loophole that gets you out of doing anything more to accept them. Deliberately ostracizing people for being trans is exactly the opposite of accepting them and subsequently also increases their risk of suicide.

So I ask you again: In what situations is it so important that you deliberately reject a trans person's gender identity as to justify doubling their risk of suicide?