darq @ darq @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

513

Joined

2 yr. ago

Fighting for equity, as a man who’s supposed to be at the bottom of the hierarchy, I spit on it.

I know this is difficult for a lot of more conservative-minded folks to conceptualise or believe, but the purpose of progressive movements is to dismantle the hierarchy, not change who is at the top or bottom.

As such, you are not "supposed to be at the bottom of the hierarchy", because there should not be a hierarchy at all.

Would they really care?

I mean it is literally a theory about a conspiracy, yes.

At the same time the Heritage Foundation is powerful and well connected to Republican politicians in power.

So at this point there are a lot of conspiracy facts in the theory.

I always found it extremely strange that a nation which enjoys true representative democracy has locked itself in a two-party system.

That's because the US doesn't enjoy a true representative democracy at all. The US electoral system is awful.

First of all it's a First-Past-The-Post plurality voting system. Widely regarded as pretty much the worst "reasonable" voting system around. It is not very representative, it makes voters vote strategically, and it is basically guaranteed that it will devolve into a two-party system.

Then on top of that they have the Electoral College, which takes an already non-representative system, and makes some people's votes worth more than others.

And then on top of that they have legalised bribery in the form of "lobbying".

For those of us not in the US, I think this also highlights the real need to loosen the US's stranglehold on the Internet at large. The US has disproportionate power to control content on the Internet as a whole, because so many services and so much infrastructure resides there.

This highlights the importance of building redundant services elsewhere in the world, and moving content outside the US in general. So if the US tries to remove LGBTQ+ content in some cultural crusade, you laugh at them. Make them firewall it, like China, if they don't like it.

This is good advice. But I also wouldn't downplay the actual hatred of LGBTQ+ people either. For many conservatives, the identity politics are a distraction to mask their real goal of putting more money into wealthy pockets. But for a very large contingent of conservatives, it really is all about eradicating LGBTQ+ people.

writing in an order that “petitioners have not clearly shown a sufficient threat of irreparable injury absent injunctive relief.”

Basically every piece of research we have done on the topic over the last several decades has pointed in the same direction: That timely gender-affirming care improves, and often saves, trans people's lives, both adults and children.

And it's worth pointing out that a blanket ban is not based on clinical merit. A blanket ban doesn't allow the specifics of a patient's case to be considered. It is a statement that gender-affirming care is never appropriate. It is purely ideological, and it will lead to the suffering and death of trans people.

These people have blood on their hands. I hope, one day, that they are held responsible for their actions.

So invest in public transport to add more routes.

It's like you are saying that we shouldn't improve anything, because things are bad now. Circular and just nonsensical.

You cover the primary commutes of most people.

Yes. And in doing so you remove the vast majority of the cars from the road. So you have fewer, narrower roads. Which makes the living conditions of everyone more pleasant. And it enables more transportation options like bicycles, which covers many of the short-to-medium distance commutes which public transport might not be practical for, which even further reduces the demand for cars. It also incentivises, for the people who do actually need cars, the purchase of smaller vehicles, which even further increases pedestrian and bicycle safety. Which even further incentivises biking and walking...

And so on and so on...

The more we invest in car-centric infrastructure, the more people need cars to navigate the world, and the worse the world gets overall.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand how public transport works. Public transport usually does extend quite far outside the inner city, with efficient links into the city. That's an incredibly common pattern for public transport.

Look at a city like London. Absurd rental prices. The working class lives well outside the city. Few people have cars.

The only situations where having a car tends to be preferable is if you live outside the city AND also work outside the city. And even then, bus routes usually alleviate the problem of getting between suburbs. And those routes usually aren't as congested anyway.

Trust me, I realise... I mention a technological breakthrough not because I think it's likely or a good idea to expect, it's not and it isn't. It's a terribly stupid "solution" to bet on.

But no actual, plausible solution will actually be allowed. At least not until tremendous damage has already been done.

I think we have to rapidly come to terms with the fact that, politically, we are never going to adequately address climate change before it is too late. Conservatives will dig in their heels and slow the process to a near-standstill, and liberal democratic institutions will allow it to happen.

Climate change will be addressed by either a deus-ex-machina-like technological breakthrough, or by means outside of electoral politics.

Politicians should not be issuing blanket bans on healthcare. Politicians are not clinical experts.

How obnoxious. Doubly so because there is no way you don't actually know what the above commenter is referring to: that the average Millennial or younger person has had a significantly more difficult time accumulating wealth than Boomers did at similar points in their lives. So you are aggressively misinterpreting them, then acting smug about your own misunderstanding.

Sod off, into the sea.

I didn't find it confusing, it was just non-sequitur. But you clearly don't know how to read.

Is it happening on any scale worth being concerned about? No. And you have absolutely no idea why the tiny handful of cases over under-18s receiving this care have played out the way they have, you just assume, based on nothing but your gut, that the medical teams don't know what they are doing.

Keep your nose out of other people's healthcare. You aren't a doctor, and more importantly, you aren't THEIR doctor. You are neither a clinical expert, nor an expert on these patient's situations.

Accessing healthcare for trans people is difficult. And it comes with massive social costs, and is done in the face of rather unbelievable social and political backlash. And this constant pearl-clutching about the healthcare that people you know nothing about are receiving is why the lives of trans people are so much more difficult than they have to be.

They will always correctly identify the pincers and the stinger, but they will never mention a scorpion.

There's a difference between an unpopular opinion, and fearmongering about a vulnerable minority.

You are responsible for the entire carbon footprint from ground to your mouth/back/use. Not the person that worked to provide it to you.

That's an oversimplification.

People bare responsibility for their consumption, sure. But people are also limited by their circumstances. We live in a world where alternatives often just aren't available, and even where they are available, they are often not affordable.

For example, blaming people for the carbon output of their car, while they exist in a country that has systemically refused to invest in public transport because of fossil-fuel industry lobbying, is absurd. Or blaming someone for choosing inexpensive but environmentally damaging foodstuffs, rather than more environmentally friendly alternatives, when they are working in a system that has suppressed wages for decades, is similarly absurd.

This is part of why trying to individualise the blame for climate change and suggest individual actions is such nonsense. It's just a means to maintain the status quo and do nothing to solve the problem. We need systemic change.

It also explains "magazines".