Total posts: 115
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
I think it would be a good topic. I'm not opposed to freedom broadly, like I shouldn't be told every little aspect of my life, but people who say "muh freedom" in the face of genuinely good ideas without a detailed description how the loss of freedom lowers their quality of life more than it would be increased through social cohesion or whatever is goofy.
Also, I think it's both. When two out of three of the first three debates that are currently voting are forfeited, that has an effect on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
@Skipper_Sr
I just disagree. 10 feels like a ridiculous amount. As someone who judged half a dozen of your debates, Sir.Lancelot, it's evident that too many active debates lowers a debaters quality and that lowers the quality of the site as people stack on debates that they don't participate in, that other people are then upset that they're engaging in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Higher quality debates, no doubt.
1. I flat out reject the idea that site is dying and that we need a million people. Just because we are a small community doesn't mean that the site is broken. The fact that users like Wy1lted, Best.Korea, Lemming, you, RationalMadman, etc. are names and identities I can recognize and engage with on a meaningful level is really cool, and a sea of a million people coming to the site will kill that.
2. Why the fuck would I want to judge a bunch of shitty debates instead of a few good ones? Like more bad work or less good work is the easiest answer ever.
3. "Freedom" is a meaningless concept. If something is bad, we should have structural systems in place to disincentivize that action, especially when bad debates lead to people wanting to not engage on the site and makes the education and recreation of this space worse.
Created:
Posted in:
Not a fan. The inability for me to vote on debates takes away my favorite thing to do on the site, though I should have that ability again as soon as I finish my third debate I just accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
Honestly, I do my best to not have more than one active debate. I feel like excessive amounts leads to forfeited rounds/debates and low quality arguments. I feel like the increase to ten is too much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Which forum thread is this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just unaware of any of this.
Created:
Two things
1. Maybe we are intentionally letting them see the silos. In the 90's, our digital defense concept was let the Chinese hack us and steal some information that lets them know we have nukes and will use them. Like, no nation is unaware of the existence of nukes and second strike is a thing, so nothing has really changed.
2. US-China war will never be a thing. Mutually assured destruction checks back 11/10 times. The only thing one nation being "stronger" than another nation does is influence trade opportunities and who gets to kill minorities in the global South. If China gets to have a turn intervening all over Africa while the US says they're killing too many civilians, nothing has really changed.
Created:
Posted in:
1. I feel like this thread doesn't give me the entire story, so if any of these comments come across as ignorant or uninformed, I'm sorry.
2. Who hates another person on the internet? Like really. This is from a person with strong political opinions that has marched and done praxis for my points. Internet discourse serves one of three roles politically, and none of them get benefitted from being hateful. Education, be it true or espionage (I spent time in a far-right discord and now I can call out alt-right dog whistles better than a Golden Retriever) fail without respect for the people you talk to. It's not fun if we're mean. And lastly, you can't do praxis in converting the undecided to your side if you have terrible ethos.
3. Neither side can supply comments that the other person said, so is this all a misunderstanding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I don't think we can close Pandora's box. That, and if the president says something radical, why would nightly news and newspapers not pick up the story?
Created:
Posted in:
Man, deepfake AI technology will move us to a post-truth era where voting on policy is surely less of an ideal than party affiliation, assuming that party affiliation can at least maintain constant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Anything besides socialized healthcare should be illegal under your framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you for the video! I will watch it on my flight tomorrow!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I'm only commenting on things that I have something to add or something to contradict. I just won a college debate tournament and I'm tired, but this is how I unwind.
People often don’t in actual scenarios of this nature, because of the free rider problem and the bystander effect, but I think most people -- when not placed in actual scenarios of this nature -- have a strong intuition that it’s immoral to just drive past someone on the road in need of help.
"People are good unless they have an opportunity to act on that good" is probably the most counter-intuitive argument. I don't think that it is people are good, but that people virtue signal.
I’m trying to draw a distinction between helping someone who will exist, and causing someone to come into existence. I realize there are circumstances where that distinction is blurry, but it does kind of make sense -- I think people who will exist have equal moral value to people who currently exist, but bringing someone into existence has less moral value than helping people who do exist or will exist.
If those who will exist have equal value than those who currently exist, then how does bringing people into existence (giving them life) weigh less than simply improving quality of life?
There’s a difference between what happens when someone already exists (in which case they should be the sole determinants of whether their life is worth living), and what happens before someone exists. This is especially relevant for animal lives -- the lives of animals in factory farms are probably filled with suffering, and hence, it is immoral to bring animals into existence in factory farms.
