Bunker D
@bunkerd.bsky.social
”Every way of seeing is also a way of not seeing.“
— A.N. Whitehead
— A.N. Whitehead
Does “killing a painting group” mean “revealing bigots like me aren't welcome”?
November 25, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Does “killing a painting group” mean “revealing bigots like me aren't welcome”?
(I saw you replied Re: “human being problem”. We agree on that then.)
And btw, saying it's a "human problem" wasn't intended to shove it aside. I just meant that it's a problem that requires a societal solution.
(leaving these here, I was in the middle of typing when you deleted)
(leaving these here, I was in the middle of typing when you deleted)
November 25, 2025 at 8:14 PM
(I saw you replied Re: “human being problem”. We agree on that then.)
Well I was retyping it.
The new version also as the “human problem” mention. But yes, we agree, it means society must do something, it's not to some individuals to solve the issue.
(Tbf, “it's a human problem” is so often used to basically say “we can't do anything”. T_T)
The new version also as the “human problem” mention. But yes, we agree, it means society must do something, it's not to some individuals to solve the issue.
(Tbf, “it's a human problem” is so often used to basically say “we can't do anything”. T_T)
November 25, 2025 at 8:13 PM
Well I was retyping it.
The new version also as the “human problem” mention. But yes, we agree, it means society must do something, it's not to some individuals to solve the issue.
(Tbf, “it's a human problem” is so often used to basically say “we can't do anything”. T_T)
The new version also as the “human problem” mention. But yes, we agree, it means society must do something, it's not to some individuals to solve the issue.
(Tbf, “it's a human problem” is so often used to basically say “we can't do anything”. T_T)
To be frank, I consider that those limitations mean that the issue is absolutely not solved. Kids aren't protected. We shouldn't wave the issue as a “human being problem”, but work to ensure that legal pathways allow for better rules and accountability, not destroyed by a school board's transphobia.
November 25, 2025 at 8:10 PM
To be frank, I consider that those limitations mean that the issue is absolutely not solved. Kids aren't protected. We shouldn't wave the issue as a “human being problem”, but work to ensure that legal pathways allow for better rules and accountability, not destroyed by a school board's transphobia.
I'm not talking much about your *opinion* or *position*, which I know little about. I am just underlining the limits of a particular point you've mentioned.
Those limits should be acknowledged, and we shouldn't believe that this issue of inappropriate behaviors is thus solved (not saying you do).
Those limits should be acknowledged, and we shouldn't believe that this issue of inappropriate behaviors is thus solved (not saying you do).
November 25, 2025 at 8:10 PM
I'm not talking much about your *opinion* or *position*, which I know little about. I am just underlining the limits of a particular point you've mentioned.
Those limits should be acknowledged, and we shouldn't believe that this issue of inappropriate behaviors is thus solved (not saying you do).
Those limits should be acknowledged, and we shouldn't believe that this issue of inappropriate behaviors is thus solved (not saying you do).
My point is that this actually doesn't really address the issue, as this behavior would still go unaffected in places where the school / school board agrees with the teacher and bullying trans kids. In such places, kids would remain unprotected.
November 25, 2025 at 7:47 PM
My point is that this actually doesn't really address the issue, as this behavior would still go unaffected in places where the school / school board agrees with the teacher and bullying trans kids. In such places, kids would remain unprotected.
I take your mention of potential firing as a reply to those comments: you think this is inappropriate behavior (I guess), and underlined this potential firing as a way to tackle the issue — rather than laws and lawsuits.
November 25, 2025 at 7:47 PM
I take your mention of potential firing as a reply to those comments: you think this is inappropriate behavior (I guess), and underlined this potential firing as a way to tackle the issue — rather than laws and lawsuits.
But, you were mentioning this ability to fire the teacher while people were expressing that he “does not deserve to hold a position of public responsibility”, or asking whether “you think it is appropriate for adults in a position of power” to behave this way.
November 25, 2025 at 7:47 PM
But, you were mentioning this ability to fire the teacher while people were expressing that he “does not deserve to hold a position of public responsibility”, or asking whether “you think it is appropriate for adults in a position of power” to behave this way.
