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/)EH
Posts
0
Comments
185
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • When they said, "I don't care about your parents," it was an expression of apathy, not animosity. It was them telling you that they agree, and that their point is about the greater system, not that guy's aunt or your parents. You took it personally and got more defensive. Their absolute does hold, because it's in regard to a system. The point isn't that your parents are individually bad people, like you seem to think it is, it's that they're part of a bad system, and regardless of their individual actions, the system is still bad. Fundamentally, you, the other commenters, and I agree. They aren't trying to argue that you're defending landlords in general, the argument is that your defense of your parents excuses them from the system.

    A fair and kind cop is still responsible for participating in an evil system, just as your parents are. They may be good people, with good intentions, and treat people well. No one is denying that. It's just entirely besides the point. They're still hoarding property that should be possessed by those that live in them, and housing should be cheaper. Without landlords and real estate conglomerates driving prices high, there should be a surplus of housing. Again, your parents might be good people, but they are participating in an immoral system. Even the best landlord is still a landlord, and while they are nowhere near anyone's first target to fix the system, they're still participating.

    The best cop is still a cop, the best billionaire is still a billionaire, and the best landlord is still a landlord. It's nothing personal against them specifically.

  • As a neutral outside reader, this person does not sound like they are hating on your parents specifically, and you come across as extremely defensive (understandably). Their point seems to be that the existence of a good cop doesn't make the police state tolerable, nor does the existence of a good landlord make the system of people owning other's homes tolerable.

    Regardless of how good any landlord is, it would be better for homes to be affordable and owned by those that live in them. In the current system, some areas are unaffordable without renting, but that doesn't make the landlords morally good categorically, it means they're part of the problem that drives prices too high in an area. Owning property to rent artificially drives the price of real estate up. Ideally, renting should be far, far more limited or entirely phased out depending on the specific situation. No one is saying that your parents specifically are evil, but they are part of a larger system that is.

  • The entire second half of your comment is both prejudiced and incorrect. You are generalizing an entire marginalized group by the actions of a few people you have interacted with. I have many trans friends irl, interact in communities with people across the gender spectrum online, and am engaged to a trans woman. I have never experienced someone being rude when they weren't treated rudely first. Additionally, trans people and "gays" are different categories entirely. You do not sound like the ally you claim to be.

  • Genuinely, I cannot tell what your point is. In some alternate universe, are we just rolling the rocks downhill? Don't you think we'd already be doing that? This seems like a great use case to replace diesel trucks with ones that recharge themselves using potential energy from ore. This absolutely is a galaxy brain moment, in that it's a very smart idea.

  • Regardless of your opinion on whether dude has become genderless or not (I also use dude for my friends of any gender), the word is a gendered term that has become ubiquitous. If someone doesn't want me to use "dude" referring to them, I won't. It's not good to assume, so until I know that someone doesn't mind, I'm not going to use gendered terms contrary to their gender. I wouldn't call a man "sis" or "girl" the same way I would women I'm friends with, unless I know that doesn't make them uncomfortable. I wouldn't call a woman "bro" or "guy" the same way I would men I'm friends with unless I checked. All of those terms are gender nonspecific for me, but they might make someone who doesn't have my lived experience uncomfortable.

  • Honey

    Jump
  • What are you on about? There are plenty of great sources of protein that aren't meat, and I have friends that have been vegan for decades and are healthy, some of which are in incredibly good shape. Also, you're not even right about the "recover from a single steak" thing, because our bodies stop processing meat properly after enough time having not eaten it, and too much too soon can make you sick. Additionally, I never claimed to be vegan! Weird takes all around.

    They appear to have deleted their comment, this is what it said:

    And the common trend of vegans becoming really sickly only to recover after a single steak means nothing to you?

    Then agian, you are eating eggs so you aren't REALLY going Vegan, there's still plenty of protein in there.

  • Honey

    Jump
  • I'm not vegan, I'm vegetarian, but I don't need any supplements to be just fine. I know plenty of vegans who are happy and healthy without supplements. It isn't that hard to find sources elsewhere in your diet. I've never understood the malnutrition argument, when we've known that you can be perfectly healthy (and statistically healthier than otherwise) when eating vegan. You can't just eat salads and expect to be okay, but doesn't that sound like such a bland diet anyways? I prefer making stir fries, burritos, stews, and other mixed dishes where I can hit all the macro and micro nutrients my body needs. I'm very healthy and haven't eaten meat or animal products outside of humanely sourced eggs (my friend has chickens) for years.

  • I think the other comment covered it but I believe this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes photography such an amazing artform. People study and practice, for a long time, to take photos like this. This isn't a cell phone pointed in the general direction of a subject with conveniently optimal lighting for its tiny lens, though that could produce a good picture, this takes a great deal more experience, preparation, and creativity to frame and capture the subject in a certain way with extraordinary timing to get a dynamic, emotion-filled result.

  • whether they are ever released or not

    This is the most important line. They might not ever be able to be rehabilitated. Maybe there's something broken in them that can be fixed with therapy. Maybe there isn't, and they never can be released without significant danger of reoffending. Either way, it isn't our place to execute anyone for their crimes. If there is a crime, there will be innocent people convicted of it, and if there is a death penalty, there will be innocent people that receive it. The entire point of the post is that the definition of "pedo" continues to be expanded, until it's really just being used as an ever expanding label to apply to political out-groups.

    Where you draw the line may be different from where others draw the line, but no matter where you draw the line, some innocent person is dying, and maybe someone that committed no crime but being marginalized. As the post said, conservatives have been trying to expand the definition of pedophile to include queer people for decades, and ramping up the violent rhetoric as well. The more we advocate for violence against those we consider deserving, even if their crime is heinous, the more we assist those trying to expand the definition in their attempt to wield that hatred as a weapon against their chosen targets.

    In summary, if you're okay with the death penalty for pedophiles, then you're okay with innocent people that were convicted wrongfully being executed too, and maybe for political reasons if the right gets their way.