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

Cyprus is a great idea but it's ownership is also contested. Turkey and Greece fucking hate that the other claims ownership. Although the former Greek section is now it's own country, but there's still a small turkey section. Great idea, still contentious, even if less so.

Obviously, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Mainly movies for me because I haven't read them. Extended editions, obviously.

But also, I adore the mass effect trilogy. Yeah, the rpg elements get gradually watered down, and the third ones ending isn't the best, but it's still an absolutely amazing Trilogy that I replay yearly. And it all came out in 5 years! Nowadays, single games have 5 years of dev time, at least. In my eyes, it's as perfect as it can be....Once it's been modded a bit.

I really appreciate you continuing the research here. It's definitely suspicious. Groups pushing for progressive ideals should be transparent, transparency is so important. Interesting to know that this isn't the first thing EDT has cofounded and not have the other founders listed.

I hope there is an actual journalist who can do more in depth research out there paying attention.

I was waiting for this to make it's way to lemmy, started reading about them last night. This women's advocacy group is very unknown, the National Womens Defense League. This is their website. When you go to their about section they talk about how they were founded "in 2022 by two political advocates in the wake of the #MeToo collective outcry." But never state who those advocates were anywhere. When you go to their press section they've only been making posts or sharing articles since November of last year. And you then notice they largely focus on positive things Republicans are doing to fight sexual harassment in the state and bad things democrats have done or that they're the accussers themselves, although their are one or two exceptions. They dont really comment on that the republicans are often the most pervasive harrassers out there. Now, if i, a random trans girl from a shitty red state, was running a group like this, I'd focus on both parties but I'd also do everything i could to make it known which party is to blame for the majority, and also poat stories of things democrat women have done to help the cause instead of largely GOP women. They do state they were "Joined by a diverse group of advocates, experienced campaigners, and survivors, NWDL was formed and aligned around a state-level strategy and a nonpartisan approach." So maybe talking about the awfulness of GOP politicians isn't a good look for a nonpartisan group.

Sidenote point. They claim Shapiro was to blame for the sexual harassment case that was brought against one of his cabinet members. They say he covered it up. But Shapiro and his administration found out about the accusation, did an investigation, decided go give a settlement of 300,000 to the accuser, and fired the cabinet member. Doesn't really seem like a cover up except for there was an nda attached. Which isn't the best but, unfortunately, is pretty standard for cases like these. And again, the harasser lost their job. They were not covered for, given excuses for, or in anyway defended or shielded from repercussions. Should there have been an nda? Ideally no, but the guy still faced repercussions. Which is the whole goal here. To hold them accountable and make them lose their jobs.

Anyway, back to NWDL. Their claim to fame is basically a report about how sexual harassers are pervasive in the country with 130 statehouse lawmakers being accused by 359 individuals since 2013, also adding there are probably more since many go unreported. Now this is undoubtedly an important thing to research. But they don't openly give you the report, or give you more information other than those numbers. You have to give them your email and first and last name to actually get the report and I'm not doing that.

So then, this women's group has a seemingly interesting report. And says a lot of good stuff when it comes to it's Commitment to survivors but for a supposedly important institution, they don't like to talk about who actually founded them. I've looked at a lot of these kind of groups, they always say who founded them, even if they're shitty people like Vivek Ramaswamy. So that's pretty fucking suspicious.

They're sponsored by the Center for Transformative Action, which is a group attached to Cornell University. Seems like a legit organization, has a lot of really worthwhile seeming projects. But they also talk about who founded them in their about us section, which the NWDL does not. They seem to be a 501c3 that allows group to apply for financial sponsorship, so it typically allows smaller groups to survive, at least theoretically. Again, they seem to have an slew of projects they sponsor and they all seem important.

Now, when I go to the NWDL section, I finally find out who founded the group. Emma Davidson Tribbs, according to the sight she "has made a career of joining political and social movements at key moments of change to define the next stage of success." Which sounds fine, kinda bandwagony, but hey whenever you jump on the movement is better late than never. But then there's just a bunch of buzzwords and jargon that, while sounds good, doesn't really say much. Her qualifications are "She has been trained as a spokesperson by the Women’s Media Center, completed management training at the Center for Creative Leadership, and is a graduate of the New York Junior League’s Nonprofit Boards Clearinghouse. Emma is a graduate of Illinois Wesleyan University and earned her Master’s Degree in International Development from the University of Bristol." Not bad, still some buzzwords but overall decent. She's also the only person listed here for the groups team. Despite only being co-founder.

Now. I'm not saying Emma isn't an ally and advocate for the cause at all. But why doesn't she have her information on the website of the group she runs? Why did I have to go to the sponsored group to find out she even existed? Could be just a bad site designer but every site for groups like these I've been to has gotten that right so seems weird to get it wrong. I think the thing that bugs me the most is just the focus on only republican efforts to help sexual harrassers. The framing is supposed to be nonpartisan but usually only post stories that highloght how GOP women are working to change things. Which, if you had to select a group of women who excuse sexual harassment the most, GOP women would be the top of the list. Or at least in the top 3.

