5 ms·

[flagged]

by stego-tech 1y ago

[flagged]

aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
KumaBear 1y ago
[flagged]
- anotherevan 1y ago
  The Great Bible Battle https://archive.md/60QZV https://archive.md/60QZV
- viraptor 1y ago
  It happened a few times https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363
- khazhoux 1y ago
  This is not the gotcha people think it is. Bible thumpers only pay attention to a few sections of the new testament anyways.
  - RajT88 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - yndoendo 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - tialaramex 1y ago
        Nope. Phyllis Schlafly's son Andrew (Phyllis is the woman who more or less single handedly ensured the ERA didn't pass, persuading American women that somehow they didn't even want equality) ran (still runs maybe?) a web site where among other things he "re-translates" the Bible so that e.g. Jesus's preaching is "Properly" translated to mean whatever it is suits his worldview. Religion is about believing things you have no evidence for, that's its whole thing.
        scns 1y ago
        > Phyllis is the woman who more or less single handedly ensured the ERA didn't pass, persuading American women that somehow they didn't even want equality There is a series on Disney+ about this, "Mrs America". Worth watching.
      - EasyMark 1y ago
        [flagged]
        RajT88 1y ago
        [flagged]
- cryptoegorophy 1y ago
  [flagged]
CamperBob2 1y ago
These people will never actually ban pornography, That's what I used to say about Roe v. Wade. "They'll never give up that wedge issue."
- stego-tech 1y ago
  They never banned abortions for themselves, just made it more difficult to get if you’re not getting an “acceptable” one (i.e. have the money to go where it’s legal or have a private family doctor who can make Bastard Fetus go bye-bye).
  - tialaramex 1y ago
    You can see how this model worked in Ireland for example. Historically Abortion was literally prohibited constitutionally in the Republic. That changed†, one of my friends lived there at the time and she's got a picture somebody made (painted? sketched?) on her wall of the group watching the results come in. But for most of my life, abortion was absolutely illegal in the Republic of Ireland. So, if you were poor, too bad no abortions, they're illegal. But if you're wealthy you just decide to "go on holiday", maybe a long weekend somewhere nice - and miraculously while abroad you stop being pregnant. No problem †https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_...
jimbob45 1y ago
[flagged]
raincole 1y ago
> These people will never actually ban pornography Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay. > If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not ...
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  You have it backwards, Pornhub preemptively blocked access based on geolocation before the bills even passed.
  - raincole 1y ago
    So Pornhub hates money and traffic? Of course not. Pornhub blocked these IP because they knew it was going to be (and is now) illegal in those states, at least at its current form. I see it no different from said states banning Pornhub.
    - heavyset_go 1y ago
      Pornhub did it in protest[1], hope this helps. [1] https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-all-utah-traffic-in-response-to-new-age-verification-law/ https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-a...
      - pear01 1y ago
        The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.
        heavyset_go 1y ago
        That you have it backwards, because you do. Pornhub preemptively blocked states that were considering implementing ID rules, and states are not actively blocking Pornhub.
cultofmetatron 1y ago
[flagged]
- afavour 1y ago
  I think your comment would be well served by adding some reasons why.
  - ecshafer 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - afavour 1y ago
      It appears you and I have different definitions of “sharing HRT tips”.
  - beejiu 1y ago
    Because youths don't have developed critical thinking skills and HRT is an invasive medical treatment!?
    - dymk 1y ago
      Zero kids are getting HRT without their parents consent, don’t spread transphobic FUD
      - beejiu 1y ago
        It's not about the kids of their parents, it's about other parties that are promoting or encouraging HRT to other people's kids.
    - NPC82 1y ago
      Putting aside that MDs trained in medical ethics should be the ones to decide the end-all debate of HRT for those under 18y/o (or maybe 24 by your standard) -- I would imagine "tips" here is mostly about logistics of navigating the US health system and filling in health-effect anecdotes where science has yet to affirm/study (which encompasses more areas of health than you might think). Also, "Invasive" and "non-invasive" are usually reserved for surgical contexts so I'm not sure I would apply that here.
heavyset_go 1y ago
[flagged]
frogperson 1y ago
[flagged]
- NikolaNovak 1y ago
  Thank you for that, I've been looking for a decent pre-AI/Non-wikipedia summary like that. Unsurprisingly but depressingly, at least 13 out of 14 points are a perfect match.
  - yoyohello13 1y ago
    Well, jury is still out on #14…
    - mystraline 1y ago
      Gerry and Mander told me to say hi. (Seriously, gerrymandering, redistricting weaponization, bribery/campaign contributions, and the like are all forms of election corruption.)
- tialaramex 1y ago
  Tenets. A tenant is somebody who has a lease, for example to an apartment or one of those big metal sheds for a supermarket, and by analogy, customers of something like Microsoft's "Entra ID" (what was "Azure Active Directory" at least the new name is less confusing) A tenet is a belief or principle that you believe in absolutely, I think we'd say that this "protects but does not bind / binds but does not protect" idea isn't a tenet of Fascism but instead an observable trait.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  [flagged]
khazhoux 1y ago
You’re right that they consume porn, but plenty of them still want to ban it, and not just because of LGBTQ. It’s all about moralistic virtue signaling by immoral people.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  The irony of course are stats like these. From "Data Finds Republicans are Obsessed with Searching for Transgender Porn"[1]: > So far in 2022, more than 300 anti-LGBT bills have been proposed across 36 states – at least one third of which are directed at trans youth. This surge, especially in anti-trans legislation from Republicans, stands in stark contrast to a startling fact. > Republicans love transgender porn, a lot. > With more than 4.7 Million transgender porn related Google searches each month (per Ahrefs.com), do Republicans represent those searching most? The answer seems to be a clear yes. [1] https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/ https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsessio...
anon84873628 1y ago
[flagged]
makeitdouble 1y ago
In agreement, just to nitpick a single point: > These people will never actually ban pornography, because they consume pornography. Banning porn won't affect them: mainstream porn will find a way (dealing with rulings will just be a cost of business). And more than anything, making it technically illegal allows for selective enforcement, which means a lot more power for them to decide who wins and who loses.
beejiu 1y ago
[flagged]
- kennywinker 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - giingyui 1y ago
    I always wonder if these arguments are ever made in good faith. Comparing a treatment for diabetes to HRT. But there are people who really are off the deep end. So who knows.
    - kennywinker 1y ago
      Made in good faith. And HRT is very rarely given to minors. The standard of care is puberty blockers until their 18. Question about your good faith: Do you have a problem with puberty blockers when given to non-trans kids? I.e. for precocious puberty
  - beejiu 1y ago
    Yes, it should apply to all medical treatments targeted at children, since children don't have developed critical thinking skills. Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.
    - kennywinker 1y ago
      I mean at least you’re consistent - even if you want to ban diabetics from chatting about their care online.
    - Kinrany 1y ago
      I agree, but it can go too far as well. It's not healthy for children to be limited to knowing only their parents' and the government's opinions on serious topics. There has to be a balance between avoiding indoctrination and being aware of brain development schedule.
globnomulous 1y ago
> much to the chagrin of people whose power comes from harming LGBTQ+ persons/treating them as scapegoats. To their "chagrin?" Huh? The meaning of the word is the opposite of whatever you're trying to communicate, I think.

