CW

TIL CW is content warning.

https://www.eurogamer.net/nintendo-and-accessories-manufacturer-genki-settles-switch-2-trademark-infringement-lawsuit

Genki is now also prohibited from using approximations such as ‘Glitch’, ‘Glitch 2’, ‘Genki Direct’ and ‘Genki Indirect’ when promoting its own products, with these of course being very close to Nintendo’s own Switch and Nintendo Direct-related branding.

The accessories manufacturer is also no longer able to use colour schemes in any of its products or packaging which are “confusingly or substantially” similar to Nintendo’s. The court document states: “Namely, red and white, red and blue, green and pink, blue and yellow, purple and orange, pink and yellow, and purple and green.”

Wow, the idea that a court would allow a company to have powers over something that should be in the public domain like color is bizarre.

Also, I’m glad I asked, because I thought pulling a Nintendo might have been a reference to a sex thing and I couldn’t find it on Urban Dictionary.

What do you mean by pulling a Nintendo?

Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group.

The fascists are trying to kill people. In response your argument proposes what is best described as a kind of Stockholm syndrome. But instead of a empathy for captors your argument would have victims have empathy for their murderers. Like some kind of extreme form of rape culture. It’s disgusting in my opinion.

Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?

Those tolerant people are feeling empathy for each other regardless of their group. They are even expressing empathy for Charlie Kirk’s children. So they are following the social contract where as the fascists are not.

Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here.

Those who break the peace treaty are not protected by it. The fascists broke the peace treaty so the fascists are not protected by it.

They feel empathy for the intolerant

The users in this thread are still tolerant of each other, regardless of group. So the empathy they feel towards each other is for tolerant people of different groups.

, and dislike the emphatic.

Fascists want to kill out groups. Fascists are practicing parochial empathy if even that. Your argument seems to have no grasp of what empathy is or how to practice it in a healthy or useful way so it is not compelling. edit: typo

You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?

Tolerant people in groups whether that is by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups. So people practicing tolerance as a peace treaty are still practicing empathy not parochial empathy.

Do you see the problem with using a straw man to argue? Refuting your argument is trivial.

That’s what most here are doing.

Considering this acts in accordance with self-preservation this is a rational and useful decision to have made.

Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal?

Charlie Kirk and the other fascists he was a mouth piece for have already broken the social contract with their fascist takeover of the United States. This fascists administration goal is to around up minority groups into death camps and a pollute the planet as much as possible with coal powered ‘freedom cities’. The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.

The intolerant group has already decided those being tolerant are fair game before this. The fascists already wanted to kill people. We knew this before the election. They were completely open with what they wanted to do. Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups to defend themselves against intolerant fascists. This is a clear cut example of real empathy.

You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.

No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.

The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.

Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.

Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.

This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.

The kind of person you are articulating, someone who would vote in favor of trans rights, is fundamentally different than terfs who actively campaign to destroy trans people. This woman we are discussing is a terf and thus a bigot. The fact she is couching her bigotry in a misrepresentation of science should not in anyway be interpreted as a sincere misunderstanding. We are way past that point in 2025.

To you it may seem uncalled for, but this is not the average neoliberal both-sides right-wing talking points instance. If you can’t recognize a person who wants trans people dead when she is pointed out to you then there are other instances where you can give terfs the benefit of the doubt.

I appreciate that you and your friend voted for the interests of trans people in your country. I don’t believe you or your friend are bigots. However the bar is higher than whether or not a person is a bigot here. Here on Blåhaj we always act in the interests of trans people. That means calling terfs bigots. And banning people who insist on having a problem with that. edit: typo

You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.

But this comparison completely fails to encapsulate the disagreement in question between terfs and trans people. The theist argues that god(s) exists in some capacity while the atheist argues that god(s) do(es) not exist in any capacity. The relevant debate between the theist and the atheist only references god(s) not the theist or the atheist.

The relevant debate between terfs and trans people inherently references the trans people. Whether or not trans people get to exist as their gender is the debate.

One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.

The reason transitioning doesn’t change our underlying gender is that we are already our underlying gender whether we transition or not. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Despite not having transitioned physically I am a woman. Before I knew I was a woman I was a woman who thought I was a man. Some people are gender fluid. A gender fluid person’s gender can change at any time. Physically transitioning isn’t the standard we use to determine who is or isn’t trans or what a person’s gender is.

Transitioning is for the benefit of trans people, not how gender is changed. Physically transitioning involves changing sex characteristics. Gender is a social construct. A person’s lived experience is going to be how a person determines their gender before anything involving physically changing sex characteristics is relevant.

