• ZDL@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      This weird over-sensitivity made me suspicious. So I looked. And I unsurprisingly found.

      I’m a tall male, so if you aren’t you might enjoy a lower dose more.

      Dude. It’s literally two words. Which one did you not understand?

      • kibblebits@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I don’t understand. I was prescribed 5mg at first, and it was less effective than 10mg. I felt it was not working. I’m just sharing my experience. Being that I’m a a larger individual, it takes a higher dose of most things. They might start lower for them—but I don’t want them to write it off if they aren’t experiencing positive results immediately.

        I’m curious what wild imaginary journey you are on that brought you to harassing me. What completely fabricated reality are you experiencing that you feel your comments are acceptable?

        • ZDL@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          You are literally posting in a group whose very first fucking rule is “women only”. And now having had this pointed out to you, instead of shutting the fuck up, you persist in posting against the rules.

          Telling you you’re in breach of the rules of the group you’re posting to is not “harassment”. It’s telling you you’re breaking the rules. You utter berk.

          • kibblebits@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Huh, sidebar isn’t my thing on mobile. I just go down the list. I’ll block the community just for you.

            My apologies to everyone except this person, who is being a—dick. ;)

            Goodnight!

            • ZDL@lazysoci.al
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              And still, after you see the rules yourself, in your client, you post to a group in which the rules specifically say you SHOULD NOT POST.

              • kibblebits@quokk.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                I didn’t post. I commented. Still, after you shut up I will never see this community again.

    • velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Oh I didn’t think that was a jab at masculinity. Masculinity can be positive and men and women can express masculinity.

      • kibblebits@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Well, using the word chivalry in 2026 is pretty sexist imo. The definition is more knightly in origin, with another example being men courteous to women. Clearly from another time. I think we can just retire this word—o😚OP seems to be asking for a semantic shift to an already established word. 🤷‍♂️

        • velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Absolutely agree on the word chivalry being outdated.

          Word evolution and etymology are always interesting topics to banter about. Chivalry clearly has a different modern definition than it’s origins. Maybe we could help redefine it further? Or come up with another way of expressing something similar.

          Like, I think women can be chivalrous. Does that inherently balance the definition or is chivalry always considered a male trait?

          • kibblebits@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I don’t think the modern definition is clear at all. Which is why we are here.

            I think the word should be decommissioned, as well as the concept of any gender treating any other gender differently than they would treat their own.

            If someone asks, “how should a man treat a woman?” The answer should always be, “like a man would treat a man.”

            Maybe I’m just too damn chivalrous. ;)

            • velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              I just said the modern version is clearly different, not that the definition itself is clear.

              …Do you think I’m arguing with you?

              I don’t agree that being chivalrous inherently means treating different genders differently.