Zendervai
@zendervai.bsky.social
He/Him/Them, Autistic, movie/tv/anime/video game buff, socialist, feminist, ace, agender. Vocal trans ally. Hearing impaired.
It was really disturbing when it clicked for me that most of his supporters don't listen to a word he says and just imagine what they want him to say and are solely driven by half-perceived vibes.
November 11, 2025 at 1:16 PM
It was really disturbing when it clicked for me that most of his supporters don't listen to a word he says and just imagine what they want him to say and are solely driven by half-perceived vibes.
Probably the funniest thing about how difficult it is to read Adam Smith's stuff is that he was mocked for his impenetrable prose *at the time*.
November 11, 2025 at 2:33 AM
Probably the funniest thing about how difficult it is to read Adam Smith's stuff is that he was mocked for his impenetrable prose *at the time*.
I saw this screenshot. I have actually seen the list and it's all the most stereotypical of stereotypical techbro bullshit.
November 11, 2025 at 12:56 AM
I saw this screenshot. I have actually seen the list and it's all the most stereotypical of stereotypical techbro bullshit.
Jack Dorsey built up the world's worst "health" routine, one that took 9 hours out of his day, rather than joining a country club and playing tennis and the techbros are all like this, where they drive themselves insane out of boredom and refuse to try the regular things rich people do.
November 10, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Jack Dorsey built up the world's worst "health" routine, one that took 9 hours out of his day, rather than joining a country club and playing tennis and the techbros are all like this, where they drive themselves insane out of boredom and refuse to try the regular things rich people do.
There's a whole thesis in exploring why techbros specifically seem so allergic to actually engaging with anything properly and why they'd rather spend their time doing insane miserable shit rather than just picking up a normal-ass hobby.
November 10, 2025 at 10:06 PM
There's a whole thesis in exploring why techbros specifically seem so allergic to actually engaging with anything properly and why they'd rather spend their time doing insane miserable shit rather than just picking up a normal-ass hobby.
I saw this article a while back, but it's absolutely *fascinating* how it's literally the most stereotypical list of techbro books you could find. It's all AI and "how to get ahead" type stuff, with the Wealth of Nations tossed randomly in there. All of these books are on all the techbro lists.
November 10, 2025 at 10:04 PM
I saw this article a while back, but it's absolutely *fascinating* how it's literally the most stereotypical list of techbro books you could find. It's all AI and "how to get ahead" type stuff, with the Wealth of Nations tossed randomly in there. All of these books are on all the techbro lists.
She's a liability now because the highest court in the land rejected her appeal. I'm guessing because granting it would create a pretty nasty precedent even the Republicans don't want (no one wants court clerks to be able to do anything they want and ignore the rules).
November 10, 2025 at 8:10 PM
She's a liability now because the highest court in the land rejected her appeal. I'm guessing because granting it would create a pretty nasty precedent even the Republicans don't want (no one wants court clerks to be able to do anything they want and ignore the rules).
In this particular case, if she refuses to pay, she can literally get thrown in prison for it, because it'd count as contempt of court. There might be a crowdfunding attempt, but usually people who get away with this shit don't get the Supreme Court itself going "fuck you, no."
November 10, 2025 at 8:08 PM
In this particular case, if she refuses to pay, she can literally get thrown in prison for it, because it'd count as contempt of court. There might be a crowdfunding attempt, but usually people who get away with this shit don't get the Supreme Court itself going "fuck you, no."
I think the other big indicator is that the Dems really like the same people who shop at Target…who basically decided en masse to not shop there anymore after they announced they were going full racist (effectively) and the company is still spiralling really badly.
November 10, 2025 at 4:40 PM
I think the other big indicator is that the Dems really like the same people who shop at Target…who basically decided en masse to not shop there anymore after they announced they were going full racist (effectively) and the company is still spiralling really badly.
