yeah, think my response was responding to something non-existent (like i made up a take to argue against), appreciate your comment. one needs to take the complaints and grievances seriously if they wanna understand or have a meaningful affect.

Yeah reading what happened (outside of the book) the same vibes are there. It really made me think the endorsement on the cover from obama was genuine lol

I don’t think they are federated? Neither is the other big community whatever it’s called.

Solaris! Summa Technologiae!!

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.

t-shirt for me

i think the notion of ‘convincing’ is the issue. it really needs to be done by men, it’s not as though what women are saying is factually incorrect or the content is off, it’s often the opposite i find. when i say what women or feminists i respect say i always seem to get a better response than if a woman said it or the original author said it.

it’s such a shame, there’s already a ton of work done by a sizeable proportion of the population and it’s ignored or misconstrued :/

i thought it’s cuz their aero industry died?

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.

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.

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)