I think it is a good idea to help them to understand to use their language.

The rubles don't go "up" but the dollar goes "down".

That better matches their understanding of reality and it is irrelevant for what you try to communicate.

People are mad about the weirdest thing.

When I was fully a gamer(tm), I used to get mad when people said that video games would make people to murderers. Now a bunch of the people, who probably used to get mad with me, are afraid that somehow video games makes you gay. Like dude, you know it is bs. You said it is bs.

"But it is about how the narrative suffers from the woke shit" yup totally true which is why the political right hated the harry Potter game for jk rolling's wokeness with Dumbledore's homosexuality and her rewriting of history by lying about what her notes would mean. Because they "hate" when authors don't respect the story but go for clout. (For those, who don't know, once jk said in an interview that a David star meant that the character is a wizard, later she claimed the same David star meant the character was a Jew) oh wait, they didn't boycott the game but hyped it up? Surely not because jk is a terf. No way.

I don't agree that it is a common phrase but I will give you that. So what is it saying in the context of the post without being completely besides the point?

I mean I think you would agree with me, if I would say that, saying "you aren't a good person if you have to say it" would be off-topic as a response to someone who would say that when they hear that someone wants to feel like they are a good person, they think they are a bad person. I am changing the context to highlight why I think it would be completely besides the point. In that case, I think you would be right to take it literally and accept it as a off-topic response. But if it would be a reaction gif, you probably should ask yourself if it is wise to read it literally as an off-topic response or adapt it a little to fit the topic.

Now back to the real thing, The literal reading is toxic, and e.g. transphobic because it says that coming out makes you not a man. The little adaption that I think would be a valid way to match it in the context, is to change "says" to "says that they want to feel like". Maybe it seems big but I honestly think it is an adaptation required for most reaction gifs or meme templates. But as it is still toxic and transphobic, I am not too interested in arguing whether or not I am wrong to read it like that instead of literally.

Now you are saying that it is a common phrase that says that if you make a big deal out of being something, you aren't that. That sounds like the literal reading of it. So we are back at off-topic toxic, and e.g. transphobic statement. Because guess what being trans and coming out and transitioning seems like making a big deal out of it. I think it is a big deal and they have very right to do so. I hope their experience is pleasant. At this point, it seems like you think they shouldn't and that doing so makes them not a real e.g. man. I don't think you think that but to me, your argument seems to point there. Would you be motivated to tell me how that is not the logical conclusion?

What are you infering? On what ground?

There is a difference between infering and assuming.

You are correct, technically it doesn't. It is about kings, and the poster tells you to replace king with man.

Also technically it is saying that a trans person who tells you that they are a man, is not a real man. I mean trans men are men.

But I don't think that is a fair reading of the text. But sure you can read the message that I call toxic, as a toxic message to men in general and especially towards trans men. I just don't see where you want to go with that.

Alternatively, and admittedly, I am reading it in the context of the post in which it is about men expressing that they want to feel manly. Still toxic, and implicitly transphobic, but at least matching the post.

What am I infer that it doesn't say? I am willing to give that point up if you can make your case.

Where does it say that?

The post in the picture, just completely dismiss any possibility other than a man wanting to feel superior.

That is the starting point, that is what I am talking about.

The comment in the picture provides us with a story and context but it is not the same story or context because it is a different user sharing their experience. I have no issue with that.

The reaction gif is implying that you aren't a man if you express that you want to feel like one.

Where does it say that you say it says? Where does it state that it is about making it your entire personality? Where does it say, it is about people who want to show how manly they? Where does it state that they don't like a man stating that they are so manly? It seems to be about the opposite. A man who struggles with feeling manly. Where does it state that it is something the person does all the time?

Some of these are inconsequential in some scenarios but all of them highlight how much you read in there that just is not present to justify toxic language and behavior.

I see your perspective and we share the opinion that you should do what you want (with the usual limitations)

I don't read it as that in this case because the post in the picture is hostile. The comment provides an example of something that is bad but the initial message by a different author is already hostile. The "aunt" clearly express the dismissal that I have the issue with and the reaction gif is ridiculing men.

Why would I read it as "be yourself❤️" if the content is dismissing your personal experience/feelings and even identity from the get-go? ( Rhetorical question) I feel like I am clearly being told to read it as a hostile message.

What is the point of the meme? How is it not ridiculing/dismissing the desire of a man to feel manly? Something that rightfully usually finds support here for trans man.

Yeah I am not only talking about trans people though. Cis men can struggle with their masculinity too. And I would give you the "they mean the toxic men with crazy requirements to others" but when we claim that we are about making people feel comfortable and included, which at least I do. Then we need to ask ourselves if there is inclusive language that you should use, is there exclusive language that we shouldn't use. What is exclusive language? And the answer is e.g. saying that a man that struggles with manliness is not a man. Sure, the suffering of trans men are worse than e.g. a cis man that doesn't feel manly, but we shouldn't play the victim Olympics but support each other in our struggles. And a blanket statement that ridiculous men who want to feel manly, is just toxic language. Generalization is the issue. I am firmly in support of people who struggle with gender or ethnicity or anything similar. We are brothers and sisters and I don't like them bullied. I want them comfortable.

If you would be upset over someone making fun of a trans man's struggle of feeling like man, maybe don't make fun of a cis man.

If you aren't upset over someone making fun of a trans man's struggle of feeling like a man, you are an asshole.

