You don't have to browse clickbait sites. It's enough that someone on your timeline does.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
The Democratic Party apparatus and the various propaganda sources which make up our "news" media are designed to thwart any such candidate before they're even nominated, however.
The democratic party cares more about the elite than their own people, not to mention people around the world.
I saw a Twitter comment that stated the hypocrisy of the left-wing position on Cuban refugees. The Biden admin's implicit position is that they are bad, along with all other conservative voting immigrants like Vietnamese refugees for example. Granted I am not the president so my opinion's effect is nil, but I am troubled by this.
If you accept conservative immigrants, they will vote against other immigrants, people of color, and generally poor Americans. If you don't accept them, you help more people in the short, and long-run via democrats winning office, but you are leaving out people in need even if politically they are terrible human beings. I get they are voting for their interests, and thus we should as well, but the Democrats are in a position of power, and these people are getting shot, tortured, etc.
I know I want to act pragmatically, but this is really pushing it.
I bring you people upset about the special Pax Diversity lounge because it's only 1 room and is on the edge of the convention
Groups given their own room specially as a safe area for their stuff away from everything else to prevent problems. It's not problematic because it's only 1 room, not central and they feel they're being excluded from the rest of the show when anyone can go into the rest of the show anyway.
Groups given their own room specially as a safe area for their stuff away from everything else to prevent problems. It's not problematic because it's only 1 room, not central and they feel they're being excluded from the rest of the show when anyone can go into the rest of the show anyway.
Err, not to defend Obama's trash immigration standards in specific and the US's trash immigration standards in general, but all Obama did was stop giving cubans special treatment relative to everybody else.
Equality really feels like an attack to some folks. (It is an attack, our policy is shit. We should be doing the opposite)
Equality really feels like an attack to some folks. (It is an attack, our policy is shit. We should be doing the opposite)
Do you have any actual evidence that this is true beyond "someone on the internet said it" like executive orders, department guidance, or quotes by Biden? I thought we were long past taking random comments from social media as objective facts in and of themselves.
Why what's the 22nd amendment? You can only nominate awful candidates who will not threaten the pursuit of profit over society in any way?
The 22nd amendment is term limits for the president. The president is limited by 2 terms/8 years in office. I argued this harms progressives more since the only president who has been elected for more than 2 terms was social democrat, and progressive president FDR or Franklin Roosevelt. If we in the future elect AOC, and she is really successful, then she can't get elected more than 2 times, and after her two terms, she would have to endorse a successor like Obama did for Hillary. Like Hillary there's a lower chance that successor wins due to less name recognition.
It's called analysis. Biden literally ended the asylum policy for Cuban refugees fleeing oppression in Cuba. I argued since he is a political realist not a neoliberal, he is doing this because he's afraid of an increase in Cuban voters who have an omi-hatred of the left in Flordia, and like to vote republican in the national elections.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/PWWPQQX6NNI65HTORRYN2DD7EE.jpg)
U.S warns Cubans away from sea crossings amid protests, but most cross on land
U.S. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on Monday told any migrants fleeing unrest in Cuba: "Let me be clear: If you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States."
www.reuters.com
The 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more...
constitutioncenter.org
So The Guardian pushing for China like restrictions on gaming because they're shit at dealing with their kids
www.theguardian.com
Why the industry should heed China’s crackdown on video game players | Alex Hern
While the west is unlikely to follow the three-hour gaming limit for children, developers would be unwise to dismiss it too quickly
www.theguardian.com
Welcome to having to figure something out. Who knows maybe you impose an internet off time. Maybe you use systems inbuilt onto machines to try and set limits.
Hey, sure, let's get the law more involved in parenting. I demand a law where witnessing someone beating their child gives me legal permission to beat the parent.So The Guardian pushing for China like restrictions on gaming because they're shit at dealing with their kids
Why the industry should heed China’s crackdown on video game players | Alex Hern
While the west is unlikely to follow the three-hour gaming limit for children, developers would be unwise to dismiss it too quickly
Oh yes. This seems incredibly bad. All those evil Chinese parents are teaching American ones terrible shit. American must keep the system they have!So The Guardian pushing for China like restrictions on gaming because they're shit at dealing with their kids
Why the industry should heed China’s crackdown on video game players | Alex Hern
While the west is unlikely to follow the three-hour gaming limit for children, developers would be unwise to dismiss it too quickly
Welcome to having to figure something out. Who knows maybe you impose an internet off time. Maybe you use systems inbuilt onto machines to try and set limits.