[flagged]

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

KumaBear 1y ago

[flagged]

anotherevan 1y ago
The Great Bible Battle https://archive.md/60QZV https://archive.md/60QZV
viraptor 1y ago
It happened a few times https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363
khazhoux 1y ago
This is not the gotcha people think it is. Bible thumpers only pay attention to a few sections of the new testament anyways.
- RajT88 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - yndoendo 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - tialaramex 1y ago
      Nope. Phyllis Schlafly's son Andrew (Phyllis is the woman who more or less single handedly ensured the ERA didn't pass, persuading American women that somehow they didn't even want equality) ran (still runs maybe?) a web site where among other things he "re-translates" the Bible so that e.g. Jesus's preaching is "Properly" translated to mean whatever it is suits his worldview. Religion is about believing things you have no evidence for, that's its whole thing.
      - scns 1y ago
        > Phyllis is the woman who more or less single handedly ensured the ERA didn't pass, persuading American women that somehow they didn't even want equality There is a series on Disney+ about this, "Mrs America". Worth watching.
    - EasyMark 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - RajT88 1y ago
        [flagged]
cryptoegorophy 1y ago
[flagged]

CamperBob2 1y ago

These people will never actually ban pornography, That's what I used to say about Roe v. Wade. "They'll never give up that wedge issue."

stego-tech 1y ago
They never banned abortions for themselves, just made it more difficult to get if you’re not getting an “acceptable” one (i.e. have the money to go where it’s legal or have a private family doctor who can make Bastard Fetus go bye-bye).
- tialaramex 1y ago
  You can see how this model worked in Ireland for example. Historically Abortion was literally prohibited constitutionally in the Republic. That changed†, one of my friends lived there at the time and she's got a picture somebody made (painted? sketched?) on her wall of the group watching the results come in. But for most of my life, abortion was absolutely illegal in the Republic of Ireland. So, if you were poor, too bad no abortions, they're illegal. But if you're wealthy you just decide to "go on holiday", maybe a long weekend somewhere nice - and miraculously while abroad you stop being pregnant. No problem †https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_...

jimbob45 1y ago

[flagged]

raincole 1y ago

> These people will never actually ban pornography Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay. > If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not ...

