deleted by creator

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here.

I’m trying to show you that your case isn’t convincing.

If your book could logically prove something, or at least argue convincingly (logically!) in favor of it, maybe it would in fact be interesting. Then you could repeat the arguments here (and elsewhere, and scientists would be doing just that) and we’d actually have some kind of discussion with something to gain for both of us. Anecdotes are, scientifically speaking, basically worthless. At best they’re used to create hypotheses, never to test them or to prove something. And even a great sum of them simply aren’t science.

And I’m sorry to say but this very much reminds me of conspiracy theories, e.g. flat earth theory, were science is really clear about something while a few laypeople on youtube think to themselves “I bet all those researchers just didn’t think of this, which to me on the other hand is completely obvious”.

Your claim is absolutely extraordinary. You would have to present an absolutely powerful, convincing logical argument in order to even begin to support it. “Someone claimed it happened to them” simply isn’t that, no matter how well it’s written.

Out of curiosity I just checked if I could find it. I couldn’t, which isn’t surprising - a book isn’t a scientific publication, so sources are rarely of great interest.

But in general: It would take hours, maybe days of work to cross reference the sources of a whole book with what the author claims they prove. Obviously I won’t do that. How many papers from the bibliography have you read? If you own the book, at least you should have easy access to it’s sources.

I believe in helium balloons too. Does that mean I don’t believe in gravity?

Physics can explain helium balloons really well. There’s no mystery here. And they’re certainly not disproving gravity.

Einstein didn’t even get a nobel prize for special relativity because it was considered too radical at the time.

Einstein had no easily repeated experiments to show off. You’re claiming ghosts are measurable in a repeatable way - simple enough to be explained in a book for laypeople . At least after the third or fourth study with robust methodology the scientific community would be talking about nothing else. And I know that because I am surrounded by the kind of researchers you’re thinking of when you say “scientists”. They’re a bunch of nerds, they love that stuff. And they research ominous stuff all the time, a biology professor here spent 3 years studying healing crystals in drinking water. Disappointingly they found nothing.

And why do you assume this science has gone ‘unnoticed’? We’re talking about it, aren’t we?

Well to be fair we’re talking about a claim that such research exist, which is miles off from discussing actual research, which would be done by scientists in order to validate it’s operationalisation and discuss their findings.

The thing is: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A book simply isn’t that. It’s way too easily faked, isn’t subject to the scientific method, peer review, any form of control or critical oversight and at the end of the day profits not from the truth but from being sold. And you are here doing advertising for them, so it seems like they are succeeding at that.

I’m not trying to persuade you. I believe that would be hard to do at this point. What I’m trying to say here, referring to the thread and OP’s question: It’s not unreasonable to think that you, and everyone else being convinced by a very entertaining and captivating book outside of the actual scientific method, are unreasonable.

One book simply shouldn’t be this convincing.

Thanks for explaining. To be honest I’m still not sure why that convinced you. If you wrote a book with a few hundred, even a few thousand anecdotes about people levitating I would still believe in gravity.

The power of the book is that it just inundates you with credible stories (and credible science!) from credible people

That is the part I doubt the most. Because if that was true, if this so called credible science in your book wasn’t misinterpreted or simply faked, the scientists responsible would have gotten a nobel price and world wide recognition. But they didn’t. If ghosts (or near death experiences, for that matter) were measurable in a repeatable or otherwise credible way it would be done on a wide scale. Scientists basically live for the chance to be the one who challenges a paradigm - and this one would shake everything we know about the material world, every scientific discipline, religions even.

There’s simply no good reason for such “credible science” to go unnoticed. There is at least one very good reason for faking it: It makes money.

The details here might be a bit out of scope for a c/nostupidquestions thread but I’m basing my thoughts here on the book Surviving Death by Leslie Kane.

What was it that convinced you?

Sometimes men don’t fell comfortable expressing themselves with women around.

I agree, but I wonder if it’s inevitable. Safe spaces for men would obviously have to be non-judgmental, but by women and men alike. In order to have safe spaces for men in the first place we’d need some kind of rules of conduct anyway. Explicitly or implicitly. And if those rules are in place it shouldn’t make a difference if the people upholding them are men or women.

In real life I feel the justification for exclusively male spaces is often sexist in nature (e.g. “women cannot be non-judgemental” or "they wouldn’t/couldn’t be supportive of men) or based in toxic masculinity (by reinforcing that men have a role to play in front of women, which makes it impossible to truly open up before them).

Obviously we all have learned and integrated these gender roles so much that even if we disagree with them on a cognitive level, it’s still a fact that we are restricted by them. So as long as we don’t have equality, men will probably in parts be held back by the idea of being vulnerable in front of women, even though it shouldn’t have to be this way. With that in mind maybe male only spaces could be a clutch until men get better at talking with women. I’m just wondering if we aren’t yet at a point where we can think of something better, and make a step in the right direction already - with gender inclusive safe spaces, that clearly support the right and the opportunity for men and women alike to express their feelings.

men’s spaces are an easy way for men to vent about shit that is bothering them.

