Iteria @ Iteria @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

68

Joined

2 yr. ago

Football? American Football has no restrictions on gender, it's just that no woman can compete after puberty truly sets in. What that guys says is true about physical sports. Women can't compete and never could. I can't think of a single sport where a woman could outcompete a man in a physical sense. Even something like gymnastics, I think men still overcome the natural female advantage that comes from being small.

Chess from what I recall created a woman's division because of the systematic biases and pressures girls faced. However, if I'm recalling correctly, it's not particularly weird for a woman to complete in the open division. It's just not a welcoming place for woman, so beginners often start in the women's division. With that in mind I don't see why transpeople shouldn't be allowed. They wouldn't be welcome much either in the open division, but also I'm not sure they'd be welcome in the women's division either, so it's kind of a wash.

I'm pretty sure zoning laws are outside of the Fed reach. They can carrot and stick via funding requirements, but mediated expansion has shown that states can be very petty if they don't want to comply. I wouldn't want the feds to set the tempo for zoning anyway. They just can't be aware of every area's needs. It's not a one size fits all situation. I've seen housing go up fast and the result is just a shitshow because the infrastructure doesn't keep up with the growth. I've seen dead cities where nothing wad built and only the people who got there first could afford a place to live, so effectively you had to leave town for everything because no retail workers could afford to live nearby. There's a middle ground between the two and no way will the feds know how to rate limit how housing gets built anywhere. Housing to me is a local election problem because people don't vote in local elections and then when the problem gets too bad, only nimbys cam live and vote there. Those places always collapse eventually (unless the population is very well off, see: SF), but when people get a chance to move back in they gotta remember to vote for local people who align their values.

I looked at that source and most of thr US's dings seem to he security. But note that the source says that basically no one gets arrested or killed by the government for being a journalist. Thus, I'm gonna say that it's mostly our crazy populous, which with the climate after Trunp makes sense.

The original point that the US has strong protections (by the government) for the the press stands. We just can't do anything aboutnpur citizens.

I don't know anything about Singapore besides what a friend who grew up there said. She came here to the US as an adult. Tried very hard to stay and worked very hard to bring her parents over to the US. Very confusing given that she had nothing but great things to say about the place and got very mad if I said that the US might be better in any small way. She had a lot of complaints about the US and many I found unfair even if many were totally fair.

So then I asked her: do you think that I a black woman could do what you did here in the US in Singapore. And she skipped over my question and continued her rant about how great Singapore is. That's all I personally need to know. Singapore probably is great, but only if you're the right kind of person, the acceptable person. I get the feeling that she and her family weren't those kinds of people and that's why she left and she's pulling her family here to the US.

In a lot of areas voting isn't easy. It's something you have to work to do. Why stand in the freezing November air worried you're gonna be late for work and lose your job if you're not excited? Why do it in the morning? Because maybe you're me in your 20s and don't have a car and you can actually make it to when the polls open in the morning but not the evening with how the schedules run.

Why go up to the election office and force them to take your mail in ballet after it was rejected twice because your signature "didn't match" if you're not excited?

Why finagle a time in your day when you can stand in the cold for an hour without your baby if you're not excited?

Why stand until you want to literally because the line was way longer than you thought it was and you didn't bring a chair this time if you're not excited?

All this happened to me over the course of me voting in my adult life. This doesn't count how voting locations constantly move on me for reasons unknown. It's not that the voting location moved. For some reason I was just assigned a different location. The times where I've been given the run around about where I should vote. The times where I tried to vote, but whoops all the machines are broken and I decided that I didn't want to wait for a repair which could take hours.

Voting is hard. It can be a breezy affair, but I've never experienced that in presidential elections or midterms, only really in special state elections or pure local elections. The system is definitely rigged against you and you have to ask yourself if it's worth fighting. Is denying my kid's time with me worth this? Is enduring this strain on my body worth this? Is the mental energy when I'm tired from work worth this? I get what you'd say no even if I always say yes

Perhaps you should take a moment to reflect on if your words are callus towards the people who are affected. You can think that I'm talking at you or taking meaning that isn't there, but you're on the side of people who arr advocating for risking their safety. It doesn't matter of you didn't say it, it matters that you contradicting me and another person who say that person was wrong.

