The Christian right is coming for divorce next
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 345Joined 1 yr. ago
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee
Posts
0
Comments
345
Joined
1 yr. ago
I don't think there's an all-encompassing term for people who have "destructive"/harmful beliefs considered conservative. Most I can think of is "bigoted capitalists", but even "bigoted" could be interpreted way differently. Plus, that excludes bigoted non-capitalists so it has a more narrow usage...
What I go with, though, is "fascists" and "collaborators". Plain and simple, straight to the point, but most importantly no chance of confusion – that's how I see our conservatives, their supporters, and their enablers. Ultra-socially-regressives (usually religious) who want a system that enforces/maintains a social hierarchy they deem "natural" (or having a religious justification for the hierarchy). Maybe "wannabe fascists" or "social fascists" would be more accurate, since generally people think of a dictatorship when they think of "fascism".
"Oppressors" may also work, and it also can pair with "collaborators". It's more general, but I think here the flexibility may come be an advantage, and it isn't tied to a specific set of political beliefs, it vaguely just means "those who use unjust force/threats of force to control others". Of course, contemporary conservatives follow this definition.
I agree with what you're getting at, but "conservative" is relative and doesn't actually indicate specific beliefs, so "conservatives should never have any power" can be easily twisted once the conservatives we'd currently think of are gone.
Looks like someone wasn't taught about separation of powers...
Executive orders only control the executive branch/manage the federal government, and certain other things the president has control over (like elaborating on an already-in-place law), they can't make or pass laws. Executive orders that overreach can be found invalid and blocked. The president can't just use laws as a suggestion.
Aaanyway, if you wanted to reveal my place of origin you probably could, given how you're fond of digging through my post history. Go see if you can put together the clues. Or don't, because if I did want to share that I would have at this point, don't you think?
So basically what you're saying is that you're North American and haven't had any education outside of North America, yet you're trying to make it sound like you have so you can pretend you have any experience to disprove anything others say about non-western education systems. Because there is absolutely 0 possible way to pin a person's place of origin down based on the continents they went to school in unless they're Australian or something. That answers all the questions I need to know about.
Your argument basically boils down to "you're making generalizations and assuming other countries' education systems are just like the US'!" while making the assumption that other education systems are completely fundamentally different to the US' and have no similarities (which it's pretty easy to find out that most other countries do use the same general scale for grading and do have a massive problem with ableism especially with neurodivergent kids). And making crazy comments about how saying other countries have a problem with grading systems and ableism = ethnocentrism? Like you have provided absolutely 0 counterexamples other than vaguely saying "I know people who aren't American" without any specificity which is pretty sus. Do you just assume the entire developing & underdeveloped world has to be "backwards" from the US or something? That would seem pretty ethnocentrist.
If your counterexample is that in multiple of the countries you went to school in the education system didn't work like that, the obvious point is going to be "where was it that education didn't work like that?". I would hope you'd realize that before you even brought up your own location to make a point in the first place.
I'll keep this short since you already seem extremely unhinged and half the stuff you wrote is basically empty insults.
You losers can't even prop up Ukraine against Russia, and think you can take on China.
Remind me how long that "10-day special operation" is taking again? Seriously, how can the "2nd best military in the world" falter so hard against their tiny neighbour with 1/4 of the population just because they got weapon donations from other countries? It shouldn't be that hard to counter right, I mean Russian military technology is allegedly so advanced and totally not stuck in the 80s. I would understand if it were half-way across the globe or something, but they're LITERALLY ON THEIR DOORSTEP. It's also concerning that China has repeatedly failed Russia when it comes to Ukraine and has caved into international pressure quite a few times, maybe it's because China also realizes that the war is completely embarrassing Russia?
The sheer delusion here. Burgerland economy would collapse overnight. Go check where all your shit comes from sometime. 😂
The US navy has a larger airforce than the entire Chinese airforce, and the US has a larger and more advanced air fleet than the next 5 countries (Russia, China, India, SK, Japan) combined, and invests 3x as much as China into the military (and that's what, 13% of the US' budget?). The US navy also has over 2x the displacement of the Chinese navy. Spending is DEFINITELY not a problem considering that.
read and weep ignoramus https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4657439-china-doesnt-need-to-invade-to-achieve-taiwanese-unification/
Damn, an opinion piece news article. Guess that destroys the entire American military and truly shows that China numba one.