And it’s really, really hard to ignore the nice mom who just won’t stop visiting your office every day and asking to talk to you without her deciding to get her mom friends in the mix. And the Dems *really* like people in demographics that mean stay-at-home moms with a lot of free time.
November 10, 2025 at 4:37 PM
And it’s really, really hard to ignore the nice mom who just won’t stop visiting your office every day and asking to talk to you without her deciding to get her mom friends in the mix. And the Dems *really* like people in demographics that mean stay-at-home moms with a lot of free time.
Being willing to move hell and high water and demand to see the manager because they’ve become aware of injustices aimed at *other people* and they’ve decided they refuse to accept it.
And I think the Dems are realizing that there’s a *lot* of people like that who are finally paying attention.
And I think the Dems are realizing that there’s a *lot* of people like that who are finally paying attention.
November 10, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Being willing to move hell and high water and demand to see the manager because they’ve become aware of injustices aimed at *other people* and they’ve decided they refuse to accept it.
And I think the Dems are realizing that there’s a *lot* of people like that who are finally paying attention.
And I think the Dems are realizing that there’s a *lot* of people like that who are finally paying attention.
There’s a lot of people who aren’t really that active on social media or politically who still actually really care and once they notice that something’s wrong…well, they get stuck on the topic and won’t let it go. It’s like the opposite of Karen energy (I’ve seen it called “Audrina Energy”).
November 10, 2025 at 4:34 PM
There’s a lot of people who aren’t really that active on social media or politically who still actually really care and once they notice that something’s wrong…well, they get stuck on the topic and won’t let it go. It’s like the opposite of Karen energy (I’ve seen it called “Audrina Energy”).
I think a lot of people really discount “mom energy” and how impactful it can be. When my mom noticed that the train station in Toronto had queer flags everywhere but all the gender neutral bathrooms were closed, she organized a full on letter writing campaign that triggered a real policy change.
November 10, 2025 at 4:34 PM
I think a lot of people really discount “mom energy” and how impactful it can be. When my mom noticed that the train station in Toronto had queer flags everywhere but all the gender neutral bathrooms were closed, she organized a full on letter writing campaign that triggered a real policy change.
You can tell someone in this space is in at least semi-bad faith when they imply there’s some sort of standard for what *exactly* constitutes enough emotional damage to be considered harassment and they gloss over it with as little detail as possible so they can imply it doesn’t happen.
November 9, 2025 at 4:01 AM
You can tell someone in this space is in at least semi-bad faith when they imply there’s some sort of standard for what *exactly* constitutes enough emotional damage to be considered harassment and they gloss over it with as little detail as possible so they can imply it doesn’t happen.
The thing about “well, it *could* be harassment but often doesn’t rise to that standard” especially stood out to me, because it’s vaguely alluding to some sort of standard without actually stating it or defining it or citing relevant precedent and it ends up at ”we don’t think this is harassment”.
November 9, 2025 at 4:00 AM
The thing about “well, it *could* be harassment but often doesn’t rise to that standard” especially stood out to me, because it’s vaguely alluding to some sort of standard without actually stating it or defining it or citing relevant precedent and it ends up at ”we don’t think this is harassment”.
You use an unorthodox definition of a word in a legal context? You better damn well define it. You use precedent from the 60s for cases about free speech and harassment? You 100% need to acknowledge the *fifty years worth* of stuff in the interim.
The brief is so manipulative.
The brief is so manipulative.
November 9, 2025 at 3:59 AM
You use an unorthodox definition of a word in a legal context? You better damn well define it. You use precedent from the 60s for cases about free speech and harassment? You 100% need to acknowledge the *fifty years worth* of stuff in the interim.
The brief is so manipulative.
The brief is so manipulative.
The stuff that stood out to me was using two *ancient* pieces of precedent (neither of which defines targeted or untargeted) and completely ignoring the enormous body of work and precedent built on top of those two cases and going full squirrely in how words were used without clear definitions.
