Whatever. I was legitimately trying to understand your argument without reading a nearly 5000-word dissertation. Anyways, I just noticed that the summary at the top of your link states

"King argues that population studies suggest that mood-based symptoms are not the most common nor most disruptive of menstrual changes. She then proposes that the trend of ‘psychologizing’ premenstrual symptoms is influenced by the sexist historical assumption of ‘the myth of the irrational female’—the idea that women, due to their reproductive biology, are pathologically emotional and thus have a reduced capacity for reason. The author concludes by calling for a more integrated and rigorous approach to PMS definitions and research to support people who experience cyclical symptoms, without unintentionally pathologizing the menstrual cycle or stigmatizing an entire gender."

Which feels pretty damn close to my interpretation. Some people would rather be righteously upset about being misunderstood than explain themselves plainly.

I'm gonna be honest I didn't read that entire chapter but I think I get the gist of it. King posits that PMS is falsely understood to be a primarily mental/mood-related condition due to the underlying sexist belief that women are fundamentally irrational and overly emotional. Sure, no disagreement there. PMS has sort of become a meme and a cultural phenomenon, which may cause women and men both to play up the mood swing side of it. With that said, "The chief complaint is one or more of the emotional symptoms associated with PMS. Irritability, tension, or unhappiness are typical emotional symptoms". According again to Wikipedia which in my experience is more accurate than any single source or anecdote.

Sorry, I don't understand. Were you experiencing severe pain and mental symptoms related to your menstrual cycle? If so, why would you be arguing against the notion that PMS symptoms are real? If anything I would think telling women "nope sorry, your perceived symptoms are all in your head, that is just a patriarchal myth that you've internalized" is more condescending than saying that PMS symptoms are real.

I think it is a trend that men in general are less inquisitive about each other's personal lives and discuss them less often, yes. I don't think that's an inherently good or bad thing but I think it's true. Also, it's worth noting that the "PMS mood swings are a social construct" theory is still listed as an "Alternative Theory" on the Wikipedia page and the handful of women I've talked to about it have all said no, the mood swings are definitely real.

I think it is funny. I enjoyed it because like most good humor, it is a playful exaggeration on patterns that exist on real life. Sometimes those patterns break along racial or gendered lines, and that's ok. You're not a bad person if you think it's funny. I get laughs out of lighthearted humor that pokes fun at men as well.

Any way to do this just from web browser?

Is it possible to learn this power? :o

Wow, imagine manipulating votes on Lemmy of all places haha.

Haha wow how did you see that?

Yes. Get off the goddamn internet for a while.

Are you actually banned or is that some fancy effect on your username

No way is it $1 per query. Hell a lot of these models you can run on your own computer, with no cost apart from a few cents of electricity (plus datacenter upkeep)

Right, but most of their expenditures are not in the queries themselves but in model training. I think capital for training will dry up in coming years but people will keep running queries on the existing models, with more and more emphasis on efficiency. I hate AI overall but it does have its uses.

Hey, bootlickers, watch this!

loses every election for next 50 years

Can't say you didnt see this coming...

The word you're looking for is libertarian, but yeah I agree it's a bit odd.

Ok fair enough. I thought you were saying you should never consent to a breathalyzer test even if you were sober.

Right exactly. The comment I was reply to though says you should always refuse the test though, that's what I was disputing.

If you are actually sober why on earth would you not take a breathalyzer test. There may be some slight inaccuracies but you are NEVER going to blow over the limit unless you've been drinking. I could see MAYBE refusing a test if you think you are close to the legal limit but that's your problem for drinking and driving.

Normally breathalyzer is the first thing they ask from you. If you are actually sober, and you refuse that test and then you fail a field sobriety test that's completely on you. I don't see how the right to refuse the breathalyzer test is the problem here.

So if someone is clearly high and they blow a 0 on a breathalyzer should cops just let them go? Run a blood sample on the side of the road? Or should they just arrest them based on nothing more than "I believe they were impaired." At least a field sobriety test tries to provide an objective standard.