Or whenever using your credit card online. The pro version would be that it turns off functions successively depending on your BAC. At some point the only unblocked function would be to call a cab to go home.
The reason we have women’s sports is because women are extremely rarely able to compete against men in most sports.
When MTF trans person reaches adulthood they have already generally attained a physical advantage over cis women that no amount of hormones and surgery will diminish. Their current levels of testosterone will have no impact on bone structure and muscle development gained through puberty. This can be shown by the lack of female to male trans athletes.
I am all for Trans rights, but becoming a professional or elite athlete is not a right, as much as I would love to become a racing driver.
Perhaps a mixed gender/sex competition could work, but allowing people that have transitioned after puberty took hold is blatantly unfair. Obviously there are some sports, such as shooting, darts, snooker etc where this advantage isn’t really applicable.
Unfortunately in life compromises sometimes have to be made, and I believe that for males transitioning to female, not allowing them to compete as elite female athletes is a compromise that needs to be made for the greater good.
The best thing that I’ve seen from the anti-trans movement in womens sports, is the number of cis women who end up falling more afoul of the rules due to their genetic predisposition to have a higher than average level of testosterone for women with regards to anti-trans rules that almost always revolve around bodily testosterone levels.
Anti-trans rules will hurt women in womens sports far more than it will hurt trans women (as far as numbers go, to be clear), and no one wants to think or talk about that.
Trans women in sports are not dominating any field. All the outrage you see from it is like that Marathon from a year or 2 ago where a woman got pissed off for losing to a trans woman who finished infront of her, both of them in the high thousands of placement, not like 1st and 2nd place… Both were beaten by thousands of other women, but that woman had a hissy fit because one of the women was trans.
Trans women who are using gender-affirming hormones are not “biologically male”. It takes about two years on hormones for their performance to equalise with cis women. The only advantage that remains is greater speed, due to the greater height gained from undergoing a male puberty. There are plenty of tall cis women, especially in sport, so this doesn’t really count as an unfair advantage. And, of course, trans kids who were lucky enough to get puberty blockers in time will fall in the same height range as their chosen gender.
I’m not going to pretend that it’s an easy question. It isn’t, and it’s not unreasonable for cis women athletes to be concerned. But the proportion of athletes who are trans is tiny and the proportion who are champions in their sport is even tinier. I do think that hormonal transition is a pre-requisite (because otherwise they would be “biologically male” with respect to the physical characteristics which matter in sport) but I don’t think anyone should be getting their knickers in a twist beyond that, and they should definitely not be using it as an opportunity to be cruel.
Most of the ‘discourse’ is pure transmisogyny, based on lies and fantasy demons. Most top professional athletes are biologically extraordinary, that’s why they are at the top.
Russia is sending migrants to Finland and after we closed the eastern border they started walking thru the forest and showing up on the yards of people living close to the border. These people are literally hiking thru deep snow in the freezing winter wearing sneakers.
Yeah mostly from middle east I believe. Finland started putting up hundreds of kilometers of border fence about a year ago as this was expected to happen. They’re trying to destabilize our political system this way. Despite what many articles say this is not about trying to stop an invasion. It’s about migrants that Russia is using as political leverage.
Eh. Something clearly needs to be done, and the concerns aren’t being addressed (and haven’t been for awhile). Congress and the senate haven’t done anything aside from attempt to impeach hunter Biden (from who knows what) or show off his dick.
Doubtful it’s any kind of civil war, but Texas (and other states) is being hit hard by the number of immigrants, and if the federal government can’t (or won’t?) do anything to curb it, makes sense that they will do something on their own.
I never understood why Republicans hate immigrants. Low educated labor that is highly religious. And if crimes are committed, these people can fuel the incarceration complex America has as well.
These are all reasons why they actually enjoy immigration. As a hot-button topic, this has paid out endlessly and will continue to because there’s no way immigration will be solved peacefully. So they get the fearmongering and political outrage out of it, in addition to cheap labor, and bogeymen to pin rape/violence on as well. They’re the perfect target for them to hate, and they love to hate. Nothing gets an old Republican fired up like illegal Mexicans coming here with their guns and drugs and taking our jobs and sending all the money back home and raping our daughters (“well not my daughter, but y’know” 🤠 ) and bringing caravans more of em in their wake
Same. Tons of hard working people that do a lot behind the scenes. But South Park probably got it right with ‘they took errr jerbs!’ Jobs they wouldn’t do themselves anyway.