I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway.

You don’t need to believe that trans people exist. I, a trans person, am writing to you right now. What about me do these friends of yours respect if not my right to exist as myself? I am a woman. I am going to be a woman whether or not anyone believes it. If they can’t respect me as a woman then they don’t respect me.

I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.

I used the term bigot to refer to a well known kind of bigot, terfs, trans exclusionary radical feminists. But even still, people who disagree that trans people have a right to exist, which I didn’t realized needed to be said, as the gender trans people say they are, are bigots. Their intolerance against trans people is what makes a person a bigot. There is no tolerant way to argue someone shouldn’t exist.

As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights.

BIOLOGY IS NOT BIGOTRY.

This is called a dog whistle. It’s called a dog whistle because much like real dog whistles If you aren’t part of the group it’s designed to be heard by you likely can’t hear it. This idea that biology determines gender isn’t supported by any credible body of scientific research but it’s a commonly used to tactic to justify the arbitrary social norms around gender.

If you are a trans person you’ve had this argument thrown at you before and know it’s an attack line to demonize and undermine you. If you aren’t a trans person it can come off as a seemingly reasonable defense of a woman’s political views that appeals to the gender binary most people grew up with. Much like war on crime or war on drugs can sound like a politician is talking about stopping crime or drug trafficking to a white person but they mean over-policing black people.

What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot.

Being trans means a person’s gender does not match the gender that person was assigned at birth usually based on sex characteristics. So being trans doesn’t change a person’s gender. But it does mean a person may realize later that their gender was not what they thought it was. Also being trans does mean a person is the gender that they say they are regardless of what society says a person’s sex characteristics mean. That last one is the actual relevant discussion.

One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).

Trans people have existed as long as there have been people. Even as concepts of gender changed over time and people decided that this modern gender binary always existed.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/02/10-must-know-facts-about-transgender-history-that-you-didnt-learn-in-school/

If a person doesn’t believe a trans man when he tells that person he is a man that person isn’t being respectful. The same way it would be disrespectful for a person to not believe a cis man when he tells that person he is a man.

Our understanding of gender has evolved. Insisting that the word gender has some inherent meaning as opposed to acknowledging that gender is a social construct is part of the problem. The fact some people cling to the artificial gender binary at the expense of real people is also part of the problem.

The fact you agree is appreciated. So I wrote you this explanation. I recommend reading up on the topic further before commenting on these issues in comment sections of posts in communities on this instance. You gave the terfs the benefit of the doubt which was nice of you.

We, trans people on this instance, are already familiar with terfs and their talking points. We do not get give terfs the benefit of the doubt here. If you would like to continue this or similar discussions consider asking first and giving an opinion second. Otherwise I look forward to your ban. Hope that helps!

TLDR The left wins when we achieve working class solidarity. Excluding groups of people based on identity isn’t solidarity.

At first I thought that I needed to know what your argument defined as the left to respond to your argument. Then I realized my argument is the same regardless of that.

Any movement that success depends on excluding trans people or Palestinians or any minority group for that matter is not one I want to be a part of or one that I have any interest in succeeding.

If all we are willing to fight for is success for a handful of white cis straight men of European decent then we’ve successful divided ourselves so thoroughly that we are doomed to be ruled by either Republican fascists or Democrat fascists who serve the owner class.

Bigots use biology as a crutch to justify their bigotry. That’s how I know this woman is a bigot. Unless we are all willing to work together to fight for each other’s rights we won’t get anywhere. That means voting Democrat for the most progressives candidates we can in elections. It means solidarity with groups the Democrats would rather abandon between elections. It means abandoning bigotry and sticking with trans people.

I’ll phrase it another way. I support lesbians. I am a lesbian. Why doesn’t this woman who supports lesbians support me a transbian? How is her subscription to a division in the working class that benefits the owner class not the debilitating issue in this dynamic? Why is she not the reason the left is losing?

Why is my desire for rights the issue when I support her rights and the rights she is fighting for? I knew nothing about this woman before seeing this post. I still know mostly nothing about her. I know she doesn’t support my rights though. How am I supposed to have solidarity with her when she already went out of her way to exclude me? And why am I being gaslight into thinking I’m the problem?

There’s an idea that says we should abandon certain people based on the likelihood embracing them will cause a movement to succeed or fail. It of course adjusts this calculus based on preexisting notions of what is normal for race, ethnicity, gender, sex, attraction, physical appearance, personal ability, and everything else that shouldn’t matter at any given time.