1. I don't support animal rights at all, so this is a useless example for me.
2. If someone who exists is of equal moral consideration of someone who will exist, then how do those who exist get to decide if those who will exist would/should want their life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Back to the squatter example, is this different than putting someone outside in the cold where they freeze to death without helping them. The legal framework of you must help those you can stop from dying from preventable deaths does more to indict those with incredible wealth and those who interact with the homeless than a women engaging in an abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Even if every instance of interpersonal discrimination is impossible to solve for, systemic issues that are based on state power can be rectified through reform. No reason we can't work to solve those disparities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not arguing land back, I'm arguing that a racial group isn't fairly treated. This is not an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Epistemic nihilism is false. I’m not sure its truth can actually be evaluated, but at minimum, it’s useless and unproductive.
Yeah, pragmatically it isn't good. My ideas on concepts of objective versus subjective truth are still fuzzy. If I was forced to give an answer, I would say there are subjective truths that are constructed in regards to philosophy, political science, etc., and that we come to our closest/best understanding through discourse.
God almost certainly doesn’t exist.
Call me a pragmatist, but the metaphysical existence of god is an unimportant question compared to the ideas that religious ethics helps/hurts society or if the social setting of churches are good/bad for people.
Highly uncertain about this, but free will probably exists.
Hard disagree. I am the ultimate fan of determinism and it is the most sure I am about a philosophical concept.
Moral realism is probably true, though highly uncertain.
I feel like the idea behind objective and subjective morality is rooted in objective and subjective truth. Pragmatically, however, you should treat it like there is one, because if you are right, your closer to truth, and if your wrong, then your influencing the world into buying your ideals.
Common sense morality is, all things considered, a pretty good metric.
I disagree in the sense that I think a lot of people don't have an internal "I want to help others" drive. How many people would stop on the side of the road to help someone, for example?
The best approximation of a good moral theory that I can think of is preference utilitarianism, albeit somewhat skittish, accounting for moral uncertainty with either expected choice-worthiness or a parliamentary model, and incorporating some unusually strong common sense intuitions.
Utilitarianism is a flawed model in the sense it justifies putting some people out intentionally to benefit others. "Enslave the 49% for the 51%" so to say. With all your modifier on it, I expect you to tell me #not_my_util, but that's just my entry level thought. I don't know if a I have a substitute, though I do like virtue ethics.
Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people).
1. This directly conflicts with your concept of future generations have the SAME moral consideration as current generations.
2. The one thing in this I'm going to disagree with is "Creating new bad lives is a bad thing", simply because this would justify putting people down because their life is too sad. I'm all for suicide as an option for people (now mental illness and enforcement of optional and not coerced, like in Canada gets messy, but ideally) and people should be able to opt out, however, no one should ever decide if someone else's life was worth living.
Countries don’t have very large special obligations to their own citizens. They should prioritize their citizens a bit more than non-citizens, for pragmatic reasons, but policy should, in general, focus a lot more on the rest of the world.
I'm very conflicted, because I have a lot of contradictions. Ideally, I'm an anarchist, and don't support the existence of states. However, if we can't win the revolution and/or states are truly inevitable and I'm wrong, then I would prefer a one world government that puts equal help for all. However, if that's impossible or unfeasible, then a nation has no obligation but to it's citizens. The issue with these steps is that they make the next step impossible. I'm also all for separatist movements in the status quo of nation-states.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.
To what extent?
We should care, morally, as much about future generations as the current one. Of course, for practical reasons, it often makes sense to prioritize the interests of people alive today, but the moral worth of someone 300 or 3000 years from now is no different than the moral worth of someone alive today.
This is the worst take.
1. It justifies invisibilizing current violence. As someone who did debate in high school and does it in college, there are always a chain of crackpot academics who can link any activity to nuclear war. This low probability high magnitude risk of extinction justifies never taking action through a certain lens.
2. Your validating a hypothetical as valid as a definite. Never a good sign.
Created:
Posted in:
Writ large, Jordan Peterson seems ok. He has some good self help points, some good takes about freedom, some bad takes on social issues. Without a specific lecture, it's harder for me to know exactly what we're asking here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
So, to clarify your distinction, human is the homo sapien species and person is a being deserving of full rights and ethical consideration?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. You said
Taking a fetus out of your body, is the equivalent of abortion. It hasn't fully developed with the ability to survive yet. It is still a human, but it still needs time to grow.
when I said we should just let the women take it out and let it survive. Saying that you said the issue in question is not the act of killing it and it's a matter of helping it survive is using YOUR words. If you are simply against the act of killing, then a women can remove the fetus, not kill it, and anything that happens is not her fault. If it's a matter of her having to help the fetus survive, then I go back to my previous question you keep avoiding, in your ideal world, to what legal extent, do we have to help another to survive? If you don't have an answer to the Catch 22, just say it.
