Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

No, no, no, that’s “harvesting” now. Can’t say killing ‘cause that has connotations guy.

[delphonso]

The arguments are purely bad faith or fallacious. The nirvana fallacy is especially frequent. 'It won't stop all murders, therefore don't do it.'

[MaxTheFox]

The way I see it, a machine which serves a purpose badly, inefficiently, and is much more easy to weaponize than any equivalent option isn't actually that different from a weapon. Because there are better options. Car culture and gun culture both kill, and both need to be fought.

Public transportation would only work for urban areas. In rural areas, you kinda need a car. And a gun for that matter, to kill pests like coyotes etc.

[Vector]

Note I did not use the name of either specific US party, and both are very susceptable. Before I get flamed for saying that (I admit the two parties are culpable to seperate degrees) here is a recent link to show how subcultures are used as public scapegoats. Sorry LGBTQ+ it looks like your turn under the bus is happening sooner than expected, with the moderate status-quo (prone to backstabbery of their allies I might add) all in a fluster after the election donation racket didn't surprisingly lead to effective leadership <cough Manchin>, and if the following article is emblematic of a new "strategy" (which being an opinion piece is not fair to judge it as), someone's pushing to blame you all in the hopes of pickups of moderate female voters concerned by the aborition ruling who are on the fence while usefully deflecting blame from the same legally bribable people in power the last decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/opinion/the-far-right-and-far-left-agree-on-one-thing-women-dont-count.html

To be fair, as abhorrant as the link above is, the following is one where LGBTQ+ is linked to the abortion decision in a non-blaming way. I don't mean to say the above link is a common opinion, it seems to be a spaghetti at the wall. I mostly posted it due to how recent it was.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/opinion/dobbs-griswold-abortion-rights-conformity.html

After all, who else you gonna vote for? The other side is even worse for you, to the point there is a real risk of you becoming (potentially legally) unacceptable in polite society once again. First they came for the furries and all that...

If only there were an alternative
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/opinion/moderate-party-new-jersey.html
From opinion piece:
The Moderate Party is an experiment: an alliance between Democrats of all stripes, independents and moderate Republicans hoping to win an election while pursuing a reform to the election laws that could empower swing voters to save our democracy from toxic polarization.
---

My suggestion to LGBTQ+ individuals would be to put out feelers and see if this new party would be amenable to listening to your positions on personal liberty. As a fusion party it will tend to be a moderating factor, which means it depends on where "moderate" is settled whether it is in your interests or not. My concern is different than that, in that I would like to see election finance reform as quintessential to longer term attempts at reforms relating to corporate and government legalized corruption. However I would feel far more comfortable supporting a party with an interest in personal liberty that has you in it as well.

I've read both NYT articles that are most important to your point: first, the false equivalence between the overturning of Roe v Wade and use of inclusive language ERASING WOMEN, and second, the proposed fusion party in New Jersey.

At this point my perception is that the proposed moderates are LGB inclusive and TQ+ exclusive (this is usually what they're referring to when they say things about setting aside the culture wars). There's some kind of op going on to separate the community and turn the LGBs, and especially the L's who are often forgotten in mainstream gay culture and suffer a lot from predatory cisgender and straight men, against the T's and Q's. I've seen this rhetoric all over both Twitter and the New York Times comments.

What's being offered is the normal assimilationist bargain: "Behave like us. End your culture. Destroy your safe spaces. Definitely no drag queen story hour! No storybooks with queer children -- that survive. X's and Y's! Bad biology for the gender binary, Baby! Then we'll stop hurting you -- probably -- until we need a scapegoat -- hold my beer --"


I agree that the democrats probably shouldn't be running a gender-radical platform if they want to keep the white, cis, female vote (such as they had it, since that group went for Trump over Clinton). How many trans people have seen the hatred and disgust in their own parents' faces? Way too many ... let's say that. It should be obvious that mothers in general are not going to be for trans people's needs.

With that said, the Democratic proposals are nowhere near enough to protect trans people from the violence they constantly experience in this country. Voting for the Democratic party is a vote against "let's do a Chechnya," which is a good start, but meaningful protection is going to come from organizing and mutual aid. Fellow queers who are in despair, find your people and get you an education . . .