Latest polling shows that vast majority of people want to maintain the status quo, and very few people want independence, but do go on child https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
I literally said that exact same thing in my original comment, it goes against your point lmao. The status quo is defacto independence and "Taiwan, not China". Notice how unification is by far the least popular response in what you linked, and has decreased in popularity significantly over decades. And of course, gaining independence eventually has increased in popularity over multiple decades. Is this part of China's grand plan, to make unification with them less popular over time?
Hey, you may be shocked by this idea, but sometimes people live in places where they weren't born for a while.
That... would make you American. I'm confused on how you think you can live and work in America for a long period of time while participating in the culture and not be American...
Regardless, you definitely could have gone through a different country's primary/secondary education system, so how about I ask this: Which continent was it on? Out of, say, North America (including Central America and the Caribbean), South America, Europe (including Greenland, Turkey, and the Caucasus & Russia), Africa (let's say this includes the Middle East even though most of it's geographically Asian), Asia, and Oceania. Or which continents if you'd be so kind, since you say you went through multiple countries'.
I don't think non-Americans would primarily be talking about specific American cities, things they experienced in America, primarily American cultural icons, and American politics while also calling American Democrats "leftists" among other American-centric ideas, but I suppose anything's possible isn't it. But that's just from a few seconds of scrolling.
Not that you can't know anything about other education systems because of that – I just find it hard to believe.
Considering you're both American and a native English speaker, I somehow doubt that you have gone through primary or secondary schooling in East Asia, let alone anywhere outside of North America... regardless of that, it is very justified to make such generalizations considering how a majority of education is organized – most have very similar structures and are scaled-grading based with the objective to get a "passing grade" and often times those who get the highest grades get the most opportunities immediately post-education (generally college or better entry into jobs). Teaching is usually not one-on-one, and classes are mostly targetted towards neurotypical children.
Additionally, regardless of what country you go, it is a fact that the government and culture is extremely ableist, and likely has some form of rampant classism (although this is less universal than ableism). Systematic and cultural biases like that undeniably seep into the education system in every country. Your assumptions that education systems being ableist are probably not the default or widespread phenomenon really hinge on "being well-informed on the complexities of childhood/education psychology" and "proper disability awareness and accomodation" being one of the default states. It's not, and in reality it takes significant amounts of resources and scientific approaches being pooled into specifically accomodating for neurodivergent and/or disabled and underprivileged children.
Sorry but do you know nothing of schooling in Japan, South Korea, or China? Or Germany or anywhere else in Europe? Would you be so kind as to point out a country where the part about education primarily rewarding being neurotypical, encouraging perfectionism/performance/competition over learning/personal success (and usually rewarding being privileged but not always) doesn't apply? Where would you say has an "equal" or "fair" education system? The education systems don't have to work the same way to have very similar and related fundamental flaws.
When I say "western world" I am using the common definition that includes South America and Eastern Europe. I suppose a better grouping to use would be primarily countries with a "medium, high, or very high" development index, considering those countries are likely to have a decently high rate of education with at least a somewhat consistent and functional education system. Considering that even includes war-torn theocratic dictatorships, I'd say it's a pretty lenient metric.
What you're doing here is called sophistry. Taiwan being part of China is a fact that's recognized by international law.
Tell me you have no idea how the UN works without explicitly saying so. A majority of countries not recognizing Taiwan doesn't mean it's "international law" that Taiwan isn't independent.
It's really that simple. The reality is that China could remove US sponsored regime in the rogue province any time they want.
LMAO this is such a cope. Yeah I'm sure the extremely aggressive all-bark-no-bite and constant "you better not do <x diplomacy with Taiwan or military action in Taiwanese strait/South China Sea> again or we'll do something about it, I swear!" empire is suuuper capable of taking Taiwan. They know if they tried full-out war against the US or its allies (Taiwan), the US navy would cut off their international trade and turn their country upside down – it's why they're trying so hard (and failing) to seize full control of the South China Sea.
However, they realize that it's much better to remove burgerland influence in a peaceful way, and that's what will happen.
Again, absolute cope. They've been at it for over 75 years and haven't made any progress, considering Taiwanese have developed significantly more national identity and even more people in Taiwan support the country participating in international relations under the name "Taiwan" (80%) and consider themselves primarily Taiwanese (90%), and only 6% consider themselves more Chinese than Taiwanese (more people considered themselves primarily Chinese many decades ago but that has long since dwindled).
It's incredible how people have trouble grasping such basic things.
It's incredible how you have trouble grasping the situation and think China is going to "peacefully" absorb Taiwan when Taiwan is farther from China than ever in terms of national identity and international participation.