I am indeed saying that “IF the school agrees, … the school won't fire the teacher”, and as a result there would be “no meaningful consequence” by way of the fact that the school could fire him. Yes.
November 25, 2025 at 7:47 PM
I am indeed saying that “IF the school agrees, … the school won't fire the teacher”, and as a result there would be “no meaningful consequence” by way of the fact that the school could fire him. Yes.
I would love your question to be more specific to understand where the misunderstanding lies, assuming there is one.
But hoping it clarifies it:
But hoping it clarifies it:
Did I say that your position implies that “the school agrees”? I'm not sure I understand your question. 🤨
My point is you seem to put forward repercussions relying on the willingness of the school, which would leave kids unprotected IF the school agrees with the teacher.
My point is you seem to put forward repercussions relying on the willingness of the school, which would leave kids unprotected IF the school agrees with the teacher.
November 25, 2025 at 7:28 PM
I would love your question to be more specific to understand where the misunderstanding lies, assuming there is one.
But hoping it clarifies it:
But hoping it clarifies it:
Did I say that your position implies that “the school agrees”? I'm not sure I understand your question. 🤨
My point is you seem to put forward repercussions relying on the willingness of the school, which would leave kids unprotected IF the school agrees with the teacher.
My point is you seem to put forward repercussions relying on the willingness of the school, which would leave kids unprotected IF the school agrees with the teacher.
November 25, 2025 at 7:22 PM
Did I say that your position implies that “the school agrees”? I'm not sure I understand your question. 🤨
My point is you seem to put forward repercussions relying on the willingness of the school, which would leave kids unprotected IF the school agrees with the teacher.
My point is you seem to put forward repercussions relying on the willingness of the school, which would leave kids unprotected IF the school agrees with the teacher.
I don't see how it is contradicting my point. What you put forward seems to still rely on the school board's willingness to act.
See, you ASSUME I didn't see that. So you think just copy-pasting it provides an answer. It really doesn't.
I might be missing something, but you'd need to clarify what.
See, you ASSUME I didn't see that. So you think just copy-pasting it provides an answer. It really doesn't.
I might be missing something, but you'd need to clarify what.
November 25, 2025 at 7:19 PM
I don't see how it is contradicting my point. What you put forward seems to still rely on the school board's willingness to act.
See, you ASSUME I didn't see that. So you think just copy-pasting it provides an answer. It really doesn't.
I might be missing something, but you'd need to clarify what.
See, you ASSUME I didn't see that. So you think just copy-pasting it provides an answer. It really doesn't.
I might be missing something, but you'd need to clarify what.
That's bold given your assumptions on what I did or not to understand your position, and your apparent failure to understand or answer my point.
I.e.: when the potential repercussions are being fired by the school, those only truly exist only when the school cares and disagrees with the teacher.
I.e.: when the potential repercussions are being fired by the school, those only truly exist only when the school cares and disagrees with the teacher.
November 25, 2025 at 7:14 PM
That's bold given your assumptions on what I did or not to understand your position, and your apparent failure to understand or answer my point.
I.e.: when the potential repercussions are being fired by the school, those only truly exist only when the school cares and disagrees with the teacher.
I.e.: when the potential repercussions are being fired by the school, those only truly exist only when the school cares and disagrees with the teacher.
Where you said what exactly?
I'm talking about the implications of what you're saying. So yes, something you haven't explicitly underlined. That's the point.
I'm talking about the implications of what you're saying. So yes, something you haven't explicitly underlined. That's the point.
November 25, 2025 at 7:07 PM
Where you said what exactly?
I'm talking about the implications of what you're saying. So yes, something you haven't explicitly underlined. That's the point.
I'm talking about the implications of what you're saying. So yes, something you haven't explicitly underlined. That's the point.