A relevant essay by a trans woman: Hot Allostatic Load.

[martinuzz]

A pitbull on the other hand…

A pit -- most dogs, really -- generally takes a hell of a lot more effort to make "cause trouble" than either a gun or a car, actually. It takes concentrated abuse to make a pit even remotely as dangerous as a car, nevermind a gun. They're not troublesome breeds unless someone actively makes them one.

+1
An agressive pitbull isn't the problem, it's owner is, just like with any other breed of dog. Their bad rep is undeserved.
The only thing with pitbulls is that IF they bite, their jaw locks.

[scriver]

The same could be said about guns. Except pitbulls completely lack any reason to exist other than personal gratification.

[martinuzz]

Is that your stance on all pets, or just pitbulls?

[delphonso]

The same could be said about guns. Except pitbulls completely lack any reason to exist other than personal gratification.

The issue is effort. It takes effort to make pitbulls deadly, when guns accidentally kill plenty of people, effortlessly.

Shout out to Taurus USA for their shitty guns that actually go off while still holstered. Also the government can't demand a recall of mismanufactured guns because that'd be a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-28/how-defective-guns-became-the-only-product-that-can-t-be-recalled

[scriver]

Is that your stance on all pets, or just pitbulls?

If an animal had another reason for being kept beyond personal gratification then it's not a pet, it's a work animal or livestock.

The same could be said about guns. Except pitbulls completely lack any reason to exist other than personal gratification.

The issue is effort. It takes effort to make pitbulls deadly, when guns accidentally kill plenty of people, effortlessly.

Quite the opposite. It takes effort to train pitbulls not to be hazards. Laziness and inability is the main cause of badly raised dogs.

[Lord Shonus]

Shout out to Taurus USA for their shitty guns that actually go off while still holstered. Also the government can't demand a recall of mismanufactured guns because that'd be a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-28/how-defective-guns-became-the-only-product-that-can-t-be-recalled

That's not accurate. There are many products that the government cannot force a recall on. One of them, despite the claim in that article, is motor vehicles - there is no provision in any law that says recalled vehicles must be turned in for repair, and you can register a car even if every single component has been recalled.

[martinuzz]

Is that your stance on all pets, or just pitbulls?

If an animal had another reason for being kept beyond personal gratification then it's not a pet, it's a work animal or livestock.

Fair enough, although I would say both work animals and livestock are also just kept for self gratification. Fulfilling the desires to do less work and eat (or wear) animal products respectively.

[delphonso]

Shout out to Taurus USA for their shitty guns that actually go off while still holstered. Also the government can't demand a recall of mismanufactured guns because that'd be a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-28/how-defective-guns-became-the-only-product-that-can-t-be-recalled

That's not accurate. There are many products that the government cannot force a recall on. One of them, despite the claim in that article, is motor vehicles - there is no provision in any law that says recalled vehicles must be turned in for repair, and you can register a car even if every single component has been recalled.

Ignoring semantics, the point still stands there - a should-be recalled car is pretty unlikely to start itself and run someone over (failing brakes on an incline, perhaps might lead to a death). A gun which should be recalled is far more deadly.

All things aside, I think the solution to that problem is clearly that the government steps in and has more ability to recall (and enforce recall) on products which are dangerous/deadly to its citizens.

[McTraveller]

The culture to which I was referring, by the way, is the culture of "Self first, I do what pleases me over all else, you can't tell me I'm sick or wrong, and you're interfering with my rights if you say otherwise."  Basically, hyper-individualism.

To contrast, if you have a culture which places high values on "others", people won't use any weapon against random (or specific) people to lash out or make a statement or whatever, because they will value people higher than that.  You'll also not get issues with public health (anti-vax, etc.), you'll have fewer traffic violations and noise violations, less pollution, and less exploitation and abuse overall.

[delphonso]

It'd be a lot easier to change American culture if people stopped shooting at each other.

[Starver]

Or if absolutely everyone shoots at everybody else, of course.