That’s what interests me. Why is that best achieved in exclusively male groups? What would actually be required to empower men to vent in gender inclusice spaces?

I mean what’s really needed: Spaces without women, or spaces without toxic masculinity?

Lol alright. Thanks. Thought it might be a term for something specific

Okay not at all what this is about, but what is a white widow? If you don’t mind explaining. Looking that up brought me to a particularly strong strain of weed and a british terrorist.

As someone who relates a lot to the feeling OP is describing, I actually blocked that community. Feeling uncomfortable with the label “woman” and the baggage it comes with, a place that’s labeled “for women only!” is one of the few things I’ve encountered that made me sympathise with what actual gender dysphoria must feel like.

Or:

• a gender-non-conforming woman
• an enby
• someone who’s gender fluid
• some flavor of neurodivergence, BPD, or any other issue associated with an ambivalent sense of self, overestimating how much one should feel like “x” in order to “deserve to be called x”
• a person in the process of discovering their own gender identity

So let’s not jump to conclusion. There are many options and being a trans man is just one of them - and one we should never hastily impose on anyone.

How do you expect me to join a revolution when I’m lying in bed, too depressed to move?

Being able to “cope”, or survive, within horrible circumstances isn’t oppressive. Oftentimes it’s absolutely necessary to even begin to change your circumstances for the better. The alternative is unnecessarily cruel and to be clear helps absolutely zero with the status quo.

Coming from OfficeWord and having recently switched to LibreWriter, I almost deinstalled again after failing to move a table, though.

Working with tables in general is a bit of a pain. I will stay with Libre, mainly for idealistic reasons :P but I really can’t say that it’s the better program based on my experiences so far.

calling every homophobe a queer in denial is literally placing the blame of bigotry on the targets of hate

You do realize that queer people aren’t one homogeneous blob of people, but a bunch of individuals? Obviously I’m not blaming myself, and neither am I blaming other bi and gay people for homophobia. I’m blaming the initiators of bigotry (the homophobes, queer or not) and their behavior (homophobia and bigotry) against their victims (the “targets of hate”, aka other queer people) - different human beings, mind you.

all while providing a convenient smokescreen for every genuinely straight homophobe

But how? What kind of smokescreen? I’m still calling out homophobes. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if they’re queer or not - it’s not like straight homophobes get a pass. The problematic thing about homophobia is still just their behavior, not their sexuality. You act like straight homophobes somehow profit from the belief that a significant portion of homophobes are bi- or homosexual, but if anything it would annoy them, which is always good in my book.

Please show me how this opinion actually harms queer people or benefits homophobes in any way and I swear I will change my mind. After all, I personally should be affected by this.

No, it’s about the misunderstanding that it might be meant this way. I don’t think most commenters here are actually homophobic.

But look, obviously I can’t know for sure how other people mean it when they say it, but I can when I’m the one talking.

I’m bisexual. Bisexuality is a normal and beautiful part of the spectrum of human sexuality, and anyone who has something against it is a certified moron.

I personally think that many homophobic people are bisexual (or gay) and in horrible, hateful denial.

I don’t think their queerness is to blame, but specifically their harmful behavior. I don’t think their queerness is the reason either, but nothing but good old sexism and heteronormativity. I still think that their queerness is part of an explanation, since it leads them to this horrible internal misunderstanding that sexuality is a choice. I don’t think all homophobes are queer, obviously some are straight, but I think it’s a significant portion of the most spiteful and publicly active ones. And again, them being (allegedly) queer is not what’s problematic about them in the slightest. It’s their homophobic behaviour.

I’ve yet to see an example of someone who actually blames homosexuality or the queer community for homophobia in this argument, just people claiming that this is what’s somehow happening.

Maybe you and I are having different conversations then. I’ve never experienced it being taken this way.

As a queer person I never understood this

They are not being attacked for being gay. They are specifically attacked for being homophobic.

TERFS are also not being attacked for being women, nor is attacking TERFS an attack against all women either.

Attacking someone who’s bi or homosexual in denial and overcompensating that with hatred says absolutely nothing about gay people as a whole, or implies in any way that being gay is problematic.

And to be completely honest here, it feels kinda presumptuous the way this is being argued. Almost like it shouldn’t be allowed to criticise someone gay for any reason at all. Queer people are a very diverse group of people and obviously we have assholes, too. It’s not doing anyone a favor if we act like that’s impossible.

But how?

Sounds great what you’re proposing - sounds also like magical thinking.

What’s a realistic way to achieve all the changes you’re suggesting? That’s the question we actually have to answer. Right now you’re just daydreaming which systemic changes would change the system for the best outcome.

And to add: Corporations won’t adjust without being forced politically or economically, and both of those options depend entirely on individual action - either at the voting booth or with our purchases.