2. If your argument is that you are knowingly creating an unjust law, then just say you're knowingly wrong and move on. Hiding behind the idea of "majority vote" is just a way to justify that the issue is too complex for you to fully account for and you're unwilling to justify yourself.
3. 55% of people are pro-choice, 39% are pro-life. If you just support majority rules, then why don't you just endorse pro-choice?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
This is true, though I don't know if it affects how I live my life at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
As a preemptive note, I just did this because I thought it would be fun. I don't mean any ill-will to Best.Korea and this was the perfect distraction since my girlfriend broke up with me right before I started this. Saddest part is Best.Korea is asking some good questions.
I have long come to realize that I am the only human on Earth surrounded by a bunch of autistic droids.
1. Autism has nothing to do with intelligence, but simply a spectrum of anti-personality traits and some other physical and mental issues.
2. Ableism is bad. To call someone "unhuman" because of a disability is the root cause of dehumanization, therefore justifying violence.
Take religious droids for example. For the past 2000 years, they have constantly preached that the end is near. They still preach it today.
1. As Wylted pointed out, near is subjective.
2. Different sects have different dates, however, regardless of if the end is near or not, this isn't an answer to the idea that there will or won't be an end.
3. Without identifying individual religions, this is a meaningless combination.
Religious droids intentionally lie and use false logic that they themselves fail to follow.
1. Not even one example.
2. Even if some individuals are hypocritical, this doesn't indict the message of religion, just the actions of individuals.
3. Getting mad at the religious for being imperfect is like getting mad at the fat for going to the gym. They are in an organization that has good moral teachings to make them better people.
Religious debates are pointless arguments about if something that is undetectable exists or not.
1. If you're talking about theological debates, then no, they start at the premise that God exists and try to answer questions and conflicts around that.
2. If you're talking about philosophical debates, then this is non-unique to religious conversations. Ethics are unverifiable, but are still useful as a tool.
Its obvious that vaccines turn people into rapists and idiots.
1. Any warrant at all? Like a shred of evidence?
2. Rape is a behavior, so I'm going to say that injecting a sterile form of a virus can't possibly do that.
3. A sterile form of a virus can't make you know less things.
Vaccination is rape: penetration of a body without consent, and injection of unwanted liquid in the body.
1. This only works if there is a vaccine mandate system.
2. Rape is defined as "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception" according to Merriam-Webster, so it's not rape.
3. Vaccines have a medical benefit, and can be required to protect populations that are unable to get a vaccine.
4. Your metaphorical use of rape devalues the true experience that people experience. This devaluation turns a very serious issue into a buzzword that then gets ignored as it is overused, making victims get less support.
The inventor of a first vaccine did experiments on children. Some of them even died. He is praised as a great scientist.
Evidence?
Some of them will turn gay. Some will be more autistic/retarded. Some will become deformed.
1. No evidence for any of this.
2. Let's say vaccines do turn the frogs, erm, I mean people, gay. And? That's not a bad thing and acting like it is is homophobic, creating the other as a negative entity. This justifies violence.
3. No evidence of autistic/"retarded".
4. Use of slurs like "retarded" is bad. The slur does nothing but bring up a context of lesser, which justifies violence.
5. No evidence of deformed.
Whats important is the vaginasation of society. Or if you like: placing importance on vagina.
1. Women have had their clitoris mutilated in some societies (and it still happens) so they won't cheat on their husbands. Genital mutilation is not unique to men.
2. Calling out a form of violence doesn't mean you should treat other forms of violence as illegitimate. Building coalitions is key to creating any meaningful change.
Unwanted penetration of a vagina is much more important than unwanted penetration of anything else.
1. No evidence of prioritization.
This is why circumcision, unwanted penetration of a penis, is not considered rape. But it is rape by definition.
1. It's not rape under your definition because circumcision isn't penetration. They're not sounding babies.
2. It's not rape under the real definition because it's not a sexual activity.
3. Regardless, circumcision is bad, I'll agree with that. This doesn't prove any greater trend, however, just and individual example of systemic violence against men. Nothing about "vaginalization" or whatever.
