Yes, they might find a way to force crypto to be used in a case like that - but I think that would be a logistical nightmare and they would probably have to setup some kind of system to make it feasible.
I do suspect the currency of whatever geopolitical entity demands the most economic power in the vacuum left by the U.S. collapsing will become the new global currency, but it's also possible that this hypothetical world become more economically isolated, such that there is no single accepted global currency.
Ah, I think you may have missed my point - I am responding to the claim that both parties are equally bad. While I can understand if you are primed to expect my points to be accompanied by a liberal attitude that voting is the main form of political action, let me clarify for you that this is not what I'm saying.
Obviously middle-class Americans have a tendency to think voting is the most significant political action that can be taken, maybe if they are really into politics they might make different consumer choices (avoiding Chick-fil-a, refusing plastic straws, etc.), and even more extreme people might participate in a peaceful protest.
Brick throwing on the other hand is something people who have nothing left to lose do, desperate acts from those who are barely surviving poverty, who are being harassed, jailed, raped, and killed by the police, and so on. Brick throwing isn't done to carve out civil rights, it is survival.
To that end, Democrats who might advocate for and uphold civil rights have a pacifying and stabilizing effect in so far as some of those pressures that result in marginalized groups throwing bricks are alleviated. The GOP on the other hand seems to care little about stability, they are unskillful tyrants in that sense.
Ultimately all I am saying is that elections do have consequences, which is so obvious it should not have to be said. My statements do not imply elections are the only political events that matter.
Are you sure the word "genocide" was used? I think they have generally kept to more round-about language like "eradicating gender ideology", etc. - I don't think they would want to characterize what they're doing as a genocide so directly.
For trans people in the U.S., the difference between a GOP win and a Dem win in the house, senate, and presidential elections is the difference between having or not having certain rights.
Federal prisons now will force trans women to be transferred to male prisons and they will be denied gender-affirming care like access to estrogen.
If you are a trans person in the U.S. there is a clear difference between the Dems and the GOP - one is clearly better than the other.
Nothing has responded to this, shown it to be false, etc.
It does not require that we overlook that the Dems have far-right policies, especially on immigration and international affairs. It does not require we defend U.S. imperialism to say the Dems are better than the GOP for trans people in the U.S. Both are true.
I understand the moral disgust and the impulse to see how villainous the Dems are, I feel the same way, but if you care about the political outcomes, you can't ignore that there remain significant and tangible differences between the parties and their policies.
Would be helpful to have a link to the quote - searching for it I'm having trouble finding it. I think I have seen language about "removing transgenderism from public life" or something like that. They seem to be bringing back rhetoric used against gay folks in the 1980s, e.g. emphasizing how the "homosexuals" groom children, how they just need to not flaunt their (sexualized / perverted) lifestyle in front of the children, how it's fine if they're gay in private - just not in public, etc.
Love hypocrisy dunking on Christians, but why do we care if Jack Miladin is a bad Christian and doesn't read his Bible, I mean - is he a person of note, a public official, a politician? I can't find anything on this guy, it seems like he's just a rando.
Thanks for clarifying! Also, totally up to you re the name, I personally don't think it needs to be renamed, but having the sidebar clarify it uses lesbian to just describe any sapphic person might help? Or maybe it's not necessary to do that at all, I actually don't need to know this, I just didn't want to offend anyone by being in the space as a bisexual 😅
Question: is "lesbian" here meant as an umbrella term for any sapphic people? I know some people get up in arms about "lesbian" being reserved for strictly homosexual women (in the worst forms this sentiment is also trans-exclusionary, but I assume that's not the case here), just want to clarify whether the community is meant for bisexual, pansexual, etc. women (and transfem enbies?) as well.
I think it's pretty wild that the body will just accept exogenous cross-sex hormones and start using them without issue.
EDIT: well, a caveat would be that cross-sex hormones would cause gender dysphoria for cis populations, and their brains don't function as well on them, but I meant more like even a cis person's body will grow boobs on estrogen or grow thick dark hair and develop stronger body odor on testosterone. It's just wild the body is so adaptable, though maybe it shouldn't be surprising since most people have all the hormones, just in varying amounts.
Right, I am not super familiar but I know LW and Beehaw don't talk (not sure who defederated from whom or why), but in that case Blahaj and LW are the same in relation to Beehaw.
Sorry can you say more? I am not connecting the dots between my comment and yours. I am only trying to answer blackn1ght's question about what the ideological differences were between 196 mods and the Blahaj admins.
But to answer your question, I know Beehaw defederated from Blahaj. I can't remember all the reasons, I think Blahaj was considering defederating from them, and they defederated from Blahaj first, claiming Blahaj users were disrupting them (similar claims were being made about Beehaw users on Blahaj).
I think Blahaj defederates from other instances, usually because those instances don't moderate or remove transphobic and queerphobic content. I don't know of any other cases where an instance defederated from Blahaj other than Beehaw, though.
looks like the main "ideological" differences are about what counts as violations and how to deal with them:
a 196 mod said:
sometimes we’ll see people getting banned or comments getting removed for relatively mild takes. We also often disagreed about the severity of the actions, like ban lengths being way too long considering the reason, or people getting banned over something that really should just be a removal.
part of Ada's response:
every post and user I removed was due to queerphobia, transphobia, trolling or spam, issues that broke the instances rules. Some of that bigotry was was implicit rather than explicit, like dog whistles, tone policing etc. Some of it was the “just asking questions” transphobia that pervades most corporate owned social media spaces.
...
As moss said, this is ideological differences in how low grade transphobia and queerphobia should be dealt with. moss is ok with community pushback for the low grade stuff rather than moderation, whereas I’ll just remove it.
Yes, they might find a way to force crypto to be used in a case like that - but I think that would be a logistical nightmare and they would probably have to setup some kind of system to make it feasible.
I do suspect the currency of whatever geopolitical entity demands the most economic power in the vacuum left by the U.S. collapsing will become the new global currency, but it's also possible that this hypothetical world become more economically isolated, such that there is no single accepted global currency.
But yeah, Euro or Yuan would be my guess as well.