7 ms·

Don't you think it'd be better to ratify the most vile proposal while the ideals of freedom still have majority reign? To create a fiasco so enduring it won't s

Don't you think it'd be better to ratify the most vile proposal while the ideals of freedom still have majority reign? To create a fiasco so enduring it won't soon be forgotten? And before tools of mass manipulation become any more technologically sophisticated? If I'm reading [1] correctly, we're just picking up momentum down a decades-long slippery slope. 1. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_202...

concordDance 4y ago
I expect initially only those who are unpopular and unlikely to be defended by the public will be prosecuted. Then over time more political enemies (probably starting with "trans women aren't women" activists) will be prosecuted and the slow slide begins...
- dover 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mikrotikker 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    That's highly regional and cultural. Few people probably believe the idea you have in your head, but, then, few people are probably espousing it.
    - dover 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - wizzwizz4 4y ago
        Again, culturally- and regionally-specific. My anecdotal evidence is that the people I've talked to (a narrow, biased group of people) have more nuanced views than the surveys pick up. Where I live, more people support the death penalty than are transphobic (according to polling, no less!). Most people don't know the first thing about anything. Ask them what we should do about climate change, and they'll say "household recycling". Ask them whether they're okay with the environmental impact of a nuclear power station, and they'll say they're outraged about it. The uninformed opinion of people who haven't really thought very hard, when presented with a loaded question, is not particularly indicative of the process they use to form their views: it's more indicative of your sampling method. I don't know much about how sanctuaries and safe spaces are run, but it's my understanding that they don't generally have "we accept anyone who meets this sentence-long description" policies. Round these parts, shelters have always been able to discriminate against trans people with reason, and they haven't been doing so, and it hasn't been an issue: public sentiment is just that. People have been medically-transitioning in English-speaking cultures for well over a century, now, and it's only been a Big Deal in the last couple of decades. Politics.
        dover 4y ago
        [flagged]
        wizzwizz4 4y ago
        …? No? It indicates that the anti-discrimination law permits you to discriminate, so long as you have a good reason for it. I'll add: the current fuss about "protecting women's spaces" is pointless, because the right they're arguing for already exists, and the people running shelters by-and-large aren't invoking it. If they want domestic violence shelters to refuse service to trans people (who are, btw, more often victims of domestic violence than their cisgender counterparts), they should be campaigning against the charities that run the shelters, not campaigning, protesting and petitioning to change laws that are already the way they want them. If helping the vulnerable were causing actual problems, they'd be able to cite instances of those problems over the past three decades, rather than just appealing to hypothetical situations that might even have happened, once, somewhere in the world, but probably haven't.
  - slg 4y ago
    Funny that you are so confident this is a popular opinion and yet still feel the need to create a throwaway account to voice that opinion.
    - dover 4y ago
      That I'm commenting on a new account doesn't invalidate anything I've said. This is a weak and irrelevant criticism.
      - shanebellone 4y ago
        Your commentary is representative of low intelligence. Stupid is a qualifying factor for disregard.
        F2hP18Foam 4y ago
        Statement A is wrong because the person who said it is stupid. Why are they stupid? Because they said statement A. Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either.
        shanebellone 4y ago
        Hatred and bigotry are wielded by the weak, angry, stupid, and scared. If your position is congruent with the parent comment, I know exactly what you are. I have no reason to debate small humans. "Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either." Also, straw man. I chose "disregard" intentionally. Disregard is not synonymous with refute.
        wizzwizz4 4y ago
        Calling people you dislike “stupid” and “low intelligence” is indicative of bigoted attitudes.[0] While I'm in favour of reclaiming some meaning from the word “stupid”,[1] what you're doing here is not that. If you care about this sort of thing (which you seem to), you might want to reconsider how you go about it. > > Using circular logic It is best for your criticisms of things to be founded in truth, where possible. The first and last resort is the truth. It's a good habit to get into. There were plenty of other things you could have said, including: > No, it's actually quite relevant. You needn't worry about the truth justifying bigotry, in case that's the issue: while it's theoretically possible for a given piece of bigotry to have a basis in fact, reality seems to have some rather strong opinions on the matter! :-) If bigoted rhetoric had a habit of being correct, I think I would've found out by now. And if it were true, you would expect to see certain kinds of bigotry popping up in multiple places independently; rather than having traceable provenance, either as adaptions of prior bigotry, or as traced back to a historical figure with a strong and documented motivation for having people believe it. That's not to say you need to put much effort into responding. But if you feel like putting that little effort in, it's best not to respond at all.[2] [0]: https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/stupid-is-an-ableist-slur-breaking-down-defenses-around-ableist-language-liberating-our-words/ https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/stupid-is-an-able... [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20110824041258/http://www.stupidity.net/story2/index2.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110824041258/http://www.stupid... (see especially page 24) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition
  - crashmat 4y ago
    I don't know. It really depends where you are. P.S could you be any more insensitive and non-understanding of others' experience?
bombcar 4y ago
The law of large numbers means that the vast majority won’t be prosecuted so nobody will really care. See: patriot act.