Vaccination was invented to prevent suffering. But the result of a vaccine was a massive increase in population which resulted in mass suffering and pollution and wars and drain of planet's resources.
1. Overpopulation is a myth. The planet can sustain 10 billion people and most estimates see lower birthrates with societal progress, meaning we'll never hit a tipping point. This also answers the question of resources.
2. Population did not cause suffering writ large. There was suffering in low population societies.
3. Same with war.
4. Pollution does go up with population, however, so does innovation to find solutions, so it's a self-solving problem. Also, I would argue the issue is less the amount of people and the pervasive cultures of consumerism and lack of regulation.
Mass increase in population naturally gave birth to junk food, which gave birth to bad teeth, which gave birth to many dentists having a job.
1. Junk food was not caused by population.
2. Junk food is not the only reason we need dentists, but also evolutionary degradation as people with bad teeth survive and pass bad genes.
3. Dentists having jobs good?
Mass increase in population caused 2 world wars.
1. WWI was caused by empires wanting to imperialize, secret alliances, miscalculation, and no deterrence.
2. WWII was created by ideological tension, nations wanting to imperialize, alliances, and no deterrence.
3. More people since WWII, yet no major war global war during that time proves this is false analysis.
Increase in population resulted in increased production. The result was technological rape of society, society that is addicted to technology. This society spends days insulting people online, watching cute videos and playing games.
1. "Addicted to technology" just means we use it to make life better and easier. Nothing wrong with that.
2. Cross apply that the use of rape metaphorically is bad and devalues support for women.
3. Insulting people online is bad, but this isn't unique to online spaces. Bullying and mean people existed pre-internet.
4. Cute videos are good.
5. Games are good.
99.9999% of the people would not be able to survive alone in the wild.
1. This is specialization and is good. It allows people to get good at certain things, which then makes society more efficient and develop more and new tech exponentially.
2. There's no reason to survive in the world. This is a literal non-issue.
Despite that monkeys survive in the wild without weapons or equipment, humans are not as capable. Most humans dont even know what's food in a forest and what's not.
1. Despite that humans survive the internet and can answer Best.Korea on internet forums, monkeys are not as capable. It's almost as if different species develop different survival strategies and fill different niches. We made tools as our survival strategy. That would be like a deer upset that it can't camouflage like a chameleon and requires to run.
2. Why would I need to know what is food in the woods? We have an agricultural system developed through specialized labor.
People treat science and media as their Gods. They are ready to believe everything scientists and media tell them.
1. God is dead and if media and science fill the sociological/psychological hole, like better that then nothing.
2. Science good?
3. Media good? You gave no reason otherwise.
4. We are literally at one of the highest rates of lack of trust in media and science with one of the largest conspiracism epidemics we've ever seen. You are an extension of this.
5. People who reject the mainstream narrative blindly follow a counter narrative. This is no better.
Thinking you are free while blindly following orders is the definition of stupidity.
1. No example this happens.
2. Unlimited freedom isn't possible, we need a level of security and structure to respect freedoms.
3. Who says that it is blindly and people don't support civil society?
This is why 99% of the people believe toothbrush is good for teeth.Ironically, the only species to use a toothbrush is the species that has worst teeth.Its obvious to anyone with a brain that teeth are cleaned with water and healthy food. This is why our ancestors had better teeth than we do.Today's way is toothpaste. It can be used with water to clean teeth.Toothbrush should never be used. Only toothpaste.
1. Toothbrush is good for teeth in a world where we have different diets than wild animals.
2. We have best teeth from decadence.
3. This doesn't prove anything about freedom.
Sadly, I evolved in a way that my understanding of life far exceeds that of droids. This is a curse, since I would be happier if I didnt know what I know.
My brother in Christ, you just call everything rape and everyone a droid. This is the most robotic behavior I've ever seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. So the issue at hand isn't the act of killing, but not helping with survival, even if the help is necessary. Since it's not about the direct act of killing, I go back to my first question you tried to avoid, in your ideal world, to what legal extent, do we have to help another to survive?
2a. Laws are not developed through courts. What would the court case be? Do you mean that abortion laws and comprehensive sex ed laws should be up to legislators, or are you talking about a specific instance of courts?
2b. Laws are supposed to be universal. If a law is unjust to some, and doesn't have a exemption or statute to rectify that, then it is a bad law. If your argument is that the law is fair to 99% of people (which it isn't, but that's the core of the the first part, so I won't cross apply it) then I would demand a plan to solve for the last 1%. This would just look like mandating a federal comprehensive sexual education course to graduate high school and allowing abortion for minors.
