betwixthewires @ betwixthewires @lemmy.basedcount.com

Posts

0

Comments

220

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is incorrect. The Americans seized Loyalists and executed them, the Red Army killed civilians and genocided several ethnic groups, the Chinese did it, the Cubans did it, everybody does it. The distinction between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is who controls the narrative after the dust has settled. Warfare is atrocity.

No, Israel has declared war. This is a BFD. A couple hundred dead, 1500 injured, Hamas is going door to door executing people. 2000 rockets fired into Israel. They've captured territory. They've captured the general of the Israeli defence force. This isn't some border skirmish like we have heard about for a couple of decades, this was a very competent full scale attack.

Israel doesn't fuck around. Even if you don't agree with them, they're very militarily capable. Israel is about to turn Gaza into rubble in under a week. In the 6 day war, several Arab countries formed a coalition and attacked Israel, and got so thoroughly buttspanked they haven't done it since. Within 6 days they conquered all the way to the current Jordanian border, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the entirety of Sinai, which they returned as a gesture. Gaza is about to get glassed.

Yes, and that's OK.

They want to make everything impossible to fix. They want to turn our land into landfills and fleece us of our income.

Climate change or no, electric fan or no, anyone with self respect would rather buy a 1990 beater than a new car, they're user and owner hostile.

Its irrelevant for this topic of discussion. Pronouns are a linguistic element with already clearly defined rules, proper nouns are chosen and have always been chosen. To answer you I'd say calling someone by some name other than theirs to be disparaging is not OK, referring to someone using a pronoun corresponding to their biological sex is perfectly OK.

Why would they think I'm an asshole? I have not misgendered someone, I have not even stated my opinion on that. I'm just asking, if that's the compromise would you all be OK with it.

I don't particularly care. It's not really harassing me, when they address me they'd say "you". They'd be doing it in conversation with someone else. I wouldn't hang out with someone that did this, but it wouldn't make me angry or anything, it's literally not my problem at all, I know who and what I am.

How do you know my old name? You aso me my name and I tell you.

Someone choosing their own name is already common enough, and is not a question of distortion of language. It's not the same as pronouns.

I'm not am asshole to other people.

The interesting thing about pronouns is that the only pronoun used to directly address someone is not gendered, it's "you". So it is not actually possible to directly misgender someone.

The words "he" and "she" aren't slurs. Comparison to the word "cuck" don't make any sense. Should a job require someone to use preferred pronouns? Well I go back to what I was discussing about free association, if they want to sure, if they don't that's OK too, but going after a workplace without such a requirement takes things a bit farther than just wanting to be left alone.

And as far as teachers, I actually don't think kids should be forced to go to school, so that would really be a different issue. If they're old enough to determine their gender they're certainly old enough to educate themselves or determine if they even want an education.

You're going to need a source on the claim that most violent crime is in the furtherance of other profitable crime? You ever heard a phrase such as "if weed were legal then people wouldn't kill each other selling weed"? I thought this was settled science. Is it so outlandish an idea that most people who kill do it because it is profitable for them to do so that you want me to google it for you?

Alright, so let me ask you, what does "common sense" gun control look like?

Well that's good, I 100% agree with you. But judging by the votes I'm getting for asking this question, I don't think most people that support the transgender movement do.

Yeah, but it's not without contention. Some people believe it should be illegal to use pronouns in reference to someone's biological sex. I'm just asking people if they're OK with it, if they like that, to distinguish from people who do that and people who harass and berate transgender people. When someone says "they just want to be left alone" I'm trying to get whether they view that distinction as valid or not.

So you're OK with that? Not personally associating with people that use pronouns to refer to biological sex, but let them be themselves and do their thing and associate with who they want?

Alright, so you're OK with leaving alone people who use pronouns to refer to biological sex, you don't want to be their friend or whatever but you leave them alone, don't harass them, don't try to get them fired and if they get a job somewhere that doesn't care then fine, leave them alone?

Wait, what do you mean "happy to oblige"? Nobody abliges in my scenario. Everyone just leaves each other alone.

I never unreasonably assumed he meant personal ownership. I just thought you know, since you can read a dead mans mind and know he was talking about the French revolution or something you must really, really know what you're talking about.

"Let them take arms" can be reasonably construed to mean "let them own guns". Saying "in no way" is categorically incorrect. Saying it might not mean that is not unreasonable, but saying it definitely doesn't is absolutely unreasonable, which is what you're saying.

What he meant, what was going on in his head, we can't know. Well, except for you apparently, because you really know what you're talking about. But the rest of us, all we can do is take his words at face value.

I've looked at those stats and I'm not really convinced.

Half of gun deaths are suicides. In those cases, a desire to die is the cause of death. Something is deeply wrong in our society if children want to kill themselves in epidemic numbers, and we need to figure out what that is and fix it.

Out of the rest, it's almost entirely violence from organized crime. That violence doesn't go away if you ban guns, at best other weapons get used, at worst criminals just don't obey the gun laws. When two rival groups are fighting over a crack dealing monopoly in a neighborhood, if you blame the result of that on the tools used you're ignoring another real problem. Why is America so addicted to drugs. Just like with suicide, I think we need to figure out what's driving that.

Something in our society is very very wrong, our society is sick and the symptoms are teen suicide (and veteran suicide and suicide as a result of divorce...) and widespread drug addiction. Guns show up in those dynamics simply because there are a lot of guns in America.

For the same reason prohibition of alcohol didn't work, for the same reason the drug war didn't work, for the same reason prescription requirements for medically useful narcotics doesn't work. It doesn't matter what the law is, people will make their own choices, and if the things are available, legally or not, people that want to use them will use them.

Look at the US. For all it's faults, it has handled smoking very very well. The younger generation basically doesn't smoke cigarettes. They're not banned from it for life, they just were informed about it and so they find it disgusting and don't really do it. You can't even really get a date anymore with someone if you smoke cigarettes and you're under like 40.

Projecting what?

We are discussing a Thomas Jefferson quote, not Ben Franklin, and in the quote we are discussing he literally says "let them take arms."

OK, well, maybe. if they're so harmless in the face of a standing army then why not let them have their guns?