The refutation of this line of thinking is straightforward. If we abandon trans people today it’s lesbians who will be abandoned tomorrow. But more to the point, this line of reasoning completely undermines the premise it pretends to stand for. To reiterate, the argument says, “We should stop caring about X group and just focus on the working class and calling terfs bigots is the problem”. But X group is part of the working class (X was gay people in a comment I saw elsewhere that seems to be an emotional appeal to rebrand neoliberal shifting to the right as socialist). Trans people are part of the working class. The only group that isn’t part of the working class is the owner class.

Refusing to care about a certain group of people isn’t working class solidarity. It’s doing the work of dividing the working class for the owner class.

Y’all are why the left is losing.

If you want to know why the left is losing look no further than your comment. I’m not going back in the closet. I’m not giving up on my rights because it will make it convenient for you. Fuck terfs. If she wants my support all she has to do is put down her bigotry. I’m still standing in the middle ground where lesbians and trans people get to exist thanks.

Wow. A bigot got owned by more powerful bigots.

But if you agree that Hamas is despicable, why not call for it to surrender?

Hamas should turn themselves over the ICJ, they won’t, but this would not stop Israel.

Why can’t you say war criminals should turn themselves over to the ICJ?

You don’t think it would stop Israel, but it could

The actions of one group of people have no bearing over the actions of another group of people. Hamas does not control Israel. Hamas is not making Israel kill civilians. Israel can stop killing civilians whenever they want.

Because you don’t want Israel to ‘win’?

What is Israel winning here? Global isolation? Crimes against humanity? Increasing antisemitism?

The chance of saving children isn’t worth that much to you?

No, killing children isn’t worth making the world a worse place for all of us.

They would have to, and they would.

This is an appeal to common decency fallacy. No one is forced to do something because it is decent. Israel is proof of that with it’s indecent attacks on civilians. The evidence we have indicates Israel’s governments wants to be at war to maintain its grip on power. They are actively ignoring a proposal that is effectively equivalent to one they already agreed to previously.

My suspicion is that Israel only agreed thinking Hamas would not. Now that Hamas has agreed to it Israel is in an awkward spot. And no doubt Israel would be even more mask off if Hamas blatantly surrendered.

so angry and attacking of Israel.

Because your argument is a collection of fallacies and genocide apologia. And it’s not the first time it’s been trotted out. Hamas isn’t the organization bombing Gaza right now. And sure Hamas definitely wanted this to happen, but that doesn’t excuse Israel’s disregard of international law and human decency.

You react vehemently against the notion that Hamas should surrender

The idea that Israel would cease attacking civilians if Hamas surrendered is false based on the evidence of a genocide being live streamed to our phones. For Israel, the genocide is the goal. Netanyahu wants to form a greater Israel and deny Palestinian statehood.

There is no justification for attacking civilians. Calling Palestinians human shields is not a valid legal or moral argument, it is a dehumanization tactic. The fact that Israel is at war with Hamas doesn’t matter. If Israel would follow international law this would end today. If Israel would acknowledge their shared humanity with the Palestinians this would end today.

Israel is the one bombing civilians. If Israel would stop bombing civilians this would end today. edit: typos

If the Israelis who fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were 18 in 1948 that would make them 77 years older or 95 years old. This is like Israel hunting down the Nazis on their death bed. At some point most of these people died of old age. It’s going to be the odd centenarian who faces justice in 2030.

I am not a Nazi or a Zionist. I do not seek the total extermination of groups of people. This has no appeal to me. Put whoever in jail or prison that deserves it but you will likely be transferring them to a hospital and then a morgue shortly after.

Here is the current list of centenarians now as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_centenarians

Searching by Israeli I get seven matches:

• Dutch-Israeli | Holocaust survivor[11]
• Israeli | Air Force major general[68]
• German-born British-Israeli | Journalist, actor, businessman and Holocaust survivor[180]
• Israeli | Military official and expert[222]
• Ukrainian-Israeli | Olympic fencer[262]
• Israeli | Nuclear physicist[277]
• Polish-born Israeli | War veteran[306]

Unless you speak some of these languages I recommend the language translator option that should appear in the top right of your browser’s search bar.

Are we arresting the Polish guy who fought in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 against the Nazis? He also fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War against Arabs.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853294

Looks like the Major General and the Air Force Commander would fit squarely into the kind of people you would want in the Hauge.

