LovingHippieCat @ LovingHippieCat @lemmy.world

Here's my substack, I write about videogames and have good and bad takes ab

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

361

Joined

2 yr. ago

But it's not a situation ripe for abuse. You can't just call yourself a girl and get on girl sports, there's requirements. And should we be limiting the very very few trans girls in sports because someone COULD abuse it? By that same logic we shouldn't have social security because someone COULD abuse it.

Also sports will always attract people who have advantages based on who they are. Michael Phelps is a great example but so is anyone who plays basketball who's over 6ft. Cis women can be super tall, should they be kept from playing because they're so much taller than the other players?

And also, trans girls are girls, you saying that she shouldn't get opportunities set aside for girls is misgendering her even if you use the right pronouns. Why shouldn't she get the same opportunities when she puts in the work just like the other girls?

I hope this leads to being able to have a Proton sheets or whatever name the Google sheets equivalent will be.

The bill definitely has far more bad than good. I just didn't appreciate Truthout cutting out the context to the quote from Harris. Taking quotes out of context or, like Truthout is doing here, introducing your own context to it by cutting out large parts of the sentence and joining two sentences together to make something appear different than it actually is, is not good journalism.

There's definitely more than should be done but let's examine how the article is framing what Harris said at the debate. "Harris noted that she supported a bipartisan border bill, which would have “put 1,500 more border agents on the border” to help “stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States.” She added, “I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country.”" is what the article says. This makes it seem like she was saying that the new border agents would have stopped the fentanyl and that without them it would flow across.

But here's what she actually said about the border bill "And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking." This is her saying not that the border agents would have stemmed the fentanyl coming across the border, like the article frames, but that the border bill itself would have done that which makes sense since it includes money for investment of tech that makes it easier to detect fentanyl at legal border crossings.

Should she be better on this and be talking more about how fentanyl comes in almost exclusively through legal border crossings and through US citizens? Yes. But she was NOT saying that the border agents themselves would have done it. The framing of the article on her words is just wrong.

And best of all, almost all of them (the posts) are on communities that they made themselves.

He should fucking resign 100% although I have no idea who would replace him in the last 4 months of the administration especially since the secretary of state is a senate approved position.

I've started blogging about videogames. So I'm just enjoying writing about stuff and looking forward to my posts on Wednesdays. No one reads it but it's nice to write my thoughts down about games that I play.

Or it gives the current congress the possibility of trying to fuck with the next congress if democrats flip the house and keep the senate.

It looks like that's toped with some kind of minced garlic, is that all you did to make them garlic knots or did you do more? I've started experimenting with breadsticks with my leftover pizza dough but have wanted to try garlic knots.

NYT has normalized Trump and has continued to spread a significant amount of misinformation and bigotry, including platforming known transphobic bigots. I doubt they'll change anything because you have to "be fair". I'm just glad my mom has stopped supporting them.

That looks like a really interesting book! I've added it to my Kindle. Thanks for the post!

I definitely need to learn how to shoot, I did when I was a kid but haven't gone shooting in a long time. Unfortunately, I don't feel safe to actually get armed just because of my own mental health. I do have friends who are armed, though, and they're willing to come help if need be.

Im trans and I have multiple trump people in my neighborhood. My partner and I have agreed us putting up either pride flags or Harris signs would simply make ourselves targets since we live in a red state and county. I don't want people like this to put me on a list so they can come and attack the house if their fascist leader comes into power. Something that while they would want to do, I'm not positive they'd actually have the guts to do.

Regardless, this shit terrifies me.

There "was" a time? The gay and trans panic defense is still legal in a multitude of states and while it's not as successful as it used to be, people still use it and get off without prison time.

I'm gonna assume you're still talking about the Nazis since that was your original comment so let's look at the reichstag breakdown of the election prior to Hitler being appointed Chancellor.

The Social Democrats won 121 seats in November 1932, the communists won 100 seats. The Social Democrats were socialists and the communists were communists. The nazis had 196 seats in the 1932 election. So if the socialists and communists had combined they would have had 221 seats which is more than 196. And those were leftist parties who were bickering. So if the leftists had combined they would have kept Hitler from being chancellor when he was appointed that in January 1933. But what about the centre party? Well, they had 70 seats and had a significant wing that was left and wanted to work with the social democrats. Now if we are conservative about it and say just 25 of those 70 were leftists, that would bring the 221 up to 246. And if the other 45 went to the nazis, which all of them never would because it was a big tent with diverse view points, that would have brought a nazi coalition to 241. So not as big of a majority but still a majority for leftists.

So yes, again, if the socialists, communists, and leftist wing of the centre party had combined their powers and hadn't been bickering, hitler wouldn't have been chancellor.

Basic source for the election results of November 1932. There's more pages for the parties and stuff on there so go ahead and poke around.

Depends on how "safe" the states are. If its by just 100,000 then that's not as safe as you think. If it's by 600,000 then yeah that's pretty safe. But at the same time why vote for a party that won't win?

Also, the PSL is not your friend. Back in 2020 they realized they weren't gonna get the Peace and Freedom nomination in 2020, so instead of having solidarity with their fellow socialists, they threw their weight behind the joke candidate Roseanne Barr. They blatantly sabotaged their fellow socialists because they realized they weren't going to win. They are not a party worth your investment.

Here's a great article about them and their shit.

Number 2 is wrong. The nazis never had a majority, only a plurality. If the other parties, the social democrats, the communist party, and the Centre party had banded together instead of fighting amongst themselves, he wouldn't have been made Chancellor.

If your second paragraph is implicating who I'm thinking since you're basically using a direct quote of theirs, then I'm not at all surprised by them blocking you. They love to take quotes out of context or ignore half of a quote for their own benefit. I love that you're directly calling them out. Good on you for actually knowing how our election system works.

As long as they understand the ramifications of voting for who they want to and don't try to say they don't hold any responsibility for the outcome of their decision.

I think you dropped something from my comment.

I support and respect everyone's right to vote for whoever they want to. As long as they understand the ramifications of voting for who they want to and don't try to say they don't hold any responsibility for the outcome of their decision.