I mean the whole 1972 rape fantasy essay he wrote was potentially progressive at the the time but feels quite tone-deaf and ham fisted nowadays…
I mean the whole 1972 rape fantasy essay he wrote was potentially progressive at the the time but feels quite tone-deaf and ham fisted nowadays…
As per the graph - that IQ score goes above 150 so it doesn’t directly correlate to % of population
Interesting - as the article notes the first amendment was specifically implemented to protect unpopular view points - which is tricky because it does mean that white supremacists have the same right to voice their ideas as critical race theorists - but how do we balance that hate speech should have the same footing as voicing concerns around oppression?
even more so when those that are oppressed will have a harder time of being heard in the first place? should the law (as the 1st amendment specifically says that a view not held by society is still protected) tolerate hate and bigotry? it appears the nazi bar is guarded by the first amendment :/
Being grateful is pretty neat but make sure to reciprocate! - “Suck her clit every morning to thank her for choosing you” 🥰
Using your brain
I think we’re both describing the same flat earth argument - still my point is that while there is a correlation between the coming out and the subsequent radicalization, it would be overly simplistic to claim direct causation. The coming out event acted as a catalyst that revealed and perhaps accelerated pre-existing tendencies in the family member who became radicalized, but it did not cause the bigotry itself.
thank you for the kind words :)
but then why blame the people that are saying “uhm you really shouldn’t be joining a cult (bigotry) that harms everyone” instead of the cult leaders (the bigoted mouthpieces pushing harmful rhetoric)?
it’s like saying that if your family never made claims the earth is round you would have never looked up anything related to it and wouldn’t have become a flat earther.
idk maybe it’s just that as LGBTQ+ i don’t like to think that if i were to come out it would cause my family to turn into bigots (which just makes me never want to bring it up 🤷)
memes aside it does look pretty neat - simple .apk installs, yaml system configs, automatic boot rollback, easy multi-gpu support - all solid user focused features - will have to see how it develops but so far it seems like a better alternative to the likes of PopOS
I would argue it isn’t direct cause and effect as most likely that member has always harbored those feelings but being confronted with their beliefs is the catalyst that makes them veer into openly bigoted territory.
I think what OP is trying to say is that by claiming LGBTQ+ people coming out is the cause of people’s bigotry it will only make them less likely to come out but wouldn’t actually reduce the number of bigots in the world. (I know that’s probably not the argument you were trying to make, but it’s what it sounded like from the outside)
Still let’s not forget the right-wing policies from their manifesto:
Increasing military spending by 13 billion
Increase police funding
More border security force to “stop the boats”
Build more prisons
Pour money into polluting industries (car gigafactories, steel production, “carbon capture”)
Keep oil and gas production in the North Sea for decades, with the only focus on jobs and none on environmental issues.
So yeah I guess it’s better to have an authoritarian social-ish democratic state than an outright fascist one but that’s not a very high bar and will only work until the climate crisis boils us all alive :)
I mean you could have asked why Israel attacks refugee camps in the first place (even before Hamas)?
Or do you think that atrocities like "women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed and then slaughtered by automatic fire" doesn’t breed resentment? (not that Hamas didn’t do the same on 7.11 but let’s not pretend Israel isn’t at least as complicit as Hamas in the overall conflict)
I’ll admit using civilians as shields is indeed dreadful - but my main point is acknowledging that violence only breeds more violence and that the first step to preventing more deaths is dismantling the current terror state form of Israel, not killing more and more civilians as some form of extirpation…
I’ll leave you with this - if there’s no oppressor to rally against, what would give Hamas power?
I mean you came in swinging with the whole “but why is Hamas holding hostages in a refugee camp” line which is actual whataboutism when the thread is about the IDF killing over 200 people.
Why not ask why the IDF doesn’t have procedures in place to prevent civilian casualties? Why not ask why is it impossible to send ground troops instead of carpet bombing Gaza? Why not ask why does Hamas exist in the first place? Is there a single thing you’ll admit the IDF/Israel has done wrong that isn’t somehow the fault of Hamas?
Your lack of humanity was already showing, but I didn’t think you’d be so unable to retort that you’d just forfeit the debate…
You accuse me of whataboutism then you just use it yourself.
Yes, I don’t think Hamas should be using human shields but I also don’t think Israel should be settling land even before the partitioning of Palestine. (I mean the idea of a foreign state partitioning land they don’t inhabit is insane, but let’s ignore that for the sake of argument)
How do you not see using civilian encampments as a makeshift human wall just as immoral?
