Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.

Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.

To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.

I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.

I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.

My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.

Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.

I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.

Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument; not disagreeing with your overall point. If you seek to be persuasive, form your argument on points that can’t be so easily dismantled. Framing the argument from the perspective of patriarchal hegemony would be far more advantageous as it can’t then be weaponised by those who would seek to be bigots.

I’ve made no accusations towards you about being racist because I don’t know anything about you; I wouldn’t do that without evidence. It might be worth reflecting on why you felt I did so.

Rule of thumb, if someone critiques an identity that you are a part of and the critique doesnt apply to you then its probably not about you.

Try telling that to victims of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry. It’s not a particularly sound piece of advice.

Honestly, while Booking.com acted shittily here, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who buys a home and does short-term rentals. Every investment vehicle has risks, and this woman copped the short end of the stick when it came to the risk associated with her investment choice. She chose to purchase a basic human need and try to maximise her profit from it at the expense of the average person trying to buy or rent a house and, if she didn’t want the risk of this happening, she should’ve chosen a less risky investment like bonds or a term deposit.

Landlords are bad; fuckwits who own short-stay rentals are far worse. The market distortion they create hurts so many people in so many ways. Frankly, I hope she takes this as a sign she should just sell the property and move on to something else.

We (Australia) need to withhold all forms of support from Israel until a thorough investigation takes place. If we stopped funding UNRWA because of allegations from Israel (that have turned out to be specious at best) that UNRWA staff were involved in October 7, then we can stop funding the Israeli government over this. I welcome the relatively strong words from Albo here, but he should have stated that Australia is demanding a ceasefire, not just renewing calls for one. Another war crime has been committed, and we can’t keep using flowery language around this.

It’s often advantageous to prevent catastrophe before it occurs rather than clean up the mess once it happens.

So it looks like the frogs mentioned in this meme are microhylids, and for some further info:

Crocraft & Hambler (1989) noted that the frog seemed to benefit from living in proximity to the spider by eating the small invertebrates that were attracted to prey remains left by the spider. The frog presumably also benefits by receiving protection: small frogs like this are preyed on by snakes and large arthropods, yet on this occasion we have a frog that receives a sort of ‘protection’ from a large, formidable spider bodyguard. Hunt (1980) suggested that the spider might gain benefit from the presence of the frog: microhylids specialise on eating ants, and ants are one of the major predators of spider eggs. By eating ants, the microhylids might help protect the spider’s eggs.

This is also super cute behaviour:

Young spiders have sometimes been observed to grab the frogs, examine them with their mouthparts, and then release them unharmed.

Apparently the spiders’ protectiveness can also be pretty overt:

Karunarathna & Amarasinghe (2009) reported how several Poecilotheria were seen attacking individuals of Hemidactylus depressus (a gecko) after the latter tried eating the eggs of the frogs the spiders were sharing their tree holes with.

And some ideas on why this might be an example of mutualistic behaviour rather than commensalism:

…the spider seems to benefit in that the frogs eat the ants that might ordinarily attack the spider’s eggs. Due to their small size, ants are presumably difficult for the spiders to deal with, and they might be effectively helpless against them.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/tetrapod-zoology/tiny-frogs-and-giant-spiders-best-of-friends/

Fuck. I’m sad. I’m sorry to be Australian right now.

This is just disgusting behaviour. No one should ever be calling for genocide, regardless of any circumstances. Also, why are all Jewish people being conflated with the Israeli government? Jews outside Israel have no power over its government, and even Israelis had to go through some five hung elections to get Netanyahu back in power, indicating that he clearly has less than 50% of the country’s support.

Now if they had been shouting “fuck Bibi” or “end the occupation” or “no more genocide against Palestine” I’d be right there with them. These idiots have no fucking clue how to garner support, so all they’re doing is giving Israel more moral high-ground. Goddamn Nazis need to learn some physical consequences.

It’s easy to have sympathy for Palestine; it’s very difficult to have sympathy for Hamas.

Anyone cheering on Hamas is promoting crimes against humanity which is objectively abhorrent. Anyone who cares for the Palestinian people caught up in the conflict just has functioning empathy.

Cat owner and avid environmentalist here: totally agree. I’ve always kept my cats inside for the obvious environmental reasons, but ask any vet and they’ll tell you that indoor cats lead much longer, healthier lives.

We need to start treating dogs and cats the same way - if there’s a cat around without it’s owner and it’s not leashed, it goes to the pound. $250 fee to retrieve your cat to pay for boarding and also donate to the pound that receives them. If people had to pay $250 and drive all the way to the pound to pick up their cat every time they let them out, I can tell you that outdoor cat owners will go one of two ways: they’ll either stop owning cats (big win) or they’ll keep them inside (also big win).