Also let's not act as if we were talking about a private business. If I'm not mistaken, the events happened at Urbandale High School, a public high school. A service provided to the local population, using public funding.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
November 25, 2025 at 6:05 PM
Also let's not act as if we were talking about a private business. If I'm not mistaken, the events happened at Urbandale High School, a public high school. A service provided to the local population, using public funding.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
Also let's not act as if we were talking about a private business. If I'm not mistaken, the events happened at Urbandale High School, a public high school. A service provided to the local population, using public funding.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
November 25, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Also let's not act as if we were talking about a private business. If I'm not mistaken, the events happened at Urbandale High School, a public high school. A service provided to the local population, using public funding.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
It's not like people will shop around to favor the best private competitor.
So teachers can insult and misgender students without any repercussions… provided that the school agrees.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
November 25, 2025 at 5:55 PM
So teachers can insult and misgender students without any repercussions… provided that the school agrees.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
So teachers can insult and misgender students without any repercussions… provided that the school agrees.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
November 25, 2025 at 5:55 PM
So teachers can insult and misgender students without any repercussions… provided that the school agrees.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
You seem to act like you support some sort of deterrent and accountability, but there's none of it in what you put forward, as soon as a few people agree to mistreat those kids.
2 à 5 fois par jour par voie orale
November 25, 2025 at 9:37 AM
2 à 5 fois par jour par voie orale
C'est marrant comme l'annonce du retrait par le chinois du projet ne fait pas trop clairement mention de l'échec du Tipee.
November 19, 2025 at 4:58 PM
C'est marrant comme l'annonce du retrait par le chinois du projet ne fait pas trop clairement mention de l'échec du Tipee.
Oui mais bon ça c'est les “vrais” ça compte pas. Je suppose qu'il s'agace d'autres qui viennent concurrencer les zéts sur leur terrain (y compris ne formations etc). Je pense notamment à la levée de bouclier dans le milieu face à Cogito, parce que “personne (du milieu) les connaissait”.
November 11, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Oui mais bon ça c'est les “vrais” ça compte pas. Je suppose qu'il s'agace d'autres qui viennent concurrencer les zéts sur leur terrain (y compris ne formations etc). Je pense notamment à la levée de bouclier dans le milieu face à Cogito, parce que “personne (du milieu) les connaissait”.
C'est marrant parce qu'un de mes reproches envers la zét et son enseignement des “biais”, c'est qu'il est en grande partie pas fondé sur la littérature scientifique, mais sur d'autres contenus de vulga qui tournent dans le mouvement. D'ailleurs, ces “enseignements” sont de fait rarement sourcés. 🤷♀️
November 11, 2025 at 4:28 PM
C'est marrant parce qu'un de mes reproches envers la zét et son enseignement des “biais”, c'est qu'il est en grande partie pas fondé sur la littérature scientifique, mais sur d'autres contenus de vulga qui tournent dans le mouvement. D'ailleurs, ces “enseignements” sont de fait rarement sourcés. 🤷♀️
Alors non, c'était pas juste une affaire d'algorithmes. L'afflux de commentaires sous la vidéo était fortement corrélé à l'afflux de réactions au poste l'ayant affiché. Ils sont directement liés.
Et oublions pas que dans le partage Twitter, il invitait son public : “à commenter”.
Et oublions pas que dans le partage Twitter, il invitait son public : “à commenter”.
November 11, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Alors non, c'était pas juste une affaire d'algorithmes. L'afflux de commentaires sous la vidéo était fortement corrélé à l'afflux de réactions au poste l'ayant affiché. Ils sont directement liés.
Et oublions pas que dans le partage Twitter, il invitait son public : “à commenter”.
Et oublions pas que dans le partage Twitter, il invitait son public : “à commenter”.
Hala on se demande bien quel mouvement a fait des “biais cognitifs” une question populaire, mais aussi typiquement abordée de manière surfacique, relativement a-scientifique, le tout sous un angle d'amélioration personnelle, et peu précautionneux quant à ses propres impacts. 🤔
November 10, 2025 at 8:59 PM
Hala on se demande bien quel mouvement a fait des “biais cognitifs” une question populaire, mais aussi typiquement abordée de manière surfacique, relativement a-scientifique, le tout sous un angle d'amélioration personnelle, et peu précautionneux quant à ses propres impacts. 🤔