Created:
It's an act of kindness. Whenever you get a gift, you should tell the other person you appreciate it and then say something specific to the gift. In this case, you should say "this will be a great little desert tonight". Then, if you don't want it, through it away as soon as they can't see and won't see it in the trashcan. We should always appreciate kindness, even if it isn't 100% effective, because a lot of people won't even go that far.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Can I get in if we're doing a class action? Anything to pay off my student debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. So can a woman remove the fetus/baby and just let it go out in the world? Not kill it, just let it survive?
2. I don't think you get to make that assumption. What a literal child is and isn't aware of is all wonky and assumptions about that aren't helpful. What I'm saying is, despite the fact we're not policymakers, I maybe willing to horse trade agreement to comprehensive sex education nationwide for agreement to abortion bans.
Created:
Posted in:
I get like 60ish, tho I haven't tested in a very long time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. Yeah, but there are tons of things I think are immoral (not holding the door for someone) that I wouldn't make illegal. I'm saying, in your ideal world, to what legal extent, do we have to help another to survive. Your disproving of the exact analogy I gave of the squatter doesn't answer the fundamental question, and I won't go down the rabbit hole of the analogy.
2. There are pregnant 12 year olds. I'm exactly saying that children don't know how safe sex works (not to mention the lack of perfect effectiveness).
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch,
I've been there and it was so cool! I ate the cricket cookies, however, in general, I loved both that museum and the city. Not from there, but favorite tourist destination I've ever been.
Generally,
I would definitely try it. I love new foods. If I like it and don't get icked out at the idea, I would even make it a regular place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'm really sorry you're struggling with that, but it's very good y'all are trying to work with your brother. I wish the best for your family, both in your brother's recovery and in the rest of your family's safety.
Created:
Posted in:
I find very few people I dislike/hate/get annoyed by. Honestly, I really enjoy being around people of different backgrounds and what not. Meeting new people and being nice to them is one of the greatest gifts we can give the world and it can give us. I know it sounds super cliche/cheesy, but I truly try to live by this. I'm not perfect, but I'm getting there.
Created:
I think corporeal punishment is probably bad for a child, but I don't know what the end result is. If a child is just not listening, ignores groundings, timeouts, etc., what do you do? What's the escalation?
Created:
Posted in:
I prefer off the cob, however, I eat three bites, then rotate. So I eat like a third that I rotate, then move to the next third, and so on and so forth.
Created:
-->
@Statichead
While Joe Manchin and Donald Trump may have personal vested interests in polluting industries, it is impossible to ignore the fact that these are connected to industries. Environmentalists (this is about to be a generalizing statement about an ideology, so you will find exceptions, and I could give you exceptions, but this is a representation of the majority of discourse I've seen), do not take into account the issues that face the working class or second, third, and fourth world. Without these kinds of considerations, I'll never care about green initiatives.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
As someone going through the backlog of these posts since I'm a new user, it gets really old really quickly. Each conversation doesn't have a new aspect, it's the same played out "two genders" "sex isn't gender". People aren't even going in depth.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean, if every person has to be a master survivalist, then we don't have specialization in society. The idea behind modern society is that some people do certain jobs (like grow/produce food) and then other people (industrial jobs, soldiers, artists, etc.) don't have to engage in that work and therefore don't need to know about how it functions. This is a good framework because specialization allows for people to do specific work to a higher rate of productivity that produces more for society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't think that's true. I've seen happy female hermits, as well as happy men who engage with everyone around them and are extraverted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
@YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam,
1. You ask
At what point does a baby in the womb become living, and morally wrong to kill.
But, regardless of my answer, the baby/fetus is still existing in a womb that isn't there's. Should a woman be required to carry the fetus/baby? To what extent does another person have a LEGAL responsibility to help another person survive? Should someone get manslaughter for evicting a squatter from their house if they freeze outside?
2. You'll probably answer with a variation of this comment you already made
If a woman knows that if she gets pregnant, it could cause her to die, then that is her decision to get pregnant and face that risk.
Saying that a woman is responsible for her actions, however, how responsible can people be? You don't get to assume how knowledgeable someone is, especially when, in the United States, only 38 states and DC mandate sex education. On top of this, 350,000 teen pregnancies a year in the United States with 82% of them unintentional have no way to hold children accountable for knowing where babies come from.
