[boyanlevchev]

Offering a rebuttal, and then backing it up with a personal experience is a perfectly normal form of conversation.

It is fine to amuse yourself with your speech, but it is worth recognising that it sounds like you are hosting a nature documentary about dumb animals, that exist beneath your own intelligence.

To think this person is deluded, but that you have saved yourself from the delusion all humans go through, is deluded.

> I do not view it. It is. (Speaking on moving from isolation to acceptance as an act of exclusion and chauvinism)

“It is” not. Perhaps it could be, alongside many other things - included in which are the benefits of doing so, such as acceptance, and internal peace. I implore you to go to any community around the world and try to fit in - chances are you won’t. You will then blame that community for not accepting you - or you will otherwise try to change yourself and only ever delude yourself that you are not just imitating them. It’s not racism, or anti-cisgenderism, to feel that you are not accepted where you are.

Maybe OP shouldn’t blanket talk about cis people - I understand your point. But my question is - do you only pick this fight with oppressed people? You yourself insinuate, in blanket fashion, “We have tried to get away from ‘oppression’ by giving the ‘oppressed’ the right to act out their chauvinism in public.”

Your words (and perhaps you, yourself) are very cynical. And it’s worth noting cynicism is a view on the world, not the world itself…

[ominous]

> do you only pick this fight with oppressed people?

Ah, a request that I also punch up... I do punch up as well. Do you require a balance of punches for this specific round?

> To think this person is deluded, but that you have saved yourself from the delusion all humans go through, is deluded.

It is, but I didn't claim that. Rather, I have my delusions, but not this one: framing society (western, J assume? but isn't that self-centered to assume western? this is an international forum) as a cisheteropatriarchal normative society, and from that segmenting people into oppressed and oppressor as defined by intersectional characteristics, and from that to reach into the oppressor group, pick their elements, and accuse them of perpetuating the status quo, and so remove from them the agency of existing as a group and having a voice other than to help the oppressed.

Do you see people like this? In particular, when observing that a book has only characters of the oppressed type and so it must be great?