Several polls have indicated an increase in support of Taiwanese independence in the three decades after 1990. In a Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation poll conducted in June 2020, 54% of respondents supported de jure independence for Taiwan, 23.4% preferred maintaining the status quo, 12.5% favored unification with China, and 10% did not hold any particular view on the matter. This represented the highest level of support for Taiwanese independence since the survey was first conducted in 1991. A later TPOF poll in 2022 showed similar results.
I'll say it again: Why would countries risk ruining trade relations with China, one of the three most important trade powers internationally, over unnecessarily pointing out reality and thus contradicting China? And how can you seriously say territory a country doesn't control in any capacity at all theirs? Why do you think a majority of world powers are independently trading with Taiwan if Taiwan isn't independent from China?
Don't you think China would, you know, not be constantly complaining about not having control over Taiwan for the past few decades and making bluffs about invading if Taiwan were already part of China? That's a pretty obvious sign that "no, China doesn't own Taiwan in any capacity".
The US state department doesn't decide which countries own or control which territory, now does it? How exactly can you say territory you don't control (neither legally nor militarily) and likely will never control is part of your own country? Furthermore, why would the US risk ruining trade relations with China over unnecessarily pointing out reality, when it doesn't benefit the US to recognize Taiwanese independence?
"We" is most of the schools in a majority of education systems in the world. At least, a majority of kids in most education systems are subject to this kind of education. Especially in the western world and East Asia where education is widespread and well-established, and where typical grading is seen as god.
The way we do education is based on fundamentally flawed concepts, from the grading systems we use to the clear design towards specifically (neuro)typical and more privileged children. This is just true everywhere. Childhood psychology/developmental psychology and education are pretty complicated and poorly understood by most of the public, even educators. And obviously significant social biases also play a part in the education system.
Rich kids without ADHD generally do far better in school and get into far better colleges or professions initially than poor kids or kids with ADHD... there are exceptions, but for the most part, almost all of the kids that fail school either have some form of disability (often times an undiagnosed disorder) or are underprivileged in some way (like being poor). Generally those kids would excel in a better environment, hell usually the "gifted" classes are primarily neurodivergent kids in elementary/middle school (or equivalents).
Locked
Oregon man who drugged daughter's friends with insomnia medication at sleepover gets prison term
Jump
Melatonin gummies? Those count as "drugs"? I thought they were considered supplements like vitamins and stuff.
A large portion of medical practicioners are absolutely fucking insane. It's no wonder people have a massive distrust of healthcare. How is it possible that medical research and medical practice have such vastly different kinds of people in them?
It's scary when you realize that a medical degree is just a degree like any other, and that a lot of those people went through college the same way as any other person, probably not paying attention 90% of the time, and cheating on most of their assignments... your likelihood of having a dysfunctional doctor is about the same as your likelihood of having a dysfunctional tech support specialist.
Lemmy's primary demographic is like, developers/engineers who get paid enough to spend most of the day doing shit other than work and still live comfortably. (And Redditors that decided they were too cool for closed-source corporate malware.)
exaggeratingly avoiding eye contact and making a stupid mouth expression is what overly dramatic/narcissistic people do to emphasize the hotness of their take, the sheer disagreeableness they presume their words or actions have
it's like "sorry not sorry" as an expression. it is pretentiousness incarnate. i think it's more of an adult pop-culture and person-with-radical-political-beliefs thing than a white person thing, it's the result of watching way too much american reality tv
Conservatives when someone says people should have to go through a psychological examination and be proven to be mentally well to get a gun: 😡
Conservatives when trans people have guns: "Th-they're mentally ill! They shouldn't have guns since they aren't psychologically fit!"
I think it's cuz they realize constantly having fantasies of someone doing wrong that justifies you to shoot them and being extremely narcissistic, irrationally hateful towards certain groups, and paranoid makes them unfit to handle a weapon.
That being said, I like oppressed groups being able to arm themselves, and I don't trust the conservatives who have run where I live for centuries to enforce gun laws equally, so I prefer to keep my way-too-lenient gun laws... since I'm moving to a large urban area soon though, the only thing I'll need a rifle to defend against is the landlord
Why limit it to two? I say allow any amount of people in a civil union, or allow one person to have a civil union with multiple people separately. It's mostly for visits in the hospital, parental rights, stuff like that.
Of course, that makes residence/citizenship based on relationships complicated, but that's mostly an issue caused by closed national borders being a fucked up concept in the first place.