Context matters, especially ok a platform that doesn't put focus on users, but words. Your words will add to the context and not be just your words. That is what I'm arguing against. You addition to te context because you are saying that victims should risk themselves based on nothing but where you chose to interject yourself.

BTW, I didn't vote one way or another on your posts. Those downvotes came organically.

Unlike the moon being made of cheese I gave actual real situations. I agree that everyone has to judge if they want to fight or not, but it's not up to people who will never be impacted by a situation to have that opinion.

I say this as a black person who has been punched by a cop as a teen. As a black person who had my house raided for no reason. As a black person who has watched my family carried away for no reason. Whose grandmother was put in federal prison for helping fund the civil rights movement and was nearly denied a security clearance because most of my family is considered domestic terrorists because of the Civil rights movement. I have a lot more to add to the stack.

I've spent my whole ass life advancing safety for my people, but no I would not go purposefully to an area where I would be harmed. That's why I take offense for judging that man for making that decision. It's doubtful you've ever had to make such a decision and if you could have helped you wouldn't have because as you said outsiders don't help. Stop judging people for not taking steps you never would.

This is literally victim blaming. What if he "stood up for himself" and was shot by a cop. What a win for him! What if he was best by a mob?

If someone pulls a gun on you should you fight them? A knife? A bat? A brick? A dirty needle? I'm mentioning this because people seem to understand immediate bodily harm and how it's perfectly acceptable to keep yourself safe. However somehow when you have to make the active decision to expose yourself to bodily harm then suddenly if you don't you're coward and part of the problem.

All the while, no one is talking about how people with nothing to lose to stand up to the abusers aka the person judging the victim for keep themselves safe. If they really thought it was a great idea they'd do it themselves. They'd confront the harassers and give them the proper shunning and verbal redress they deserve, but that never happens. All that happens is people with no skin in the game talk about how others should risk their personal safety and livelihoods for some principle the victim doesn't want to stand for.

Literally any felony including murder gets sealed and wiped away in adulthood. There is no impact to this.

Yeah. She's 11 and didn't commit a violent crime. I expect she would be taken into custody, paperwork filed and then released into her parent's care. That's normally how it works for non-violent offenses especially for first time offenders.

My issue is not so much that she was taken to juvie. That's a solid lesson in not make false crimes with really no impact at this age. My issue is that she's still there. Where are the parents? Why can't she be released. A little scare is one thing, but I don't think an 11 year old should really be held all the way until trial for a misdemeanor that was dumb and not malicious.

Firefox literally used to be a significant browser before Chrome showed up. Users have to download Chrome. It's not like it default. It's just a matter of changing habits. They swapped from Firefox to Chrome they can back. They'll do it for thr same reason so many people left IE for Firefox: it sucked.

When ads get overbearing and scammy, your favorite neighbor IT guy will install Firefox for them or something and tell them to use it. A child or grandchild will do the same. So it has always been. That's how adblock even became so big. People didn't use it before.

Ads are so bad now, I actually went out of my way to install Firefox on my phone. My less technical relatives just refuse to use anything but apps.

Thank you. I hate it when people say Twitter wasn't profitable. It was profitable. It just wasn't an infinite money printing machine like people (investors) wanted. Twitter didn't need investor money or loans to pay all its bills unlike say Tumblr.

Twitter was the victim of the same financial BS as Toysrus.

Not when it can take an hour or more to vote in some places. In one county I used to live in, it was common to break a chair to sit on in order to vote, because you were going to be there a while. Even in my much better district with more sites, etc, it took me standing for 30mins in order to early vote during the last midterm. Absolutely not would I bring even a single child to that. Not in the cold and outside since elections happen in November.