And we can play the whole who started it first game as much as we want but it doesn’t negate the fact that even after unfavorable borders for Palestine were established - settlers continued to take over land with the support of the IDF - where is the defense in burning homes and expelling Palestinians from land not even within the borders of Israel?? (oh but it was contested territory you see so that gives us the right to massacre people, yes I am very intelligent…)
Saying Hamas is the reason the IDF is killing civilians completely misses the history of the struggle - what’s next the Nakba was also Hamas’ fault then?
So then would you hold Israel to the same standard of using human shields that you do Hamas?
If so would you claim the Hamas attacks on the 7th were justified because they attacked settler towns like Be’eri, whose ideological purpose of existing this close to Gaza was specifically to create a civilian border (literal large scale human shield)?
Using civilians to protect any military objective (including the land you’ve settled by force) is appalling - but let’s not pretend only one side is doing it.
If you really care about peace - petition your leaders for a one state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians (no matter their religion) are allowed to coexist and are equal in the eyes of the law and the people.
which also doesn’t feel justified…
Putting down animals for misbehaving is fundamentally fucked and anyone who does it shouldn’t be allowed around animals - or as they say where you’re from - “While its fucked to kill your own kind, this is a common reason to put down animals.”
So saying “wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth” followed by almost continuous bombardment isn’t in your eyes evidence of specific intent and action, because they haven’t wiped them out yet? Therefore, by your own definition, the colonizing Europeans never commited genocide against the indigenous American population, because there’s still native Americans left and they have their own nature reserves to reside in?
Glad to help!
The main book on gender I’ve seen recommended is Suzanne J. Kessler and Wendy McKenna’s - “Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach”
sex != gender
Biological sex determines the bits you have in your pants - gender on the other hand is the social construct we humans have created, on top of that, to assign social roles and expectations to individuals.
The main issue TERFS (or FARTS) have, is that they argue the only thing that matters is what bits you have in your trousers. Which completely ignores the reality of people everywhere that are societally expected to behave in certain ways because it aligns with what society has deemed “manly” or “girly”. They argue that by wanting rights for trans people, that means, we, as a society, end up entrenching the gender norms feminists have fought so hard to dismantle.
However, that fully relies on the idea that gender has already been abolished and everyone presenting the way they truly feel is just “men” co-opting the feminist movement for their own “deviant” benefit.
Which
A. Completely misses the point about equality and solidarity (why does it matter if AMABs present as women if we all have equal rights?)
B. Disregards the reality of transmasc, transfemmes, enby and anyone else that just wants to live life in a form they feel comfortable with (feminine women and masculine men are just as valid as the opposite)
C. Absolutely dismisses the experience of transmasc individuals as “confused girls” - which is not only bigoted but extremely sexist, it implies that AFABs have no agency and are fully controlled by society - “you see they’re not smart enough to understand social constructs and how their lives fit into them - no! they’re just trying to pass as male so they get the patriarchal benefits the current system provides!” - again completely missing the point of equality.
You may think these are strawmen but if you’re familiar with JKs rethoric you’ll see these are genuine beliefs she holds.
This way, the “Trans Movement” (ie. people presenting and behaving in ways not directly assigned to their birth sex) becomes a hill to die on.
Not because of the purported “safety of girls” in bathrooms, sports and prisons (which JK will gladly demonize in her own fictional worlds of trans criminals and rapists (spoilers - people of any sex or gender expression can be awful human beings - saying they’re the reason sex crimes occur just dismisses the reality of abuse perpetuated by hurtful people))
But because it’s an ideology of absolute societal constructs (how can a man pretend to be a woman if the only thing that makes a woman is her genitalia?)
And look, I too am a gender abolitionist - if we lived in a genderless society that didn’t have gender reveal parties or gendered shoes or clothes or interests or literally anything that divides people into binary groups - I’d be on that shit - but that’s not what folk like JK are fighting for.
They see sex as this immutable quality that not only determines your reproductive organs - but how society should perceive you. You have a penis - you are a man. Oh, you don’t like being perceived as a man and you feel you relate to women in a way that other men don’t? Well, too fucking bad, in the man-bin you go. Rooster between your legs says you’re not allowed to sit in a female-only cubicle - get the fuck out.
That’s why this type of thinking is harmful, the goal isn’t to see who gets the “most rights”, the goal is for everyone to get the same amount of rights, always - so it doesn’t matter if you call yourself a man, a woman or any other label you may choose - what matters is that if you give out love and respect you should receive the same in return.
Edit: Sorry for the massive essay, but assumed you might be interested in the context around sex and gender
I’ll have uhh… reducing women to dick sucking machines? How original… With a sprinkle of men only think with their penis? Daring today, aren’t we?