Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SO
Posts
0
Comments
203
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I hate Elon and I don't even disagree with targeting Tesla. But let's be real. Mass targeted vandalism and especially arson are clearly forms of violence. The victims of this violence are civilians and the purpose of the violence is to achieve political goals through instilling fear.

    Agree with the actions or not, that's terrorism.

    If people started targeting and burning down costcos for being woke/DEI, that would be terrorism for the exact same reason, not because the ideology is different.

    People need to stop pussyfooting around the label and accept that words mean certain things. The issue is not whether or not it's terrorism. The argument should be whether or not the actions are justifiable.

    It's like whinging about whether or not we say "Osama Bin Laden was killed" or if the person who shot him is a "killer" because killing in general is bad/wrong.

    Now the government response of categorizing certain people vs others as terrorists matters. What it means for people resisting Trump matters. But those are different arguments.

  • I think it would help if you clarify what "propaganda" means to you, as I have a sense we mean different things.

    For me, I understand propaganda as media/content/communication aimed at manipulating people towards a particular point of view. It's often characterized by reduction, misrepresentation/deception, disingenuous argument, and etc. That is also to say that I make a distinction between manipulation and persuasive argument. So, a piece of content can make an argument, display inherent biases, employ persuasive techniques, without being propaganda. That's because all forms of expression necessarily hold an ideological position.

  • The book is an exploration of and presents an argument for militarism. That alone doesn't make it propaganda. While many of the sentiments, implications, premises in the book carry a clear bias, the book nevertheless invites the reader to engage with and reflect on the ideology rather than aiming to manipulate and indoctrinate the reader.

    I'd say the earnest argument presented by Heinlein in ST is flawed and morally objectionable, but not a piece of propaganda.

  • You are correct, tariffs hurt everyone. The direct cost is paid by the importer not the exporter. Part of the reaction-turned propaganda point about the US is that American people will bear the brunt of the tariffs. This is because Trump/MAGA framed tariffs as a tax that other countries would pay the direct cost of, not the Americans importing the goods.

    This led to a downplaying of how it would negatively affect the foreign industries exporting the goods, and apply political pressure on those countries. This is how tariffs usually work, you put tariffs on certain goods to apply economic/political pressure towards specific goals, e.g. tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect NA auto industry. This still hurts NA consumers in that they don't have access to cheap Chinese EVs, but gives NA auto a chance to catch up. Tariffs are a normal economic tool that can help with bringing industry back into your country, but it's a tricky balance.

    Canada is under no illusions that we will have to pay tariffs on imported American goods. There's also a nationalist reaction to boycott American goods to an extent for starting this trade war, but Canadians will still hurt. The alternative would be to take it and submit to America's whims, which is not a real option.

    This trade war is not within the norms of standard economic diplomacy/negotiation though, it's just unhinged chaos. IMO the chaos is the point, giving cover for Trump&friends to solidify complete control as they turn the US into an authoritarian regime and helps to bring American industries to heel under their rule.

  • I disagree that it's an issue. I believe vast majority of people understand what a tax is, even if they feel taxes are shitty and respond with blame-y frustration. All words will be misunderstood by some people. Sometimes more and sometimes fewer. If we kept changing the name of things because a vocal minority of people can't read a dictionary, then we will end up with a handful of generic words that don't actually mean anything. I believe a better solution is to envest in education more broadly.

  • Agreed. It may be someone spouting propaganda and ultimately a stupid point in context, but it's still comment with the structure of an argument rather than a plain statement. Draft and not allowing certain demographics to leave are topics worth debating, even if it seems obviously acceptable in this kind of defensive existential situation.

    If we want this to be a forum for healthy discussion and debate, it should be moderated in a way that is hopeful for that ideal rather than so fearful of bad actors that it undermines the ideal outright. But I'm not the moderator, maybe they just want a safe space for pro-Ukraine content, which people are in their right to create.

  • As a Canadian who generally fits this category, i am fairly privileged, have all my basic needs met and some security for the future under status quo conditions. I have my struggles, but they have not so much to with marginalization or oppression. But it depends on who you are. Indigenous women are still going missing, racists are still gonna racist, billionaires are still exploiting people struggling with food and housing security, etc. same goes for the USA. For millions of Americans who are upper-middle/upper class, heteronormative, and white, life is continuing on just fine, feeling safe and experiencing a government that functions as well as it ever has from their perspective. They're too busy living their lives to get caught up in the "noise of angry squabbling of childish politicians". Maybe expenses have gone up, but they can still sustain all their expectations out of life. He'll you can imagine there are a not insignificant proportion of the Russian population are like this.

  • Why do I have to care about sports in order to care about trans folks who care about sports?

    Do I have to care about every last hobby or fandom before I can weigh in on the justice of whether black people or gay people or poor people should be allowed to participate?

  • Current best practice AFAIK is exactly this. Gender care includes psychiatric/mental health, and occupational (ish) therapy that leads up to surgery after a lot of care. Gender dysphoria, like many things has an internal and external layer where society sets expectations and acts on us based on our gender expression in ways that can be quite brutal. Some folks may end up enby or smth or find something acceptable without surgery, which has its downsides. However none of this should preclude surgery as an option, as evidence has shown it is a highly effective treatment in our current context.

    This is the biomedical view that focuses on dysfunction and suffering of the individual and addressing that dysfunction. There is a more philosophical/existential view worth understanding to balance the biomedical view. It is one that acknowledges that we are who we are and we develop the way we develop. If we are to flourish as humans and as a society, it must be through compassion for each others' experiences as human subjects struggling to figure ourselves and each other out. Imposing one's worldview on others by force is to treat humans as objects through manipulation. That's mistaken and harmful. Compassion doesn't mean you don't stand up to bullies or you don't resist injustice or you don't fight back in self defense. It means you're always seeking to humanize rather than dominate. This can mean supporting trans folks in accessing care or it can mean helping them to consider all their options.

  • It sounds like it's just not the show you're expecting. It's not trying to be ER or Scrubs. It's Sherlock Holmes. It's like watching Mindhunter and criticizing it for not being more like Cops where they solve the case because they catch the suspect in the act of trying to shove the evidence up their butt.