Republican voters hate immigrants. It’s a target the GOP can point at while knowing the flow of cheap labor will continue from increasing desperation all while they “heroically fight at the border”.
but Texas (and other states) is being hit hard by the number of immigrants, and if the federal government can’t (or won’t?) do anything to curb it, makes sense that they will do something on their own.
That’s the thing though, they aren’t. Things aren’t worse than they were, this is a manufactured crisis because Republicans need some kind of tangible policy to lie about to their voters for the upcoming election. Just like the immigrant caravan which disappeared as suddenly as it appeared (as in it never existed) the previous election.
I don’t think this is an accurate view of the current border situation, but it’s a view that one might have consuming media from a different kind of media bubble than the Fox News kind.
There really is a situation with migrants who cross the river illegally and immediately turn themselves in and claim asylum. This isn’t a new situation, but the numbers have gotten worse over the last year.
The migrant caravans, plural, really did and do exist. What tends to happen is they gather into thousands strong mass marches in and around Tapachula, after crossing from Guatemala to Mexico. So these big marches start towards the US in southern Mexico, but they tend to break up and thin out over the 1800 mile journey to Texas.
If anyone could organize a mass foot march over the whole distance, that would be an extremely impressive feat of logistics. But that hasn’t happened yet.
Conclusions: this border situation is not completely made up. Many right wing conspiracies going around have some kind of kernel of truth to then.
And some mainstream media outlets (I have this experience with NPR in particular) have started to seemingly impose total blackouts on not just the conspiracy ideas, but also on the little nuggets of true news that get them started.
Just like in Europe, to say there is no problem with migration is false, but to present it as an existential problem for the country or even the state is ridiculous. Starting a civil war over ‘nuggets’ of truth seems pretty dang evil.
Yup! Thank you. It’s not as big as it’s being made out to be (obviously people trying to get political points), but it’s still an issue that does need to be addressed, and it is disproportionately effecting some more than others. No one is going to start at civil war over something like this.
Yeah, no. This is still an entirely manufactured crisis. Even if what you’re claiming is really happening, it’s still being framed as a problem, which it’s not.
Our colonialist pearl-clutching over the southern border has got to stop. It’s fucked up that you’re perpetuating this brand of fascism.
I see this a lot, “the liberal media doesn’t want you to know!” or “why isn’t anyone talking about this!” meanwhile everyone including the lefty sources are indeed talking about it.
The problem is, only one party wants to do anything to actually ease the crisis. Republicans are a half step away from suggesting land mines at the border because trying to escape to the land of the free for a better life is illegal, and that apparently should mean death for you.
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
A month ago I took a really long shot and actually messaged a girl’s Snapchat from a dating app. It took all the courage I had, but I just told her I was attracted to her and I wanted to be physical with her.
She’s almost 30 years younger than me, and drop dead gorgeous, and goth hot.
She’s on her way over right now for our third “date”.
Not saying this to brag, I’m saying maybe go browse a dating app and message hot chicks and see what happens. I still can’t believe this is happening to me but it is.
I was doing that a lot over the holidays, and decided to do a dry January. It is doing wonders for my gaming nights. You could try it next month (shortest one of the year, so a little less commitment).
I gave up on everyone: I’ve packed my shit and moved back to the EU, to a middle of nowhere, population 50. Closest neighbor is a 10 minute walk away. Started a large garden, learned some blacksmithing and basic carpentry. Still working remotely for the same company as before, but now when I go outside I have fresh air, I can see the stars and I can hear nobody.
if I don’t feel like cooking I don’t have an option of ordering a pizza or eating out - I’m outside of delivery range of everything
closest town has limited choice of everything. I have to get everything shipped or drive for 1.5h.
anything but essential services is more than half an hour away
also you end up thinking weird thoughts few people have before: e.g. “how do I stop moose from trampling my garlic?” I mean how many people throughout human history had pondered that? ;-)
We can beat them! The US Army, Navy, Air Force, and that other one that no one cares about, they don’t stand a chance!
Like, we can all joke about civil war and splitting up the red and blue, but, like, when it comes down to deciding who gets the nukes in the divorce, it becomes pretty obvious that it’s just super dumb to think about realistically.
I honestly don’t think the active duty and national guard units would be willing to fight each other. A lot of guard guys are former AD and AD gets supplemented by guard all the time. Some missions they even work side by side with active guard positions.
The states leveraging their guard units like this strikes me as highly presumptuous.
I was in the Army NG for 6 years. The president is still Ultimately the top of the chain of command and we swear the same oath to the constitution.