TWS1405,
The other downfall of the pro-lifer position is it always fails to take into consideration the effect of adding another human not only to society but also the planet will have. Especially when the mother is unwed and neither mentally and/or financially prepared for losing 18 years of their own life, giving it to another for free and with little to no appreciation from various individuals close to her and from those that have nothing to do with her yet would force this upon her.
As a pro-choicer, dogshit take. Putting down the baby for the mom post-birth or the environment are both god-tier dystopian ways to evaluate life. Post-birth is fully solved through adoption, though that doesn't solve the loss of autonomy during pregnancy. For the environment/planet, unless you're willing to call for mass death, in which case I'll answer that straight up, let's say this is flawed logic.
Generally,
Why can't we just use artificial womb technology. It's right on the cusp, only requiring legal approval to test. It doesn't kill babies and doesn't force women to carry. Win, win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm a hardline extravert and a man, so I'm gonna have to disagree. I also know women who are much more introverted. Honestly, this seems backwards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Ramshutu,
Sexuality and gender identity are separate issues, as separate as race and age. They serve completely different roles in how they describe people. Sexuality is what they are sexually attracted to (straight, gay, asexual, pansexual, bisexual) and gender is what a person identifies as (cis man and woman, trans man and woman, non-binary).
Generally,
I would say that anyone who identifies as anything outside of man or woman, be it cis or trans, could be labeled as non-binary safely and could be called they/them. There may be individual exceptions, but I've never heard of one outside of shitty tumblr posts and trashy rumor news sites.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
@Intelligence_06
K_Michael,
Hormone blockers have permanent effects? I've always heard they didn't.
Intelligence_06,
and forcing children to be "gay", "straight" or "transgender" wouldn't make sense before that.
Gay and straight are sexualities. Transgender is a gender identity. A trans woman can be straight (sleep with men) or gay (sleep with women), just as a cis woman can be straight or gay.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
I never said my life is a simulation. I don't think the question matters at all is my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1. The police were fundamentally started to support the owner class. If I call the police and tell them I'm not being paid to legal standard, they say they can't help me or that I'm wasting their time. However, there are multiple instances of police breaking up legally protected strikes, so yeah, the police are systemically biased against the working class. The issue is that the police are the force behind everything the government does, so every instance of government oppression on the working class or racial groups can be attributed to them as they uphold that bias or hierarchy through force.
2. It's not racist, it's a reality. Indigenous Americans are a secondary concern for almost all of society. Nuclear weapons tests, on reservations. Nuclear waste, on reservations. The Navajo nation doesn't even have an address for every business and house, making voting, medicine deliveries, and paying bills a hassle. You brought up the example of indigenous American shootings by police, but this has been overshadowed by violence on black Americans, both in this thread and writ large. When indigenous American tribal governments asked for more respirators and materials to fight Covid, they were given body bags. The example of "Got One" is just the literalization of what every systemic activity, including policing, creates for indigenous Americans.
3. Japanese and Jewish Americans are less likely to face policie discrimination because the discrimination they face is different. The violence done against each race (including white people, as there are unfair aspects to their existence as well), is unique and can't be cross applied. My argument isn't that each cop is an individual white supremacist, look at the death of Tyre Nichols. My argument is that policing develops racists cultures and there is systemic and cultural practices in the police that lead to outcomes that disproportionately affect black and indigenous bodies.
Created:
Posted in:
Most of his work is garbage. The few good ideas he has are expelled by other individuals without the misogynistic/pyramid scheme baggage. Also, I really hope he is found guilty because, from what I've seen, he's guilty, though only a court will see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
GOT ONE
I would argue that white people think of indigenous Americans, especially those on the reservation, as a secondary class. This is proven in the amount of violent crime done to them, lack of social resources at a governmental level, and police killings. The phrase got one was the story of two guys in a truck, driving down the road, and threw an axe at an indigenous woman running away. Upon hitting her, they yelled got one. Indigenous Americans are put to the periphery and I can give you more personal, anecdotal, historical, or legal examples if you want.
Edit: The fact that this conversation of police shooting is focusing on black Americans, you bring this up about indigenous Americans, and this issue isn't discussed is itself proof.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Sure, but does that change how you should interact with people. Like, a conscious AI versus a person, they're both conscious and feel, why not engage with the same moral calculation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
People of color is the browning of humanity. Get used to it whitey's.
I hate it when indigenous Americans are getting caught up in the current political race dialogue. indigenous Americans are not part of the "browning of American or Europe", but are the victim of whitening of America. I'm willing to grant that Europe is for Europeans if we can agree that America is for indigenous Americans.
Created: