data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f23ae/f23ae0dbc3c54d384754da0746b7df9d687fc207" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ddf35/ddf354114a8d2551b057bab28883da201e9b87f6" alt=""
Other than weirdo, can you specify? I don’t think saying feminists and trans people are on the same team is a very controversial statement, at least for non-TERFs.
TTRPG enthusiast and lifelong DM. Very gay 🏳️🌈.
“Yes, yes. Aim for the sun. That way if you miss, at least your arrow will fall far away, and the person it kills will likely be someone you don’t know.”
- Hoid
Other than weirdo, can you specify? I don’t think saying feminists and trans people are on the same team is a very controversial statement, at least for non-TERFs.
Your phrasing makes it appear as if trans people and feminists are on opposite sides of an issue, which they aren’t. Only a small subset of feminism-appropriating weirdoes call themselves anti-trans feminists.
That’s what I was referring to from the loss of knowledge due to genocide. Unfortunately, we’ll never know.
That may be the case, but they made significant progress on rockets, nuclear, and discoveries in physics. Whether or not they were war effective, the scientific progress was there. Fascism isn’t incompatible with technological progress, but resistance to higher education and anti-science sentiments are. In the long run, the loss of knowledge due to book burning and genocide may have caught up to them, but we thankfully don’t know. The government could have continued to fund and focus on science.
I don’t know if I agree with this statement. If one of the main goals of the fascist state is technological superiority, they’ll prioritize it. Nazi Germany was on the cutting edge of science, to the point that the US hired a bunch of their scientists. They made technology a priority at the expense of other sectors. Luckily, being incapable of trade or producing the resources they needed, they didn’t outstrip the rest of the world, but the same likely can’t be said for the US. I think other factors will get in the way of tech research in the US far more than fascism, like moronic trade wars and disincentives for higher education, which while being enacted by fascists, aren’t necessarily fascist tenets, as proven by history.
This is not the case. Trans people are being denied passports of either gender marker as officials “wait for clarification” on the new rules. Furthermore, passports are being confiscated.
When they said, “I don’t care about your parents,” it was an expression of apathy, not animosity. It was them telling you that they agree, and that their point is about the greater system, not that guy’s aunt or your parents. You took it personally and got more defensive. Their absolute does hold, because it’s in regard to a system. The point isn’t that your parents are individually bad people, like you seem to think it is, it’s that they’re part of a bad system, and regardless of their individual actions, the system is still bad. Fundamentally, you, the other commenters, and I agree. They aren’t trying to argue that you’re defending landlords in general, the argument is that your defense of your parents excuses them from the system.
A fair and kind cop is still responsible for participating in an evil system, just as your parents are. They may be good people, with good intentions, and treat people well. No one is denying that. It’s just entirely besides the point. They’re still hoarding property that should be possessed by those that live in them, and housing should be cheaper. Without landlords and real estate conglomerates driving prices high, there should be a surplus of housing. Again, your parents might be good people, but they are participating in an immoral system. Even the best landlord is still a landlord, and while they are nowhere near anyone’s first target to fix the system, they’re still participating.
The best cop is still a cop, the best billionaire is still a billionaire, and the best landlord is still a landlord. It’s nothing personal against them specifically.
As a neutral outside reader, this person does not sound like they are hating on your parents specifically, and you come across as extremely defensive (understandably). Their point seems to be that the existence of a good cop doesn’t make the police state tolerable, nor does the existence of a good landlord make the system of people owning other’s homes tolerable.
Regardless of how good any landlord is, it would be better for homes to be affordable and owned by those that live in them. In the current system, some areas are unaffordable without renting, but that doesn’t make the landlords morally good categorically, it means they’re part of the problem that drives prices too high in an area. Owning property to rent artificially drives the price of real estate up. Ideally, renting should be far, far more limited or entirely phased out depending on the specific situation. No one is saying that your parents specifically are evil, but they are part of a larger system that is.
I think the point of the title isn’t that the killing rings alarms, it’s that the response indicates building class tension.
I’m glad you’ve decided for everyone. Many thanks, language dictator.
Genuinely, I cannot tell what your point is. In some alternate universe, are we just rolling the rocks downhill? Don’t you think we’d already be doing that? This seems like a great use case to replace diesel trucks with ones that recharge themselves using potential energy from ore. This absolutely is a galaxy brain moment, in that it’s a very smart idea.
It’s not racist to point out the systemic biases present in systems. Private schools have overwhelmingly white students from affluent families. It isn’t right, but it isn’t racist to point it out.
I believe they were being sarcastic.
I think the other comment covered it but I believe this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes photography such an amazing artform. People study and practice, for a long time, to take photos like this. This isn’t a cell phone pointed in the general direction of a subject with conveniently optimal lighting for its tiny lens, though that could produce a good picture, this takes a great deal more experience, preparation, and creativity to frame and capture the subject in a certain way with extraordinary timing to get a dynamic, emotion-filled result.
Yikes. A world without artists would be a dark, dark place. What an incredibly terrible take, unless you’re implying that the only art that counts as labor is when it’s for a corporation, in which case, even worse take, yikes again.
It’s Lemmy, and it took maybe 5 minutes of scrolling for this to be on my front page. Your comment irked me and I want to increase engagement on the site, sue me.
They never said they’re in the left lane, and in fact specifically specified against it. Sounds like you’re both defensive and an aggressive driver.
Unfortunately not an option for most stores where I live.
How does debate about women’s sports (in my opinion, an overblown and distracting issue to cover for more serious anti-trans sentiment and legislation, when it affects a handful of people) and children’s medicine (a non-issue, trans children cannot transition and puberty blockers are proven to be safe and effective, frequently used by cis children going through early puberty, and non-damaging long term if a child later decides to resume the natural course of surgery, whereas allowing puberty to continue IS permanently damaging) come into conflict with feminism? What do you even think feminism is? TERF isn’t a derogatory term, it’s a self-assigned label that has come into hot water more recently for being bigoted. I’m not pretending that debate on those subjects is silly. It’s very serious. These subjects are frequently used as excuses to pass further and further restrictions on people living entirely outside the scope of said subjects. What I’m asking you is where feminism comes into play?
Seriously. You can’t just state feminism as the opposite side of the debate against trans people. That’s insane. Feminists support equality of all genders. Feminists believe trans women are women, and their rights should be protected. Go to any feminist rally, and see how many trans flags are there. You’re conflating the belief in gender equality with the belief in “protecting women from trans women.” I’m not stifling discussion. I’m questioning the appropriation of progressive ideals to turn progressives against each other, which, whether intentional or not, you’re contributing to. It’s like saying you see both sides of the issue between immigrants and crime victims.
As a feminist, who participates in local organizations, and reads theory, don’t appropriate the ideas of gender equality to oppose those that most need its support.