World's biggest condom maker Karex set to raise prices due to Iran war Malaysia-based Karex produces more than five billion condoms a year and supplies global brands like Durex and Trojan.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

Fortunately, I don’t need the world’s biggest condom. But if this does affect you, my DMs are always open.

People really focus on the idea that he’s soft on Putin, rather than the key part of the argument: only one of the two is (notionally) an ally.

‘I’m not transphobic (I think I’m a good person, so all my actions and thoughts must be good) but I have a few concerns (unexamined biases and emotional reactions that I contextualise as logic because, again, I’m not a bad person and so it can’t be bigotry).’

‘But what if they’re afraid men will assault them in bathrooms?’

Well, firstly trans women aren’t men so jot that down.

Second, assault is already illegal. You can’t criminalise your assumption that someone will do a crime. So it makes sense they do it to vulnerable minorities and not y’know, men.

‘But what about the genuine concerns of women?’

Lots of white people had genuine fears during segregation. Most probably didn’t think they were racist, but accommodating them was bad then and it’s bad now.

My sympathy for someone’s fears ends when it’s used to oppress others.

It’s not cognitive dissonance to her, though.

Gay men don’t count as real men and aren’t a threat. She was proven ‘safe’ before she transitioned, so she’s in the ‘poor deluded’ category along with trans men who get to be tolerated.

If someone believes being trans is inherently fraudulent, and someone has been victim to so much male violence and aggression, I can see exactly how you end up with JK Rowling.

It’s the (understandable) core of fear about which her ignorance crystallises that’s driven her to preach for genocide.

It’s useful to note the internal logical consistency here. It’s all based on falsehood and assumptions and ‘feeling icky’, but it’s there.

The same way trans men are just poor brainwashed women, there’s a narrative core running through her worldview that makes sense in her version of reality.

Trans women are men in her world. Her gay friend was never seen as a danger because he was never a ‘real man’, with the same one-of-the-girls attitude that sees gay men as honorary women.

So, by virtue of being gay beforehand, he’s ‘proven’ not a predator and therefore deserving of being tolerated.

Tweet from actioncookbook: USERS: you're alienating the people who actually use your product TWITTER: likes are now florps USERS: what TWITTER: timeline goes sideways

I know Bluesky leadership famously don’t understand any viral tweet (WAFFLES!), but the changes suggested here were meant to be bad.

I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right!

I’d still argue they form a meaningful alternative to passwords as they’re colloquially understood, though.

Could be referring to passkeys, touted as the next-gen alternative to passwords.

Real reason: he needs to stay on so he can absorb the blame for the upcoming election wipeout, and whoever replaces him can come in with a clean slate.

I think about policy rather than following a tribe, that’s the point!

Labour don’t have policies I like, it’s why I stopped voting for them! ‘Clustering in the centre’ is an ideology! We all have an ideology. You just think yours is the default.

You’re really lacking in awareness, aren’t you?

Labour aren’t left of centre by any historic measure.

It’s not a test of purity to ask they not be openly corrupt, or not discriminate against trans people, or not adopt the most aggressive anti-asylum policy, to name a few.

Stop blaming the voters and start blaming the people alienating them.

I’m just saying it seems you’re very unlikeable and not very self-aware.

You seem to think world is broken, and it’s not your fault or the fault of the party you support. There’s nothing to be done. Anyone with beliefs or goals is foolish because you have none.

It’s just sad.

I think the way you phrase the concerns of the left really betrays the roots of your issues.

The issues don’t matter to you, therefore you believe that they could only matter to idiots. It’s ’self-serving’ when it’s their policy, ‘pragmatism’ when it’s yours. Just hypocrisy all the way down.

You’re the kid who no one liked in school, but blamed all your fellow students for not understanding your appeal, aren’t you? Rather than ever thinking the problem might have been you.

If you lose a popularity contest, the problem was no one liked you. No matter how much you badger them, you lost.

Your worldview is stunted and regressive, you have a warped view of cause and effect, you revel in the suffering of those who you feel ‘deserve it’, and you divorce responsibility from power and those who hold it.

It would be concerning if it weren’t so deeply ineffectual, so instead it’s just sad.

‘Wah wah wah, no one votes for my politicians because the left are lazy meanies. No, I don’t need to introspect! No they don’t need to stop barreling rightwards!’

‘As long as we blame the voters hard enough, that will fix everything!’

No, because AFAIK it won’t affect him.

He cares about important things, like the appearance of respectability.

If they haemorrhage votes to the Greens, then maybe adopt policies closer to the Greens?

My idea of politics is ‘I have moral and ethical views for how I think the country should be run, and I’ll vote for the party that’s most likely to do the closest to that’. That’s how things work.

I don’t even know what your point is.

I’ve voted every election at every level since I was eligible. The parties are accountable to the people who do, or don’t, vote for them.

Maybe if he hurts the trans community more, Daddy Express might be nicer about him.

No, I’m going to continue volunteering my time with local organisations, vote Green because I like their political platform, and tell Labour to go fuck themselves.

Maybe when they get wiped on the local level, they’ll re-evaluate. Or maybe they won’t. That’s on them.

Yeah, it’s a democracy. Which means people get to choose who to vote for.

They’re not obligated to. It’s up to parties to sway voters and offer something worth voting for. The ‘holier than thou’ attitude of expecting voters to default to Labour is why they’ll lose.

Again, it’s on Labour to do better. Maybe War Crimes McGee shouldn’t have done those War Crimes. Maybe Kid Starver shouldn’t have earned that nickname. Maybe they shouldn’t be competing with Reform to be regressive, xenophobic, and bigoted.

I’m sorry ethics and standards seem petty to you.

Quick reminder: Politicians are responsible for their policy, not the voters.

They’re not entitled for votes, no matter how bad their competition, and we need to stop going round blaming the electorate when your favourite party alienates their voters with bigotry and corruption.

Then maybe Labour should do something worth voting for. I don’t know when people started saying the electorate was wrong, rather than the politicians, but it’s arse-backwards.

It’s not about ‘not left enough’ but Labour having crossed many moral lines and now actively repelling me. That’s on them.

When you have a discussion or argument, it’s important to define terms and understandings to make sure you don’t talk at cross purposes.

To that end, could you please let me know what language you’re speaking and what ‘competent’ means here, in the context of Kier Starmer?