I just want to throw out there that it’s just not really like that. There is no chance of civil war from inside the army in this manner. The big green weenie gets everybody in the end.
Edit: like for example, we all wear the same unfiroms, they both do US Army on the front. They have the same MOS (military occupational specialty) We receive the same training, at the same places, and both go to overseas for deployments as well.
Usually, you get deployed twice during a 6 year contract for the National Guard. When they aren’t deployed the NG trains at home bases in their states and sometimes in large Active Military Bases for Various reasons. So it’s all very much intertwined.
I don’t know if anybody answered your question, lemmy is weird about replies deleted or not showing. AD is Active Duty, which is anyone in the federal component of the military i.e. not guardsmen. “Active” means full-time, and most guardsmen are one-weekend a month, so they are not active. It’s a little fuzzy, because if a guardsman is on full time orders, depending on where the money is coming from, it could be called AGR, or Active Guard Reserve, but they are not technically Active Duty (AD).
All you really need to know is that AD is just the Big Army or Big Air Force, paid for and run by the federal government, and the national guard is distinct from AD because of split loyalty to state and federal govt, and they are usually paid by the state. Otherwise, same regulations, same uniforms, same bad leadership.
Guard units are also only under state control until they’re not. By the book anyway the DoD(?) can say “okay you’re activated under federal orders now, so you are now active duty, do this instead”.
I’d love to think this is true but when I was active back in the day there were a LOT of right wing militant nuts. I can only assume that’s skyrocketed in the years since.
I’m not in favor of celebrity moving to politics. Even ones that I think are intelligent. Stewart has long been involved in political mockery and has actual experience in helping a bill get passed, but I think he wouldn’t survive the frustration of being forced to work in DC as President.
There’s a video out there that I can’t find where Stewart is talking to (political science students?) who ask him about his time in DC trying to get the 9/11 First Responders Bill passed and what he thought of politics there. His disgust for real politics and how politicians operate is vividly apparent and borders on revulsion.
I think he’s a good man, but I don’t know that he would be a successful president.
not particularly invested in this comment but isn’t the concept of “politician” essentially just “celebrity” nowadays anyway?
That someone has access to money and influence, can use those to set policy and maintain/secure both in-party and general-public votes. What’s the difference between politician and celebrity there? One could argue that experience in setting policy and/or studying law, but that doesn’t apply to a whole range of politicians anyway.
I think the lines are blurred, sure. However there are plenty of politicians that really just kind of do their job and stay out of the limelight, whereas celebrities are by default in the public eye. Also, the biggest difference is the part where you vote for a politician and they set policy. I don’t vote for celebs, and I don’t call them telling me what to wear or watch “policy”. We’ve had 2 legit celebrity presidents and they’ve both been disastrous.
Is there a word that means “a hatred of gay people”, rather than “a fear of or aversion to gay people”?
No, because that’s just semantic wiggle room to give bigots a way of excusing their bigotry.
For example. “I don’t hate gay people, and I’m not afraid of them, so I’m not homophobic. I just don’t want to see them, and they shouldn’t be able to get married”. It’s a statement that is clearly biased against queer folk, and that’s the issue that needs to be addressed. But discussions like the one you’re suggesting just lead to irrelevant arguments over exactly what type of bigotry is being displayed, rather than telling the bigot to get bent, which suits the needs of the bigots fine.
I see what you mean. I guess it’s hard though because currently they can already say that (they aren’t afraid of gay people and therefore aren’t “homophobic” if interpeting the word literally, but they just hate them), whereas if there was a word that meant hatred of gay people, they would have to admit they are that thing instead, which would then be viewed worse by society in a similar way to racism or misogyny etc. If a word existed for it, they would have no recourse but to admit that even if they aren’t technically homophobic (though they are by the common understanding and usage of the word), they are still word that means hateful/discriminatory toward gay people. And if there’s no distinction, I don’t know what we can say to people who aren’t hateful but just afraid of the idea of homosexuality. What do they tell their therapist? “I have a fear of homosexuality and/or gay people but I don’t hate it/them”? That’s a mouthful and a simple word could suffice couldn’t it?
I see what you mean. I guess it’s hard though because currently they can already say that
And you’re right, they do. But I’ve got little interest in providing them with more nuance to explain why they want me to have less rights than them.
whereas if there was a word that meant hatred of gay people, they would have to admit they are that thing instead
No, they wouldn’t. They would just say that they don’t hate queer folk, because they don’t want to hurt/exile/kill them etc. They do this already.