So at the end here, I don't necessarily distrust this group, but i haven't been shown they're trustworthy framers of the parties and how they are working toward the cause. Their report is definitely important and i would like to know more if I didn't have to give them my information. And theirs nothing wrong with new advocacy groups being formed, but they should be open about who founded them on their website. I think it's understandable to criticize Shapiro, but it's not like he excused it and kept the guy on staff. If he did then I think they'd have more reasoning. I dunno, it just feels off. I'd be interested in doing more research but I'm not connected to talk to the people I would need to. I look forward to seeing if Shapiro is on the ticket, I imagine if he is, we will hear more about this case.

If I got anything wrong or you notice some incorrect grammar, please comment to let me know so I can fix this. It's hard writing something this long on mobile.

Edit: added the groups name at the start

I wish Nazis and their ilk weren't surging in popularity right now. We need actual not antisemitic criticism of israel, something we are still getting. But it gets disregarded because of how the nazis have normalized antisemitism to the point that it's hard to distinguish for some people. Incredibly frustrating.

True. But they've never let examples of why their reasoning is flawed to keep them from believing those things.

Yeah, it's great for queer folks in blue states. But as a trans person in a red state, I still get worried about if I'm gonna stop being able to get my meds one day. If my neighbors will find out and suddenly stop treating me with general kindness and start treating me as a freak. Or if this'll be the time when I get yelled at going to a public bathroom. I went on a car trip to a different city this weekend, and I was terrified to take stops to pee because, even though I generally pass, some people are still assholes. Usually, it just means being stared at, something I can see people doing because I wear mirrored sunglasses, but one day, I might be yelled at or called something. And my state is working on banning my bathroom use in multiple public settings, so one day, I might have to be scared of having the cops called on me.

So, while I'm glad there's been failures, a lot of failures, but 80 is still way too many. Tons of queer folk have to live under the threat of this and it's fucking bigotry and all should be failing.

Edit addition: I'm also disabled and walk with a cane so I get stares by just being a young person using a cane, so I'm usually being stared at for that. But there's definitely bigots in there who clock me.

Swearing is viewed as a bad thing mainly because of religion, particularly anything puritanical. It's the equivalent of taking the lords name in vain for some people. When I was in 3rd grade, I said dammit after dropping my coat instead of putting it on a hanger. I learned that word really early cause my mother had been using it since she was 3. My friend heard me and told the teacher, a nun, who pulled me aside and said cursing is never, ever, okay and that it's taking the lords name in vain even if you don't say Jesus or God or whatever. Also said Dammit was one of the worst ones.

So I agree with others here. The question should not be, "Why is cursing normal for some people?" It should be the opposite. Curse words are just words. They don't have power like religion states. They're just words. To whomever doesn't curse, stop letting just words have power over you. They don't fucking matter.

Fuck Chris Cuomo in this clip, dudes reaction to a simple thing of Harris stating her pronouns are she/her at a town hall responds by saying "Mine too"

What a piece of shit. But hey, at least we know how to refer to Chris now, she's "so brave."

So then what are you doing to spread your communist ideals?

I get your rationale. But like I said in my comment, leftists and communists, as I assume you espouse to be, understand harm reduction. Voting for a third party or not voting only allows fascists to come to power. That is a fact. That's what happened in Germany where the leftists/communists couldn't agree on anything with the Catholic Democrats and that allowed the Nazis to come into power under the auspices of unity and competency. Just like the Republicans are pitching right now. You say that the status quo keeps the marginalize, marginalized. But you know what also keeps the marginalized, marginalized, and leads to much worse outcomes for the marginalized? Republicans winning.

Democrats aren't perfect, hell, they fucking suck about some other core parts of communist goals. But when you refuse to vote or vote for a third party, you destroy the ability for us communists to continue fighting for our ideals instead of being rounded up and killed in camps.

My right to exist is on the line. Democrats will allow me to exist and continue to fight for a better future. Republicans will declare my existence pornographic, say that anyone who distributes or is a part of porn with be put in jail and called a sex offender, then will Institute the death penalty for sex offenders. I will literally be put in prison if Republicans win in November.

I want to keep existing and not be made illegal so I can continue to espouse and fight for my belief in the effectiveness of communists ideals. I know multiple communists who believe the same. And yes, we are communists, not democrats in disguise. We just also understand how politics works and that our lives are on the line.

I can't convince you to vote for her. It just won't happen. But this is why you'll come up against fellow communists who will vote for her. I hope you can understand at least our reasoning for voting for her, even if you don't agree with it.

You are playing so many games at once. Are you finishing some of the ones you've posted or are you playing a different game every day, except for the occassional duplicate game?

I can barely handle playing the 3 games I'm currently playing, I feel like I'm never gonna finish them. I commend you for your streak.

