How could anybody not think that it is not an attack on gender when you are creating labels based on gender? Is it not an attack on gender when you are classifying an otherwise neutral mathematics into girl math and boy math and that the former is associated with squandering, impulsive buying, being shallow, high time preference, and so on while the latter is all about being wise, mature, and so forth?
oh my god i mention girl and suddenly it must be an attack....... um..nope
i did not brand/label 'girl math' as 'girl math'... females did.
just treat it as a brand of a economic philosophy that just happens to mention the G word. and you will notice the topic is about economic philosophies
stop crying because i said the word girl and instead treat it as a brand name of a economic philosophy instead of getting triggered by the word girl and thinking it must be a gender attack because it mentions a gender
remember this is a ECONOMICS category
discuss the economic philosophy. dont get triggered because someone mentions a gender
when you start devolving communication into "lets avoid a topic and instead turn it into a gender argument" you are not going to win any debate, you are just avoiding the discussion
this topic in economic category is about the economic philosophy being shared, not the brand name.
dont blame me for the G word in the brand. i didnt invent it.
Would make more sense if you did boomers vs millennials to be honest.
would make even more sense if people understood the context and content are of 2 different economic philosophies instead of only talking about how a brand name mentions G and then avoid the economic topic to cry how the brand (i had no involvement in inventing) should be rebranded to B(oomers)
knowing all that would do is just still ignore the economic discussion just to scream and cry how its then age-ist.
how about not get triggered by the label as the excuse to avoid talking about the economics
its the same silly mindset as
i wanted to highlight a bitcoin bug in 2016 that would allow junk data be added to block without majority node requirement to validate each byte of data. leading to a scenario where junk can be added in large lumps.... (fast forward to 2022 where ordinal junk shown what my warning was about)
rewind to 2016-2022 just mentioning the flaw over the years, people ignored the flaw discussion and just cried how i mentioned the devs names involved in allowing the bug and instead of seeing the real issue that effects bitcoiners.. they instead just wanted to kiss ass and woke play their admiration of devs as gods that should be defended.. ignoring the bug that needed to be sorted
oh well. when idiots rather want to ass kiss a group rather then discuss the content.. its on them