"I don’t hate gay folk, but… "
I don’t know what we can say to people who aren’t hateful but just afraid of the idea of homosexuality.
In all my years, I’ve never encountered such a person. If they do exist, then they can just explain it to their therapist in full sentences as needed, rather than normalising some forms of bigotry.
Even if someone is “afraid” of gay folk, that’s still their problem. It’s something they need to work on, rather than pushing the mental cost of working through their irrational fears on people that are already unfairly targeted by bigotry.
I appreciate what you’re saying, certainly someone could claim to be just afraid of homosexuality while using that as a cover for actually hating it or being prejudiced against it or homosexual people. But I think bigotry, meaning “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”, doesn’t exactly fit the hypothetical I described of a person who’s just afraid of the concept without harboring any hateful feelings or displaying any discriminatory behaviors toward it. Shouldn’t we help that person come to terms with their fear and be understanding, while certainly helping them to tackle that fear (without accusing them of doing something wrong, presuming that they weren’t hypothetically)?
certainly someone could claim to be just afraid of homosexuality while using that as a cover for actually hating it or being prejudiced against it or homosexual people
It’s not that someone “could” do this. They already do. They will come up with a million excuses as to why they’re not bigoted/prejudiced.
You know the cliche “I’m not racist, but…” That’s the phenomena in action.
doesn’t exactly fit the hypothetical I described
And that’s the core of my issue with your whole question.
You’re trying to solve a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t occur in any meaningful way, with a solution that makes it easier for bigots to display their bigotry with less pushback. It doesn’t solve any real world issues that can’t already be addressed by conversation with a therapist, and it does it by creating further opportunities for bigots to pretend that they aren’t bigoted.
Boy am I glad I didn’t meet you when I was young and didn’t know much of anything about the gay Mafia.
See back then, I was ignorant and at times scared based on stupid bullshit I learned, but some very kind and patient people helped me to learn the truth about the community.
My fear now is that had I met you, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to learn what a wonderful group of people the gay Mafia is because in my ignorance I would have been treated like a piece of shit instead of like the ignorant idiot I was. In place of love you would have met me with disbelief and dislike.
You’re welcome to downvote me, I don’t care but it needs to be said people can be scared without being hateful and you specifically should have nothing to do with outreach.
It’s fine to use jokingly among friends, I do the same with my friend group. It’s hardly appropriate for a serious conversation about discrimination with strangers.
Except I didn’t ask them as a joke, I honestly asked “hey is it ok to use ‘gay mafia’ as a similar term for ‘lgbtq+’?” and was told " yeah that’s fine it sounds cool anyways"
And now other queer folk are telling you the opposite. So you stop using it on the people who don’t like it, rather than arguing with them that they should like it because your friends do
And there it is! It’s my fault you hated folk like me when you were younger, and also my fault for not educating you.
Folk hating on me and trying to take my rights away is something I live with every day. According to your framing here, the fact someone didn’t take the responsibility for educating you, whilst folk are trying to remove the rights of folk like me is somehow the real issue, and somehow it’s actually you that were wronged.
Do the work, and own your responsibility in the whole affair. It’s on you to undo the harm you do to others, not on the people you are harming. Don’t palm the responsibility on to the people you were throwing bullshit at.
Its your fault for acting like a dick to people who are ignorant. That was my entire point that you completely ignored. That are ignorant people out who’ve been fed some bullshit by society about what the gay community is and isn’t.
They aren’t hateful and would in fact be friends and allies but your approach of “there is no ignorance without hate therefore I’m justified in being a dick!” would result in you being an asshole and guess what, when someone is a dick to other dick people respond with hate even if they didn’t already dislike that person to begin with.
Here’s an analogy for you, if you go into a forest and find a stick and hit some animal with the stick the animal will respond defensively. It started off scared but not it considers you a threat. That’s what you’re doing and trying to justify it after the fact.
Edit: I’m adding on to this. Fucking look at MLK Jr. He encountered both hate and ignorance sometimes together and sometimes just ignorance. You never once saw him preach “go be an asshole”. I don’t agree with always meeting them with love but I do at least agree with him on meeting the ignorance with love and compassion.
That are ignorant people out who’ve been fed some bullshit by society about what the gay community is and isn’t.
They aren’t hateful and would in fact be friends and allies but your approach of “there is no ignorance without hate therefore I’m justified in being a dick!”
So are they hateful of gay people because of ‘some bullshit by society’ or are they not hateful?