Your name is different than the person I replied to and I don't know why you're here. I've never made the point that I think the US doesn't have a gun problem. We have a problem with regulations that is difficult to resolve because the national government can't set standards, state governments have different standards, but the doesn't fucking matter when states legally must acknowledge each other's licenses, so many people drive to the shittty states and come back.bor they just live in shitty states. Or many issues around the nature of the federal system.

I don't even know why you're here talking to me being all high and mighty when you're totally okay with guns in your own nation for non-critcal reasons as well. You only have a hardline stance about guns existing in the US apparently. You're shitting on us not for not having good enough regulation of guns which is totally valid, but also for apparently not being better than your own country, which again will allow you to have guns even if it's not absolutely critical. You don't have to make the case that you absolutely need a gun in Australia. You can just be like "I just shooting at ranges lol" and they will absolutely give you a license if you under go all the training.

This is the BS I hate. Yes the US has a problem, mostly owing to the nature of thr US being 50 countries in a trench coat in many cases. But people acting like guns are absolutely abhorrent and their country wouldn't allow them for frivolous reasons like collecting 200 of them (this is totally legal in Australia too BTW) makes me so mad. Be at mad are your own fucking country before getting indignant about a country you don't even live for not accomplishing things your own nation hasn't.

Other nations have guns and yet no one ever talks about it. Canada and Australia both allow it. I have never stated that I don't think it should be regulated, but the very real fact is that without the assistance of hunters the US would have a real ass problem feeding itself. Wild hogs are a real threat to our food supply to the point where some farmers stake out areas with automatic machine guns to mow them down. Feral hogs are such a problem and that many states don't have any kind of limitation on killing them at all.

You're coming at this from the POV of someone who has never had to consider being murdered by wild life in your backyard that absolutely our government is not going to completely get rid of nor can you kill them willy nilly either. You're thinking about this like someone where 100 miles is a very long way and not the distance one travels to get to work.

Fuck, I legitimately know people who subsistence farm. They hunt actually for food. Because they live in the middle of fucking nowhere and getting food is too expensive. I've visited areas of my state with cloth stores, not clothing stores. That's the kind of low income area we're talking about.

There are reasons to own a gun. There are legitimate ways to regulate guns that the US is not doing. That's why our neighbor with had a high amount of guns (although not the absurd amount t we have) doesn't have the same kind fo gun death rates.

Another person who hasn't ever had a real life 3 year old and doesn't know why "three-nager" is a thing or even what developmental milestones are for 3 year olds. 3 year olds aren't even expected to follow multistage instructions. Like it's not a thing any doctor would be worried about if your kid couldn't at 3. That's how uncommon it is for a 3 year old to follow instructions.

I like how you completely failed to address the actually developmental milestones of 3 year olds. I know you don't know shit about 3 year olds because you're confidently incorrect about how very often a 3 year old will fail to give you warning about needing to go to the bathroom. I guess you think changes of clothing that are required for school until kindergarten are just in case they get dirty.

There are several reasons go own a gun in the US. Should we have as many as we do? Absolutely not. But we have a lot of wild and dangerous animals and you don't have to get far from a city center to encounter them. We also have several invasive species we keep down via strategic hunting. Feral pigs being one of them. They're very dangerous and near impossible to get rid of once they're there.

The US could definitely do with at least having the Canadian system where guns are highly tracked by the government (and they should be), but until i don't see coyotes and random bullshit like that wandering around my suburban area, I still guy why you'd want one. I say this as someone who had never owned a gun, nor wants to own one for various reasons.

3 year olds can't even reliably communicate that they have to go to the bathroom. They routinely injure themselves and others sometimes through idle curiosity, sometimes via being bad at using their body or understanding consequences. 3 year olds often just do the opposite of what you say for no other reason than developmentally that's the period they defy you.

Have you met a 3 year old? Interacting with them for a long period of time and then tried to get to stop doing something novelly dangerous without them doing that thing at least once? Because it's basically impossible to teach toddlers anything but in retrospect. Adults only follow instructions because they have enough experience to trust the system. A 3 year old has no such trust.