My favourite part was the rape victims being forced to have rape reenactments by staff members while the others students are forced to yell slut and whore at them.
Because that will cure rape
This is really going to hit Ditum's cleaner in the pocket.
Fixed for you.
However, what we also knew would happen, and has also very much happened, is that hysteria and bigotry has completely overtaken reality. Like, a guy got stabbed and left with serious injuries for showing up at a protest to support a trans friend. I notice you don't mention that. A random transwoman sexual abuse survivor was falsely accused and bombarded with threats of violence. I notice you didn't mention that.
And I have to point out that prior convictions don't automatically make someone guilty. I guess all the shrieking about "innocent until proven guilty" only applies when cis men are accused of sexual misconduct, huh. It's not like anyone expected any different though.
Regardless, noone has ever pretended that all transwomen are good people, or that all transwomen are immune to sexual misconduct. There are many, many cis women who are sexual predators, so it would be kind of weird if no transwomen ever were. This imaginary victory you're claiming is just that, imaginary. What we've pointed out to you, repeatedly, is your bizarre, sick obsession with this kind of scenario, and how entirely disproportionate it is with reality.
Well, let's take their premise on it's merit.
Let's say this person is guilty. 100%
So... we should ban everything because one person did the wrong thing.
Does that sound like a normal to anyone? Do we normally ban things that quickly?
The US can't even ban guns and they cause about 35K deaths in the US alone. But ONE incident at a spa that lead to no one being hurt should lead to a ban. Even after Australia's gun laws were put in place, there is still 200 people dying to guns each year. But NO ONE is calling for further bannings
That sounds like the premise of bathroom banning is way off in the first place. it assumed this was a regular problem and are trying to use what might be a sex pest as an excuse to pretend its a major problem. Their guilt is not relevant to the law because it's an isolated incident.
And its not like this hasn't been explained to DH before... And SOMEHOW this means that we think transpeeople cant do the wrong thing.
My favourite piece of information about those programs, which I didn't need to know, is that they're all essentially based on the behaviour-modification methodology created by Synanon.
Because brainwashing techniques developed by a violent, abusive cult are a great basis for fostering healthy behaviour and attitudes in traumatized children.
This should really be in the other thread though. The right eats that kind of child abuse right up.
Also, I kind of hate the Guardian, but that's a big old lie.
Last edited:
It's a tack that conservatives have been taking for decades. "Some people abuse welfare, so welfare must be ended. Everyone who depends on it and uses it fairly will just have to do without."
I quoted the relevant section so do you want to explain how it's a lie or just act like Trump and shout Lie and hope people believe it?
Oh right no-one ever pretended it wouldn't happen and weren't presenting anyone saying it did as awful monsters.
I guess no-one used those kind of arguments when I was on about the potential problems of self identification laws rather than Social Transition laws right? I could go back and get some links and quote but I think we both know how it went so lets not pretend.
Also their previous convictions are also for indecent exposure.......It doesn't mean they're guilty but it does say they have a precedent for said actions. Like when a building is burned down by arson authorities generally start with a list of known arsonists to rule out the usual suspects first if they have no other leads.
Also there's been rather a push (which IMHO is damaging the push for Trans rights) for people to defend and or actually actively support the lets say more attention seeking and malicious people like Jessica Yaniv etc and a massive unwillingness to actively call them out and instead try to present those calling them out as part of the problem. I mean look what happened with Jesse Signal.
I mean, it's still a lie.
They're not "pushing for China-like restrictions". In fact, they specifically point out that that isn't going to happen, final sentence. What they're saying is that a lot of parents might find an excuse to limit the time their kids spend playing games attractive. "I know some parents think X" does not mean "we should do whatever those parents want at any cost" or even "those parents are correct". It literally means what it says, some parents think this. In context, we're meant to feel sympathetic towards those parents, but the article (which is an opinion piece) is simply pointing to a perceived problem, namely that games are intentionally designed to keep you playing as long as possible using any psychological mechanism they can, and children are particularly susceptible to that.