concordDance 4y ago

I expect initially only those who are unpopular and unlikely to be defended by the public will be prosecuted. Then over time more political enemies (probably starting with "trans women aren't women" activists) will be prosecuted and the slow slide begins...

dover 4y ago
[flagged]
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  [flagged]
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  That's highly regional and cultural. Few people probably believe the idea you have in your head, but, then, few people are probably espousing it.
  - dover 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - wizzwizz4 4y ago
      Again, culturally- and regionally-specific. My anecdotal evidence is that the people I've talked to (a narrow, biased group of people) have more nuanced views than the surveys pick up. Where I live, more people support the death penalty than are transphobic (according to polling, no less!). Most people don't know the first thing about anything. Ask them what we should do about climate change, and they'll say "household recycling". Ask them whether they're okay with the environmental impact of a nuclear power station, and they'll say they're outraged about it. The uninformed opinion of people who haven't really thought very hard, when presented with a loaded question, is not particularly indicative of the process they use to form their views: it's more indicative of your sampling method. I don't know much about how sanctuaries and safe spaces are run, but it's my understanding that they don't generally have "we accept anyone who meets this sentence-long description" policies. Round these parts, shelters have always been able to discriminate against trans people with reason, and they haven't been doing so, and it hasn't been an issue: public sentiment is just that. People have been medically-transitioning in English-speaking cultures for well over a century, now, and it's only been a Big Deal in the last couple of decades. Politics.
      - dover 4y ago
        [flagged]
        wizzwizz4 4y ago
        …? No? It indicates that the anti-discrimination law permits you to discriminate, so long as you have a good reason for it. I'll add: the current fuss about "protecting women's spaces" is pointless, because the right they're arguing for already exists, and the people running shelters by-and-large aren't invoking it. If they want domestic violence shelters to refuse service to trans people (who are, btw, more often victims of domestic violence than their cisgender counterparts), they should be campaigning against the charities that run the shelters, not campaigning, protesting and petitioning to change laws that are already the way they want them. If helping the vulnerable were causing actual problems, they'd be able to cite instances of those problems over the past three decades, rather than just appealing to hypothetical situations that might even have happened, once, somewhere in the world, but probably haven't.
- slg 4y ago
  Funny that you are so confident this is a popular opinion and yet still feel the need to create a throwaway account to voice that opinion.
  - dover 4y ago
    That I'm commenting on a new account doesn't invalidate anything I've said. This is a weak and irrelevant criticism.
    - shanebellone 4y ago
      Your commentary is representative of low intelligence. Stupid is a qualifying factor for disregard.
      - F2hP18Foam 4y ago
        Statement A is wrong because the person who said it is stupid. Why are they stupid? Because they said statement A. Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either.
        shanebellone 4y ago
        Hatred and bigotry are wielded by the weak, angry, stupid, and scared. If your position is congruent with the parent comment, I know exactly what you are. I have no reason to debate small humans. "Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either." Also, straw man. I chose "disregard" intentionally. Disregard is not synonymous with refute.
        wizzwizz4 4y ago
        Calling people you dislike “stupid” and “low intelligence” is indicative of bigoted attitudes.[0] While I'm in favour of reclaiming some meaning from the word “stupid”,[1] what you're doing here is not that. If you care about this sort of thing (which you seem to), you might want to reconsider how you go about it. > > Using circular logic It is best for your criticisms of things to be founded in truth, where possible. The first and last resort is the truth. It's a good habit to get into. There were plenty of other things you could have said, including: > No, it's actually quite relevant. You needn't worry about the truth justifying bigotry, in case that's the issue: while it's theoretically possible for a given piece of bigotry to have a basis in fact, reality seems to have some rather strong opinions on the matter! :-) If bigoted rhetoric had a habit of being correct, I think I would've found out by now. And if it were true, you would expect to see certain kinds of bigotry popping up in multiple places independently; rather than having traceable provenance, either as adaptions of prior bigotry, or as traced back to a historical figure with a strong and documented motivation for having people believe it. That's not to say you need to put much effort into responding. But if you feel like putting that little effort in, it's best not to respond at all.[2] [0]: https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/stupid-is-an-ableist-slur-breaking-down-defenses-around-ableist-language-liberating-our-words/ https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/stupid-is-an-able... [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20110824041258/http://www.stupidity.net/story2/index2.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110824041258/http://www.stupid... (see especially page 24) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition
- crashmat 4y ago
  I don't know. It really depends where you are. P.S could you be any more insensitive and non-understanding of others' experience?

bombcar 4y ago

The law of large numbers means that the vast majority won’t be prosecuted so nobody will really care. See: patriot act.