Okay the post talks about "needing to feel like a man". (I am ignoring The comment on the picture because that is not what my issue is. My issue is the general statement in the post of the "aunt" in the picture and The comment section here) The comment is a reaction gifs and I think you agree that maybe you shouldn't take reaction gifs 100% literally without any adaption to the context. Here the context is men FEELING manly. So I think it is fair to understand it as "if you have to say that you want to feel manly, you aren't"

In that context, you can't remove looking like a man, or maybe doing stereotypical man stuff, or anything that makes that person feel manly. The questions are, of course, what the fuck do you need to feel manly? What causes you to say that? What are you requiring?

All Women need to submit to you? Well that is completely unreasonable and you are an idiot. Not wanting to have your living room painted in pink, rather reasonable.

I heavily reject the notion that you or me get to decide what makes someone feel manly. If it is something that would require something from someone else, Of course, there are reasonable requests and unreasonable requests. And you can reject to fulfill them, you can even mock them if you want, but they aren't less of a man for wanting to feel like one and painting that desire with a broad brush like in aunt's post is also pretty bad (and probably sexist)

Maybe we have a different view on what it is to feel like a man. But if that is the case, then tell me, why are we judging men for expressing that they want to feel like a man without asking them what the fuck they mean? Because we would mean different things, so why wouldn't they mean something else than you or me?

It is the logical conclusion of comment. Trans men are men. Unless you want to argue that they aren't. Or that the men in the comments were implied to be cis men and then want to argue that cis and trans people should be treated differently to each other and therefore a trans man have every right to want to feel like a man but a cis man doesn't.

Well I don't know where you read the proving part. it is about feeling like a gender, not proving that you are. If you want to change topics, sure, we can talk about a different topic. Do you like Chinese food?

So a trans person saying that he is a man, is not a real man? Or more adapted to context, a trans person saying that he wants to feel like a man, is not a real man? and doesn't deserve to feel like a man?

I don't agree with that at all. Weird thing to upvote tbh.

Edit: Today I learned, when I advocate for trans rights, I get up votes. When I apply the same support to cis men, I get down voted.

I thought this is a supportive space in terms of gender identity. I guess I was wrong. I will continue to support trans people for the same reasons, I support everyone. Human rights.

If trans-men wouldn't endanger themselves by doing this, I would encourage them to chill in women toilets.

But they shouldn't put themselves in harm's way just to prove a point.

We should just treat them right and protect them from this nonsense.

A lot about this is, in my opinion, misleading.

I don't need to be able to read Ulysses and understand all the themes and the deeper meanings, to be literate. As to actually understand all the meanings, I would have to be familiar with the culture in which it was written and the personal perspective of the author on that culture.

I don't think the perfect world entails that everyone (or, at least most people) is overly familiar with ancient cultures and authors.

Unfamiliarity with the context of what was written is usually why people don't catch on themes. A person with german cultural background will not read a passage about bringing honor to your bloodline, in the same way a chinese person will. A lot of Germans are deeply suspicious of the idea of honor. I learned that after decades with Germans and their culture.

How many Cultures are you familiar enough with to be able to correctly understand a text written in it?

E.g. the "remorse of conscience" is a cultural theme. A person who reads a lot of books and seek out these themes, has a different culture than a person who only scrolls on TikTok. And if the person reading books isn't on TikTok, they are probably unable to properly understand the themes in a TikTok.

And yes, you said that there are different levels of literacy, so you didn't say that I was illiterate if I wouldn't catch on the "remorse". But you present literacy as a 1 dimensional scale. 1 level, 2, 3, etc... When it is not, your ability to correctly parse a text is not 1 dimensional. You will probably fail to correctly understand a story written in ancient china, and if you understand it, you will probably fail to understand a story written in the 1950s in Germany.

Get off the horse. Stand next to us and enjoy your pleasure of reading with other people and learn different perspectives. They aren't less literate than you, they are differently literate than you.

That explains why there are so many of them. It is for the WAP.

"traveling" yikes.

That is one way to say, you think wealth is attractive.

I have traveled quite a bit and I like it a lot, but it is no hobby. For it to be a hobby, I would have to have a lot more money.

Once or even twice a year, is hardly a hobby.

I think people explained it horribly. This is my attempt. If you got it, ignore this and think of it as an explanation for everyone else.

Dude said he was against processed food, especially fast food, and he made it part of his political identity. Just like he made his stance against vaccines part of his political identity. There is a chain of events that highly suggest that he is partly responsible for the dead of (I think) 83 children, due to his stance against vaccines. He joined trump because trump promise him control over the department of health. Obviously, that is kinda his wet dream As he promised his supporters that he would go against vaccines, processed food, gmo,...

Now he eats McDonald's. He threw away part of his political identity. Part of why people supported him, because he can't say no to trump. He sold out.

That might be good for America, as trump isn't against vaccines. As trump expressed he would like to brag about the "fact" that over his presidency, they "found" a vaccine against COVID. But trump knows that COVID vaccine bad in his supporters mind. That doesn't mean over vaccines are. So maybe it is good that jfk Jr is betraying his political identity.

But of course, betraying your political identity right after an election, is a dick move.

I hope this helps

I am trying to understand but I have no clue what you mean.

What is your issue? What makes it remotely similar to humble bragging?

No to be rude, but your comment feels very coquelicot... Wondering what the fuck I could possibly mean? That is how much sense yours makes to me.