And while don't like the guardian and I don't like the message here, it's not technically wrong and blaming the parents for something companies knowingly encourage and foster is pretty silly. It's not particularly unreasonable to say that companies should take some responsibility for the effects of their products on vulnerable people, it's why we don't let tobacco companies and casinos market or sell their products to kids.
The monstrosity is that you were waiting for it to happen, and it's as monstrous now as it ever was.
What you're doing here is intentionally shifting the goalposts to argue that I and others have made a universal claim, that no transwoman is ever going to carry out a sexual offence, and that the entire case for self-identification hinges on that universal claim. We haven't, and it doesn't. It's not like no transwoman has ever carried out a sexual offence before, we all know they have and we all know they will. That's not really in question. Again, cis women carry out a lot of sexual offences (often against other women). This never results in a debate about their ability to be in women's changing rooms.
The argument we should be having, really, is whether or not your weird little prejudice is justified, and it isn't. It's not even remotely close to being justified, and watching you grasp at the thinnest, weakest straws to try and back up your failing position really just proves that point.
No. You don't get to deflect responsibility for this one.
Noone cares about Jessica Yaniv except you (and all the right-wing youtubers who claim to hate her but who suspiciously say nothing about the fact that she's clearly a fan of all of them). What is actually damaging to trans rights is your desperate little quest to discredit all trans people by reference to isolated examples. What's damaging to trans rights is your willingness to indulge bigots who literally go around stabbing people and abusing massive numbers of children. What is damaging to trans rights is you waiting around, salivating like a dog about to be fed, for one single trans person to do something wrong so you can tear down a whole community of people you know absolutely nothing about.
That's disgusting. It will never stop being disgusting. The least you can do is take responsibility for being disgusting.
Just saying "Oh but that won't happen" doesn't excuse the point of suggest they'd like to see it because it would give a hard cutoff for their kids rather than having to figure out how to get them to stop.
If it were just about manipulative practices the Guardian could have written about that and you know not brought in the China angle or present it as some kind of possible solution that could work and not a rather terrible solution.
Because some people have to be realists and not just do things because it feels good without thinking through the consequences that could happen from it. People were waiting for it because we people who said there was an issue here were getting insulted and shamed for not blindly supporting some idea that would only work in a perfect fantasy world, which we don't live in.
And yet said issues and underplayed because I really don't know how to put it nicely here other than suggesting there's been seen a level of acceptability of rather terrible things happening rather than accept the social transition standards is the likely better one unless people can figure out how to close the loophole of people abusing just being able to self identify.
But hey if you want to go back to trying to frame this as me being bad for being a realist I could and will ask some rather nasty questions back, which I'm not right now because I'm choosing to hold back and offer you a chance to walk back from that position and accept there may be a point and an issue with pure self identification laws.
And the activists who were surrounding her too........And the people who were seemingly for so long unwilling to call out some of the weirder stuff Yaniv was talking about or doing because they were trying to be polite and not get attacked as Transphobic by some-one with a history and litigious behaviour over even small slights.
So we shouldn't try to make laws so they aren't easily abused and should instead forge on ahead with feel good move massively open to abuse the the people hurt by those abusing said laws don't matter?
I'm waiting around not salivating but to keep saying "I told you so" every time people push feel good ideas and they go wrong in the exact kind of ways people said they would. Because the actual progress won't be made if the foundations keep collapsing because people were too keep to forge on ahead.
Just so we do some fair and balanced stuff, here is what China is also trying to do
www.google.com
Broadcaster must:
Reducing celebrity status
Removing vulgar Youtubers (or more specifically the Chinese version). I.e. anyone not traditional
Making sure men are 'masculine'
Two points. 1. Does this not sound exactly like an old president of the US? This law is Trump's wet dreams
2. Does this not sound way worse than a gaming ban? But let's focus on that...
China bans ‘sissy’ and ‘effeminate’ men under new macho media rules - National | Globalnews.ca
China told broadcasters to stick to 'traditional' depictions of men, amid sweeping new media rules.
www.google.com
Broadcaster must:
Reducing celebrity status
Removing vulgar Youtubers (or more specifically the Chinese version). I.e. anyone not traditional
Making sure men are 'masculine'
Two points. 1. Does this not sound exactly like an old president of the US? This law is Trump's wet dreams
2. Does this not sound way worse than a gaming ban? But let's focus on that...