Nobody Cares If Music Is Real Anymore

I’m nobody. Who are you? Are you nobody too?

@remington is all about healthy discussion. He doesn’t mind when people disagree, just as long as they say why.

I could make one of these, but first I’ll need to go to Tosche Station to pick up some power converters.

There appear to be some logical leaps and conclusion-shopping going on here, so I’m going to try to identify them systematically.

Capitalization of pronouns in the English language is used to denote divinity or royalty. If I refer to Jehovah with a small-h “he,” I haven’t misgendered him, I have blasphemed. I don’t intentionally misgender people (even fictional ones), but I regularly blaspheme gods. I’m an atheist, it’s what we do.

Being a man doesn’t make one part of the patriarchy and doesn’t confer superiority. Being divine ipso-facto makes you superior – both socially and inherently. As I reject the notion that some people are inherently superior to all others, I blaspheme cult leaders who claim to be gods, demigods, or incarnations thereof, and I refuse to give reverence to prophets and monarchs who claim proximity to the divine. I believe this makes the world a better, less exploitative place.

I also see capitalized pronouns used (infrequently) in BDSM. Specifically, it is how some subs refer to their doms when in some extreme forms of 24/7 power exchange relationship. That’s okay, but as with other BDSM activities, power exchange never includes people who didn’t consent to be part of it, and consent is never obligatory. Doms who attempt to extend their authority beyond the confines of a scene are swiftly ridiculed or ostracized for consent violation.

So for anyone to make the claim that capitalized pronouns should be respected by everyone, they must first make the case that divinity is a gender. Second, they must make the case that associating with the divine does not denote inherent superiority. Third, they must make the case that compulsory use of capitalized pronouns is not compulsory submission that would violate consent.

That’s the only way to offer free services?! What about donation-based models? Maybe Mozilla could have set up something like what Brave has, except not based around a sketchy cryptocurrency.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I thought Brave only gave donatable tokens to users as a reward for watching ads… ads which Brave curated for the user based on their activity. It’s just targeted ad revenue with extra steps.

At first blush, it seems to me that both Brave and Anonym want to be the middleman for targeted advertising. What am I missing?