RonaldRaygun
Despite your insistence to the contrary, nobody I'd associate with wants anyone to be getting sexual gratification by leering at others in dressing rooms. Because believe it or not, we're good people who don't tolerate sex pests. That has nothing at all to do with gender or sexual orientation and everything to do with not being a shitty person.
Sadly, it's beyond obvious that the right's performative outrage over men in women's dressing rooms never really had anything to do with protecting women, and everything to do with ostracizing trans folks. I'll leave you with a quote from a guy recently welcomed back to Twitter by Musk himself:
"I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else. And you know, no men are anywhere. I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And, therefore, I’m inspecting it. I’m inspecting it. I want to make sure everything is good."
He went on, as if he was in the dressing room, "'Is everyone okay?' You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that."
I appreciate your gentle feedback on my relationship to women's rights, as well as your your heartfelt stand against bullying. Although I struggle to see how my uninsightful previous comment had anything to do with that topic, I can only assume you've identified something in me to which I've been blinded by my unfortunate grandfathered affection for a living, breathing trans human being.
My tragic lack of self-awareness is perhaps because I personally witnessed years of merciless bullying during our shared childhood in one of the most conservative areas of Texas. You see, when I compare my memory of that poorly fitted kid to the successful, kind, and well-loved person they are today, when I consider their deeply personal, hard-fought struggle towards self-acceptance that I myself witnessed, it is easy to miss just how insidiously they are, in fact, perverting our society to its certain doom. So subtle is this agenda of destruction that one might be forgiven for thinking it doesn't even exist at all.
Going forward I will do my best to defend women's rights by demanding that my friend accept upon h̶i̶m̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ herself the mantle of traditional femininity, no matter what h̶e̶ she may think about that or how cruelly it will be received by the sort of people who tormented h̶i̶m̶ her in our formative years. You've truly made a difference today.
But now that I understand this, it does seem to be a slippery slope. At first it's just the water fountains, buses, and lunch counters. But before you know it, miscegenation is common and the presidency isn't even out of reach. And of course, vast swathes of censorship and gaslighting to try to bully the populace into complying.
I'm going to share your thoughts with my oldest friend, currently existing under the delusion that h̶i̶s̶ her seemingly well-adjusted and unassuming life is not the threat to society it clearly is. Thank you for doing your part to fight back against people like h̶i̶m̶ her.
I suppose Musk is saving the real bombshell for... later?
Bigly constitutional
Collusion with a domestically owned bird app re revenge porn of your crackhead son: Worst scandal in US history
Got it.
Narrative is the only thing that matters, especially to these folks, and unfortunately that's why our society is fucked. Because they are definitely going to win that battle. They're already claiming that Biden, as a private citizen, was an agent of the "deep state" violating the 1st amendment with his shadowy cabal and it's just going to go downhill from here.
Will certainly be interesting to see if there are enough of y'all willing to shell out $8/mo to have your speech boosted above the free variety to make up for the lost ad spend of the Pinochet-helicopter-meme-adverse.
You quite literally stated that Political Twitter was isolated to "Extreme left authoritarian political opinions" prior to Musk's takeover. Which is of course both demonstratively false and a ridiculous claim on its face.
If anything, the person responding to you gave you the benefit of the doubt, presuming you may have meant that views outside the "extreme authoritarian left" were systematically de-emphasized by the recommendation algorithm. Which is also false but at least not a mindbogglingly stupid thing to actually believe.
Someone interested in an actual discussion might have taken the opportunity to clarify their initial statement. But abrasiveness and the "read what I meant, not what I wrote" approach also works I guess.
However I myself would probably label the statement "Bob is an idiot" (or perhaps less abrasively, "Bob has often been wrong in the past in easily verifiable ways") not as evidence that he's wrong per se, but as a signal, possibly a rather strong signal, that he is likely also incorrect in the current matter.
A minor semantic quibble, but in my own experience I've found that conceiving of it as such helps frame the situation as a "sensor fusion of individually unreliable data sources" type of problem, as opposed to one of "collecting experimental results in a logbook and deriving conclusions from them."