Its your fault for acting like a dick to people who are ignorant.
This is called Victim Blaming (the caps are for the concept, not the literal pairing of words) because it implies it’s the role of every minority to convince people not to oppress them, and not on the individual to not be a bigot. To see why this is the issue it is, replace ‘being gay’ with ‘being raped’ - is it, say, a woman’s ‘job’ to convince men not to rape them, or is it on men to know not to rape people?
Yes, they are. They may have been taught to be that way, but however they got there, that’s how they ended up. People indoctrinated in to hate still spread hate. And it’s not the duty of the people targeted by that hate to educate the people oppressing them. They may choose to do so, but that’s their choice. There is no scenario in which the hateful is owed education by the people they’re hating on, even if the hateful person simply “doesn’t know any better”
Here’s an analogy for you, if you go into a forest and find a stick and hit some animal with the stick the animal will respond defensively. It started off scared but not it considers you a threat.
You’re the person with the stick in this analogy. You may have been told that carrying the stick is ok, and you may not have known better, but either way, you were the person walking in to the forest and hitting things, but the difference is, you expect the critters that you were hitting to tell you that it’s a bad thing, and you’re upset at the critters for not educating you, instead of being upset at the people who told you the stick was ok in the first place.
I’m adding on to this. Fucking look at MLK Jr. He encountered both hate and ignorance sometimes together and sometimes just ignorance. You never once saw him preach “go be an asshole”
Outreach isn’t a duty, it’s a choice, and unless you’re a dick, it’s not something you expect from every member of the vulnerable folk you’ve been hating on. And on top of that, if the actions of one or more people you personally don’t like impact your acceptance of an entire vulnerable minority group, then, well, you’ve still got work to do, because you’re still carrying that stick.
Nah if you’re an adult and you’re “scared” of gay people, you’re a bigot. Ignorance is an excuse for fear to a point. If you’re a kid getting indoctrinated into hating others, that’s one thing, but if you’re over 18 and stay “scared” of a whole group of people instead of educating yourself or even (gasp!) interacting with members of the community, that’s bigotry.
Please note that most people in my life are fairly ignorant about queer issues. Their ignorance doesn’t translate into “fear”. It usually translates into curiosity, or simply indifference. It’s not the ignorance that makes one a bigot, it’s the “fear”.
Here’s an analogy for you, if you go into a forest and find a stick and hit some animal with the stick the animal will respond defensively.
Queer people expecting rights and respect from cishet people is analogous to animal abuse, that is a good take! Love it.
doesn’t exactly fit the hypothetical I described of a person who’s just afraid of the concept without harboring any hateful feelings or displaying any discriminatory behaviors toward it.
I can’t think of a single example of this in reality. Phobia isn’t ‘just afraid’ in the context you’re using, it’s an irrational terror. People who are arachnophobic aren’t ‘just afraid’ they’re terrified of spiders. That is due to an inherent part of our past (as humans) that taught us spiders/snakes/etc were a danger and to avoid them, and for these people their brain changes ‘I should avoid that danger’ to ‘I should do literally anything to get away from that danger.’
There’s no precedent for ‘people of the same gender who love each other’ being a source of terror. Nothing in our collective past would cause that.
Who said fears need to be rational? I think people can be afraid/terrified of anything. Anatidaephobia (the fear of being watched by a duck or goose), for example.
I hope he will be running from a psycho with a shank at ADX Florence in 2028. There’s a decent chance he will be dead in 2028 though. He’s not exactly the picture of fitness and good health. He’s an old, fat pig who lives on junk food.
More seriously, he has zero chance in 2028 if he loses in 2024, which is almost certainly what will happen. He’s been decisively rejected by voters once already. I find it hard to believe he has won over any new voters with his behavior since the last election.
Or maybe the government will step up and treat him like the terrorist that he is. If it was anyone else, they’d be waterboarding him with Diet Coke at Guantanamo right now. I mean, he’s openly calling for states to send the National Guard to Texas to fight the federal government. This fucker is on trial for insurrection and he’s out trying to incite another insurrection. Holy shit.
He’s had his deranged followers make threats against judges, prosecutors, federal agents, etc. He’s threatened his opponent in the primaries with a federal investigation if she doesn’t drop out of the race. He’s threatened her donors.
This dude is straight up nuts. I think it’s a legitimate question whether he’s eventually detained for the safety of the public pending his trials. At what point do the feds have an obligation to protect the country from this lunatic?
Forget about him and 2028. He might not even make it through 2024.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.