There’s also the Dutch-Israeli woman who is a holocaust survivor to consider.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2538252-107-jarige-holocaustoverlevende-krijgt-amsterdamse-andreaspenning

And the British-Israeli holocaust survivor who rescued soldiers from the Battle of Normandy and is the oldest active journalist. But his quote about October 7th, published on January 7th, 2024 hasn’t aged well.

“I’ve always felt a deep connection to the Jewish people and our homeland. I value the moments I’ve spent fighting against tyranny and promoting the truth through journalism. I could never have imagined that at the age of 100 I would be a witness to the horrific pogrom against Jews that took place on October 7 and the terrifying resurgence of antisemitism since. As I celebrate today, I also pray for the future of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Probably seemed like a reasonable statement a few months after October 7th.

https://www.jwire.com.au/walter-bingham-kindertransport-survivor-celebrates-100th-birthday/

There is the Ukrainian Israeli Olympic fencer

A man who survived the Battle of Stalingrad and the Chernobyl disaster.

Источник: https://www.sovsport.ru/chronicles/articles/segodnya-istoricheskij-den-starejshemu-otechestvennomu-olimpijczu-100-let

(The site can copy the link when you paste a quote. Cool.)

And here’s a softball, the Israeli nuclear physicist was in the Palmach. Easy Hague material.

Those are the seven who are 100 or older now. Is this something people are seriously interested engaging in for people younger than that who would now be in their nineties? Or does this context not even matter and people want these people in prison regardless? And is prison good enough or do people want blood? Punishing these people in any capacity won’t undermine Zionism. There is no utility in such an endeavor if the goal is defeating Zionism, an ideology.

Also, since I identified seven Jewish centenarians which comes off as a sus thing to do and some people like saying things that start off with ‘If you were a Jew’, I’m a Russian-Jewish American and undoubtedly a mix of European ethnic groups as I am pasty white, but not an Israeli. edit: typo

Israel as a zionist Jewish ethno-state must be replaced with a multi-ethnic pluralistic state. Part of accomplishing that requires Netanyahu’s governing coalition collapse. A great way to accomplish that would be to send Israel’s government to the Hague.

‘Do you condemn Hamas?’ is a meme at this point. No one is taking that far-right talking point seriously.

Your argument is using a motte-and-bailey fallacy. It begins by solely blaming Hamas for the continuation of the war for not surrendering when it is quite clear that Israel has no intention of accepting such a surrender. Israel is actively ignoring a ceasefire proposal they previously agreed to right now.

Then when pressed your argument retreats to asserting most people refuse to put partial blame on Hamas. I condemn Hamas. A majority of people on here do. No one is interested in wasting their time saying that. ‘Do you condemn Hamas’ has been done quite a bit at this point. There’s nothing weird about not taking your genocide apologia seriously.

Yes, because Israel is explicitly a settler colonial project. They could keep attacking Gaza like they keep attacking Syria despite Syria not doing anything hostile to them. Israel is there to take land while killing and displacing the current inhabitants.

US support for Israel is not derived from popular support, but by the profits of the military industrial complex. As long the conflict is profitable it will continue.

Netanyahu’s has explicitly stated it is the goal of his generation to deny Palestinian statehood.

Hamas should turn themselves over the ICJ, they won’t, but this would not stop Israel. Right-wing groups want their opposing counterparts to exist so they have an excuse to commit more atrocities later. Hamas wants nothing more for everyone in Gaza to die so they can have two million martyrs. Israel’s far right government wanted a pretext to carry out this genocide. It’s undoubtedly part of why Netanyahu help found Hamas. Which has been known publicly since 2019. edit: typo

https://newrepublic.com/article/176962/hamas-finances-funding-sources-palestinian-authority

For fascists, the constant state of conflict is the goal. In Netanyahu’s case this is doubly true, because he could end up in prison if his government collapses.

Yes, since as long as I can remember. Welcome to the alien hive mind comrade! /s

I’m not hindering what you wished for or adding extra conditions. I’m not taking it upon myself to do extra work.

Me prolonging what you wished for beyond the first year would be adding extra conditions. Same with choosing to interpret it so you would also be affected. Not to mention it seemed you weren’t referring to yourself, since you went out of your way to specify whoever granted the wish.

If you had some deterministic thing you wanted to happen after the first year, you should have said so. I granted the wish as written, I also noted my interpretation. If you didn’t think through the consequences of your actions, that’s not on me. Statistically it’s unlikely, but maybe everyone will really love your wish. I wouldn’t count on it though. edit: typo