The latter of which can lead pretty seamlessly to a towering edifice of belief built upon some ultimately pretty shaky foundations. Ask me how I know ;)
Do you also believe this about laws prohibiting drunk driving, or regulating seatbelt wearing and the side of the road you're allowed to drive on? OSHA rules around workplace safety, hardhats, fall protection? I'll wait to see if the anti-mask crowd crusades against the infringement of their "right" to drive intoxicated. Otherwise, I'll continue to see it for what it is: Political virtue signaling and contrarianism sans empathy.
It should be (and is) perfectly possible to legally avoid wearing a mask in places with mask regulations. You may do this by avoiding public places.
> It’s not to force everyone into your beliefs.
Strange how selectively this idea is applied by some in this country.
I used sarcasm to make a point, yes. Here, you have claimed I've said something completely outside of the content of my post.
I base my criticism of Donald Trump solely on his actions and his words. They are indelible, and a clear-eyed person needs nothing beyond them to understand who his is and what he represents.
Excuse me? This seems like quite a claim to be making, if it is in good faith. Or we have very different conceptions of the pretty clear-cut term "genocide" (such as the dog whistle misappropriation, "white genocide.") Care to elaborate or provide any evidence at all for these supposed widespread calls for mass murder?
Thank goodness we have the catchphrases "Orange Man Bad" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to safely allow us to ignore any and all criticism of the president. This certainly helps assuage any cognitive dissonance, which as we all know is a leftist plot.
Do make sure to read this extremely informative article from the eminently neutral Washington Times (here misidentified as the Washington Post, in what was surely an honest mistake) and while doing so keep in mind, that all politicians have a god-given right to exactly 50% positive coverage. This is as true for Trump as it is for Maduro, who as you know we laud precisely as much as we denigrate.
Just remember, anyone telling you that Donald Trump is going to reject any non-landslide loss and claim tens of millions of fraudulent votes without a shred of evidence, merely because he's told us this with his mouth, is clearly suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, their brain fried by a surfeit of orangeness.
The last Justice to fail to be confirmed was Bork in 1987, for the very valid reason of his association with Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre prior to the latter's forced resignation.
The process was never intended to be a political, partisan battle, and this was respected by both parties until 2016. Merrick Garland was (and remains) eminently qualified for the seat, and nobody serious on either side of the aisle claims otherwise. I defy anyone to give me a cogent reason why he should not have been given the prescribed consent by the Senate. Mitch McConnell has most likely indelibly changed the Supreme Court confirmation process to be a purely political one, to the great detriment of the Court. Incredibly shortsighted, in my opinion, as it has dispensed with all pretense of a supra-partisan deliberating body.
I believe they were specifically addressing this part of the parent comment. A benevolent reading of the reply would not point towards this rather blatantly racist interpretation of its meaning.
How can you say something like this and still consider yourself a virtuous person. I will never understand the authoritarian mindset that thinks summary execution without trial is a legitimate response to property vandalism. It's not. It is murder.
This is completely untrue and a deliberate reframing of Donald Trump's actions in the most benevolent possible light.
"Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile ring and literally kills people fake news.
Trump repurposed it to refer to any news item that he disagrees with or that casts him in a negative light. (And in fairness, some actual fake news falls under this category as well, but the proportions are small enough to make this useless as a differentiator.)
He labels CNN "fake news" for calling him out on easily verifiable lies. At this point, anyone who doesn't acknowledge that he often conveys falsehoods to his audience is being purposefully obtuse - I have more respect for the people that admit this but believe it is a justified means to what they see as a desirable end.
> We need less state, not more.
I assume this means you are opposed to the untrained and unidentifiable federal troops occupying US cities in direct contradiction of the desires of local officials, right?
Then to thoughtfully apply a knee to his neck to prevent him from flying up into the sky if gravitational attraction were to suddenly reverse, so very helpful and just! And they kept at it for almost 9 minutes, such dedication to helping the public, wow.
I see this said so much and invariably there is no rational justification provided for these beliefs beyond "A founder made an offhand comment one time in an interview about their educational background"
Maybe I'll get a more thorough explanation on HN.
In what way does Black Lives Matter have an "insidious Marxism to it"? And what is your definition of Marxism?
Somehow the right-wing rage machine never takes on that particular free speech battle. Strange isn't it?
[1]https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-violates-federal-...
[2]https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/23/trump-twitter-bloc...