November 9, 2025 at 3:59 AM
The stuff that stood out to me was using two *ancient* pieces of precedent (neither of which defines targeted or untargeted) and completely ignoring the enormous body of work and precedent built on top of those two cases and going full squirrely in how words were used without clear definitions.
Yep. It ended up getting produced by a Canadian company that in no way, shape, or form was up for the challenge and they changed and warped it enough that Ellison was like “…yeah, I’m out, put me on there as Cordwainer Bird.”
The end result was not really worth the changes or difficulty making it.
The end result was not really worth the changes or difficulty making it.
November 9, 2025 at 3:54 AM
Yep. It ended up getting produced by a Canadian company that in no way, shape, or form was up for the challenge and they changed and warped it enough that Ellison was like “…yeah, I’m out, put me on there as Cordwainer Bird.”
The end result was not really worth the changes or difficulty making it.
The end result was not really worth the changes or difficulty making it.
And they have gone out of their way to avoid referencing any of the added precedent. That's a very odd thing to do if you're acting in good faith.
November 9, 2025 at 12:01 AM
And they have gone out of their way to avoid referencing any of the added precedent. That's a very odd thing to do if you're acting in good faith.
Where is this line? FIRE is trying to downplay it as much as possible and aren't citing anything that's actually delved into this problem to back themselves up, they just have a pair of ancient bits of precedent that have been added onto in the intervening decades.
November 9, 2025 at 12:00 AM
Where is this line? FIRE is trying to downplay it as much as possible and aren't citing anything that's actually delved into this problem to back themselves up, they just have a pair of ancient bits of precedent that have been added onto in the intervening decades.
Schools should never preemptively act to prevent bullying, should never preemptively act to minimize harmful language and should never preemptively act to protect their own students. Instead, they should only act after an arbitrary amount of emotional harm has been caused.
What is this amount?
What is this amount?
November 9, 2025 at 12:00 AM
Schools should never preemptively act to prevent bullying, should never preemptively act to minimize harmful language and should never preemptively act to protect their own students. Instead, they should only act after an arbitrary amount of emotional harm has been caused.
What is this amount?
What is this amount?
What is the line though? Because FIRE is, for whatever reason, going out of their way to minimize the harm that bullying can cause and is, again, also going out of their way to avoid defining what "undirected" means in this context and are trying to establish a precedent that boils down to this:
November 9, 2025 at 12:00 AM
What is the line though? Because FIRE is, for whatever reason, going out of their way to minimize the harm that bullying can cause and is, again, also going out of their way to avoid defining what "undirected" means in this context and are trying to establish a precedent that boils down to this:
Part of the problem here is that the argument against misgendering doesn't seem to take into account what it's like to be the target of it. It's just "oh, it *can* be harassment but usually isn't."
Okay, what is that based on? Where is that data sourced from? The brief doesn't say.
Okay, what is that based on? Where is that data sourced from? The brief doesn't say.
November 8, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Part of the problem here is that the argument against misgendering doesn't seem to take into account what it's like to be the target of it. It's just "oh, it *can* be harassment but usually isn't."
Okay, what is that based on? Where is that data sourced from? The brief doesn't say.
Okay, what is that based on? Where is that data sourced from? The brief doesn't say.
In Canada, the government *isn't* allowed to do that. They can't shift the definition willy-nilly, they have to go by what's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which was written in the 80s and deliberately in a fashion that avoids most of the problems with the US Constitution.
November 8, 2025 at 11:56 PM
In Canada, the government *isn't* allowed to do that. They can't shift the definition willy-nilly, they have to go by what's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which was written in the 80s and deliberately in a fashion that avoids most of the problems with the US Constitution.
Hmm, interesting. What's the exact line there? What is the *precise* severity of emotional harm that must be inflicted on a student for it to suddenly be worth "curtailing free speech"?
November 8, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Hmm, interesting. What's the exact line there? What is the *precise* severity of emotional harm that must be inflicted on a student for it to suddenly be worth "curtailing free speech"?