darq @ darq @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

513

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to

I was the top comment. So no.

as well as the original point of the article

Which is why I was talking about reduction in cases where elimination isn't feasible.

Bloody hell man.

Very all-or-nothing response.

Of course. But if we want to reduce CO2 emissions then buses will still need electrification - and therefore require PFAS.

Okay. But again. My comment was that if elimination isn't possible, reduction should be pursued.

So saying "we still require this" is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles.

Nowhere has anyone even hinted that replacing all private vehicles is the goal.

Once again. Reduction is the goal.

So saying "we can't replace all" is completely irrelevant.

Or at least, it cannot replace them all quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. By the time the necessary infrastructure was built, it would be too late.

Buses require almost exactly the same infrastructure as private cars.

Basically, we are at a late enough stage of CO2 emission that the only realistic hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change requires mass production and adoption of EVs.

No. What the hell. Why would that be true?

Public transport is a better option for basically every major population centre. And for those centres, we should not be encouraging private vehicle ownership, but rather replacing that as much as possible with public transport. Hell, even if that public transport is on-demand low-occupancy shuttles and ride sharing, that's still better.

Electric private vehicles are better than internal combustion, but they are still awful.

Orders of magnitude less than mass private vehicle usage.

My comment was about how if elimination of these materials is impossible, then we should figure out how best to reduce their usage in an acceptable manner.

Jumping straight to black-and-white "So you'd send us back to the dark ages?!?!?!" type of response is kinda wild.

These are critical chemistries that enable modern day life

Then maybe we need to examine "modern day life" with a more critical eye. Some sacrifices may need to be made, because they are worth being made.

There are also measures that lie between "ban" and "use freely". If we cannot eliminate the use of these chemicals in chipmaking, then we need to reconsider the disposability of these chips, or we can even consider if less effective processes result in less damaging chemical use, and accept a bit of regression as a trade-off.

And society does, very much judge outsider demographics on the worst actions of individuals.

Yes that's the point I'm making, sweetheart. That we don't judge most people by the actions of individuals but for minorities, it's fair game.

Unless you are saying that it is right for people to do that?

Not all trans are like this...

Then why even bring it up?

We don't judge demographics by the actions of individuals. If we did, both cis men and cis women would be banned from every aspect of society.

But for trans women, it seems to be fair game to dig for crimes and then make this sort of two-faced statement where you are definitely saying that we should view trans women with suspicion, but won't come out and just be transphobic openly.

No. It isn't on the table. This is another in the long line of scenarios that only exist in TERF imaginations.

... in the wake of recent claims that some justices have fallen short of required ethical standards.

The single most indirect, passive, and euphemistic way to say that conservative justices have been caught accepting extravagant gifts from people who have stakes in their rulings, while failing to declare that conflict of interest.

I don't know what the point of your comment is.

Trans and non-binary people are becoming more accepted as normal over time. The people screaming about pronouns don't actually care about pronouns, they oppose that gradually growing acceptance.

If you are allowing a company that Elon Musk of all people is involved in to operate on your head, maybe the damage has already been done.

I'm all for transhumanism, and I sincerely hope that the people who are hopeful for Neuralink to be therapeutic for their condition find some relief. But nobody should trust anything Elon Musk touches with their brain.

Most people just use LGBTQ+. Give or take the Q and the +.

I do find mocking the acronym to be rather overdone considering it seems to be a non-issue within the community.

And I mean... LGBTQ+ folks can bicker about pointless stuff. Have you seen flag discourse? Bi lesbian discourse? The fact that we don't argue about the acronym makes the cishets' obsession with it kinda funny actually.

I'm aware of the history of the article. The original article was significantly worse, as my comment stated.

But even above that, the article still should not have seen the light of day. It was based on a terrible premise to start with. A similar article would not have been written about other marginalised groups, and if it had it would have rightly been lambasted as absurdly bigoted. The BBC does not write articles like "do people of X race commit crimes?!"

And the fact that the BBC found Lily Cade to be a worthy contributor, even after they were informed of her history of sexual assault, raises so many red flags.

That article has been edited multiple times due to an influx of complaints. A fuller timeline can be found documented in videos here: https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg

The original article is based on poor premises, elevates the voices of explicitly hateful people, mislead the reader to a false conclusion that trans women are coercing lesbians into sex, platformed a known sexual-assaulter who called for the execution of all trans women. And finally the BBC also just straight up lied about if they interviewed trans people for the article.

It's genuinely a terrible piece of journalism that the BBC should be utterly ashamed of.

It was an article that implied that trans women were coercing sex from lesbians.

Now the article was based on a poor premise to start with, "Do some \ do " is almost always going to be "yes" because there are bad people in basically every demographic. That doesn't mean we go around writing fearmongering articles about those groups. But it gets far, far worse.

The article was based on a survey of 88 women from a group called "Get the L out", whose entire purpose is trans exclusion. So heavily sampling bias to start, to say the least. The group, and the survey, also considered things like saying that trans women are women or can be lesbians to count as "being coerced into having sex with trans women", because implying that trans women are women means that they can be lesbians means that they are within the broader dating pool of lesbians, and to them that amounts to coercing lesbians to date men. Which is obviously absurd and not what a normal person would think of when hearing "coerce into sex". So the survey was deeply misleading and not at all what the headline implied.

The second main contributor to the article was adult actress Lily Cade. Who has admitted to sexually assaulting multiple women. Which makes her an odd choice for an article about sexual assault, don't you think? These assaults were known long before the article was written, and came up with a Google search. Odd that it slipped through the BBC's rigorous editorial process. Cade also went on a rant a few days after the article was published, where she called for all trans women to be executed, and called for several named trans women to be lynched. The BBC cut her contribution with a vague message not explaining why.

The BBC also claimed to have reached out to prominent trans women who speak about sex, and claimed that nobody agreed to speak with them. Which was proven to be a lie when Chelsea Poe, a high-profile trans woman who speaks about sex and relationships, revealed that she had in fact been interviewed.

Genuinely one of the most disgustingly biased pieces of "journalism" I've ever seen.

This article openly implies something that I wish moderates and liberals would understand and internalise.

Conservatives do not care about the rules. They do not value the process. It is only a means to an end for them, if the means does not lead to their desired end, they will abandon it.

That is not how moderates and liberals tend to conceptualise politics, where the rules and the process are of the utmost importance, even when you lose. Where the means matter more than the ends.

It explains so much of why conservatives seem to get things done with any scrap of power, but liberals and progressives need larger majorities to accomplish similar changes.

That's just because you're struggling to parse :)

I'm not insulting you, I'm saying your comment is pathetic. Sorry you are struggling to parse :)
That said: Bloody hell, how pathetic.

Bloody hell, how pathetic.

Bloody hell, how pathetic.