heavyset_go 1y ago
You have it backwards, Pornhub preemptively blocked access based on geolocation before the bills even passed.
- raincole 1y ago
  So Pornhub hates money and traffic? Of course not. Pornhub blocked these IP because they knew it was going to be (and is now) illegal in those states, at least at its current form. I see it no different from said states banning Pornhub.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    Pornhub did it in protest[1], hope this helps. [1] https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-all-utah-traffic-in-response-to-new-age-verification-law/ https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-a...
    - pear01 1y ago
      The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.
      - heavyset_go 1y ago
        That you have it backwards, because you do. Pornhub preemptively blocked states that were considering implementing ID rules, and states are not actively blocking Pornhub.

cultofmetatron 1y ago

[flagged]

afavour 1y ago
I think your comment would be well served by adding some reasons why.
- ecshafer 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - afavour 1y ago
    It appears you and I have different definitions of “sharing HRT tips”.
- beejiu 1y ago
  Because youths don't have developed critical thinking skills and HRT is an invasive medical treatment!?
  - dymk 1y ago
    Zero kids are getting HRT without their parents consent, don’t spread transphobic FUD
    - beejiu 1y ago
      It's not about the kids of their parents, it's about other parties that are promoting or encouraging HRT to other people's kids.
  - NPC82 1y ago
    Putting aside that MDs trained in medical ethics should be the ones to decide the end-all debate of HRT for those under 18y/o (or maybe 24 by your standard) -- I would imagine "tips" here is mostly about logistics of navigating the US health system and filling in health-effect anecdotes where science has yet to affirm/study (which encompasses more areas of health than you might think). Also, "Invasive" and "non-invasive" are usually reserved for surgical contexts so I'm not sure I would apply that here.

heavyset_go 1y ago

[flagged]

frogperson 1y ago

[flagged]

NikolaNovak 1y ago
Thank you for that, I've been looking for a decent pre-AI/Non-wikipedia summary like that. Unsurprisingly but depressingly, at least 13 out of 14 points are a perfect match.
- yoyohello13 1y ago
  Well, jury is still out on #14…
  - mystraline 1y ago
    Gerry and Mander told me to say hi. (Seriously, gerrymandering, redistricting weaponization, bribery/campaign contributions, and the like are all forms of election corruption.)
tialaramex 1y ago
Tenets. A tenant is somebody who has a lease, for example to an apartment or one of those big metal sheds for a supermarket, and by analogy, customers of something like Microsoft's "Entra ID" (what was "Azure Active Directory" at least the new name is less confusing) A tenet is a belief or principle that you believe in absolutely, I think we'd say that this "protects but does not bind / binds but does not protect" idea isn't a tenet of Fascism but instead an observable trait.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
[flagged]

khazhoux 1y ago

You’re right that they consume porn, but plenty of them still want to ban it, and not just because of LGBTQ. It’s all about moralistic virtue signaling by immoral people.

heavyset_go 1y ago
The irony of course are stats like these. From "Data Finds Republicans are Obsessed with Searching for Transgender Porn"[1]: > So far in 2022, more than 300 anti-LGBT bills have been proposed across 36 states – at least one third of which are directed at trans youth. This surge, especially in anti-trans legislation from Republicans, stands in stark contrast to a startling fact. > Republicans love transgender porn, a lot. > With more than 4.7 Million transgender porn related Google searches each month (per Ahrefs.com), do Republicans represent those searching most? The answer seems to be a clear yes. [1] https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/ https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsessio...

anon84873628 1y ago

[flagged]

makeitdouble 1y ago

In agreement, just to nitpick a single point: > These people will never actually ban pornography, because they consume pornography. Banning porn won't affect them: mainstream porn will find a way (dealing with rulings will just be a cost of business). And more than anything, making it technically illegal allows for selective enforcement, which means a lot more power for them to decide who wins and who loses.

beejiu 1y ago

[flagged]

kennywinker 1y ago
[flagged]
- giingyui 1y ago
  I always wonder if these arguments are ever made in good faith. Comparing a treatment for diabetes to HRT. But there are people who really are off the deep end. So who knows.
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    Made in good faith. And HRT is very rarely given to minors. The standard of care is puberty blockers until their 18. Question about your good faith: Do you have a problem with puberty blockers when given to non-trans kids? I.e. for precocious puberty
- beejiu 1y ago
  Yes, it should apply to all medical treatments targeted at children, since children don't have developed critical thinking skills. Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    I mean at least you’re consistent - even if you want to ban diabetics from chatting about their care online.
  - Kinrany 1y ago
    I agree, but it can go too far as well. It's not healthy for children to be limited to knowing only their parents' and the government's opinions on serious topics. There has to be a balance between avoiding indoctrination and being aware of brain development schedule.

globnomulous 1y ago

> much to the chagrin of people whose power comes from harming LGBTQ+ persons/treating them as scapegoats. To their "chagrin?" Huh? The meaning of the word is the opposite of whatever you're trying to communicate, I think.