“I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that, and we’re making some progress."

Fucker may as well have said "I vowed to destroy my entire reputation and we're making some progress."

It gave me something to focus on so I could wake up from my nap. I've done similar stuff before, although it's been a bit.

Ozma, you've posted a variety of not super negative articles about democrats and Harris recently. Are you feeling okay? Do you have a fever?

(This is a joke)

Thank you. Edited to include that now.

Hmmm. Let's see why the author thinks biden is Amoral. Hers a quote from the article "In Biden, we see a Catholic who found it expedient to reject his church’s teachings on abortion and align himself with the politically powerful pro-abortion forces." Okay, so it seems so far that the author believes that Biden is amoral because he believes in pro-choice policies. And accuses him of not being a good Catholic.

Okay, let's look at another. "He would publicly abuse, bully, and humiliate judicial nominees at Senate confirmation hearings (Judge Robert Bork comes to mind) and subsequently approach the devastated family with a smile and the lame explanation, “Don’t take this personally; it’s just the way the game is played.” Here the author argues that biden embarrassed judges because he asked serious questions and his example is Bork who's nomination to the Supreme Court failed in 87 largely because he helped Nixon orchestrate the Saturday Night Massacre which was retaliation for Nixon being investigated. So then I guess it's amoral to not want a sycophant who did corrupt actions to be on the highest court in the country.

Okay, let's look at another. "Think of the incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan: American servicemen and many Afghani friends of America died simply because Joe wanted to score political points by announcing the withdrawal on Sept. 11, 2021 — the 20th anniversary of 9/11 — an artificially rushed date that left our forces without time to organize an orderly withdrawal." Here the author says that Biden pulling out of Afghanistan, using a plan laid out by the trump administration, is also amoral. I assume this means that the author thinks we should have remained in Afghanistan for longer than the deal allowed. A deal trump brokered.

Okay, let's look at another. "Biden has greatly depleted the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we maintain to keep us supplied in an emergency. Why? To push gasoline prices lower to mollify voters who were angry about rising gasoline prices. Gaining votes for Democrats was more important to Joe than national security." So this quote is that biden is amoral because he tapped into the oil reserve to try to keep gas prices low. So, biden trying to help the economy is amoral according to this author.

Okay, let's look at another. "Biden has treated the lives of American allies (Israelis) and friends (Ukrainians) as expendable, presuming to tell those allies not to fight for victory. Why? Because he needed the votes of Americans who side with Hamas or want to appease Putin." Here the author says biden, an avowed zionist who has hesitant criticized Israel and continued to send weapons, has somehow abandoned Israel because he wanted votes of people who are antigenocide. Edit: Most interestingly, the author says that Biden and the democrats are the actual ones that want to appease Putin, not the Republicans pushing to leave Ukraine and allow Putin to take the country.

So overall, according to the author, biden is amoral not because of him supporting a genocide or because of the drug bill in the 90s. No, he's amoral because he had principles and didn't let his religion influence his public policies that much.

The author seems rather conservative. Let's look him up. Mark W. Hendrickson is the author, he is fellow for economic and social policy at the Institute for Faith and Freedom. That is a place that advocates for having faith be a foundation in society. On their website, the first thing that comes up is a video of a member being on the Jordan Peterson podcast with the title "The Devil and Karl Marx". One of the articles on their site is titled "Bud Light’s Super Bowl Hail Mary" Which of course is about the Dylan Mulvaney singular Bud Light can and how bud light and target disregarded their customers to push a woke agenda. Seems like this place is nothing but conservative propaganda.

So, at the end of this, the author has a clear far right radical Christian agenda that views just being a Democrat and supporting rights of minorities as amoral. This article is trash and the author is trash.

Real leftists understand the principles of harm reduction. Voting for Harris, as voting for Biden would have done, has the outcome of reducing harm compared to trump winning. Sure, there will still be harm, but it'll be less, and that's incredibly important. It's basically the same foundation behind how we need to help drug addiction. Although Harris will likely cause even less harm than Biden.

Chances are that the "leftists" arguing for the purity test of Harris are people who aren't truly at risk in this election. They won't have their basic human rights torn apart if trump wins. They're leftists in name only.

Okay I think I understand more about what you're arguing for. Ethics with actual consequences, meaning removal. That makes worlds more sense.

One thing I disagree with is that your conclusion doesn't matter. Reading others reasoning and their conclusion is important for people who haven't made a decision, then making their decisions. I've made my decision personally, and even though I disagree with you on parts, I think it's important to be able to not just discuss facts but ones own conclusion drawn from those facts. Not saying you're not capable of discussing more than facts, just that I think you should be more willing to discuss your own conclusions as well. Connecting the dots of facts and reasoning is only half of the battle, people can look at those and not think about what the conclusion could be. Or draw conclusions that are completely contradictory of what reasoning was provided. Theory isn't just facts but also conclusions. And discussion in a public forum like this can be important for those willing to learn.