They have a whole fantasy conspiracy they’ve cooked up where we’re sneaking in to women’s restrooms to do human trafficking and dark web revenge porn and shit.
Not saying you haven’t, but I’ve never once heard a woman afraid of men creeping on women in the bathroom. But I’m curious, aside from someone outside the bathroom doors either checking genitals or birth certificates, how exactly would enforcement of a bathroom bill work?
Cis woman here, I not only have never been afraid of the possibility that a man might enter the woman’s bathroom, if I ever encountered a man in the woman’s bathroom I’d just assume they accidentally went in the wrong one or maybe it was a dad taking his daughter in or something similarly innocuous.
I really hope all trans women can feel safe one day entering the women’s room (and trans men with the men’s room) so they can use it in peace. Bathroom policers can fuck all the way off.
Yeah, fuck your genitals, show me how big your dookies are! Who’s gonna help me start a petition to build a national weekly poopie scoreboard? USA! USA! USA! USA!
I don’t have anything to back it up but I think it’s a large group’s correlation between trans/gay == pedophilia. When I was a kid, my mom(southern baptist republican) didn’t differentiate between gay people and illegal sexual activity like molestation(this was in the 80s). If my mom had been told that a guy that viewed himself as a girl wanted to use the girl’s restroom, she would have immediately decided it was because he wanted to do something terrible to the girls.
I think the main reason for that is because her God told her gay people were going to hell… It made it easy for her to view them as evil.
Hey! I appreciate your support, trans rights are human rights!
In the future, could you please use transgender instead of transexual? The latter is a really dated term and ties a gender and societal issue to sexuality. While they may be closely associated, they’re not the same thing and any little bit helps break that association.
The one exception is older trans folk who use that label because it is the one that resonated with them when they were figuring themselves out. Despite the label’s history with transmedicalism some of the elders are not down to have their identities questioned by us younger folk and their experiences are valid.
Mostly true, but I am a transexual in my 30’s. I agree that trans is the best term to use for our community. But when I refer to myself transsexual is the term I use. Transgender is still accurate of course, but it doesn’t quite feel right as I talk about the differences between sex and gender to people.
But that’s just me, and you are absolutely right that everyone should use whatever term they are comfortable with.
Please forgive my error, I think you are the first I’ve personally met under 50 that has embraced the label. I must admit that there is a bit of me that twinges with the carrying on of it but also recognize that’s partially a me problem. Trans medicalism and the distinction of having to possess a fully changed physicality to be accepted by both outside and inside the trans community has traditionally been the hammer weilded by binary trans folk against the non-binary trans community as a “you’re not a REAL trans person” style accusation so it generally makes me personally a bit skittish hearing “trans sexual” from anyone my age or younger.
But it’s largely the fault of pressures that effect us all. When someone is under pressure to glean any amount of respectability to survive cracks form in solidarity and some will take the opportunity to point to the next person down the line that’s even harder to understand and go "Oh, I’m nothing look at them. Aren’t I just reasonable by comparison? " I think nowadays I see more growing solidarity inside the community than a decade ago but the memory of those divisions and the language used still makes me twitch.
But inside the non-binary trans community we have a similar bit of friction with people who use it/its pronouns… Like for a lot of us that is very VERY unwelcome because it has dehumanizing connotations but for some that is legit what they feel best supported by in their experience. I know some inside the group have the gut instinct to feel kind of undercut by that minority inside our minority for creating a “bad” example to the straights but the world is full of nuance and it can probably afford some extra.
It’s just unfortunate even when there’s a lot of us around in a place a lot of cis folk don’t know the very basics of what is common good practice versus what is kind of a special case. It drives the instinct to self police more then we should have to.
Please forgive my error, I think you are the first I’ve personally met under 50 that has embraced the label.
/phew I was a little worried that you would just tell me 30s count as old. 😉
But I understand completely where you are coming from, and let me just take a moment to entirely refute the entire concept of “truscum transmedaclist non binary erasure”, it’s gate keeping bigotry that has no basis in understanding of gender and just pure outdated hogwash. Very much not an ideology I agree with nor support. You are absolutely allowed to feel however you like about the term transexual, we all have our own personal history that comes with emotional responses. Yours are very understandable, and even if I couldn’t understand it, you would still be valid in those feels.
For me, this type of conversation comes up a lot around the term “queer”, which I prefer to use as a more encompassing alternative to LGBTQIA+ acronyms. But at the same time, I also recognize that there are people who have had the term applied to them in a defamatory way and I don’t blame em an inch for feeling reticent to reclaim the term for themselves.
At its core, it’s just the pedantic in me that feels like transexual is the best term to describe my body when I look in the mirror. I haven’t, and don’t have plans to, have any trans related surgery. But with my particular combination of secondary sexual traits, transsexual just feels “right”. However, I also know that because I haven’t had surgery there are transmedaclists out that will say I’m not a “real transexual” either. Far be for me to think I am any different from any other trans person, no one is more or less trans based off their medical history or diagnostic requirements and that is a terrible metric to use for identity. Much less identity policing of others.
Yeah no worries on the 30’s thing. I am pushing 40 and have actually had the “Ummm yaaa Aren’t you a little old to be a non-binary?” levied at me… Like it’s a fad for edgy teens and not something that I had to shelve for 20 years because I figured people would think me a loon for outwardly expressing because nobody talked about it.
I am lucky to be in a place were I have been able to meet older trans folk because the community where I am has been a stronghold of queer identities since before it was more widely accepted as cool. There is a bit of reverence inside the community to be had for anybody who survived the AIDS epidemic and the rough persecution of those times, particularly trans activists over 60 who have been out aince rocks were soft there maintains a “I eat roofing nails instead of cereal for breakfast and honey badger don’t give a shit” vibe about them. From that very select demographic “trans sexual” almost seems to have like a “badge of honor” status where heaven help the little shit who tries to call them “transgender” because they will turn you inside out with a stare and incinerate what’s left with words.
Like I have gotten some real bad enbyphobia off of one of them and have had secondhand warnings regarding others but the general concensus amoungst others in the Pride volunteer realm is kind of like they get a free pass.
I also prefer transexual and wish it hadn’t been discarded for transgender. Feels like a euphemism train, but transcending the idea of what gender I am, versus the boundaries of biological sex isn’t as strong of an idea or conceptual framework to me.
Apologies if this comes off as too explain-y and mentions some of what you already know. I am a queer history nerd and I don’t get many opportunities to trot this out.
A lot of the reasoning of the shift to transgender came with the transition away from focusing on the strict sexual characteristics of the people involved. Trans sexual was seen as either implying heavily the medical involvement of alteration of sexual characteristics was always the intended goal or defining factor that disqualified people from being properly trans or referenced the highly discredited and now generally considered transphobic connotation of someone being sexually attracted to the characteristics of the opposite sex so much that they they treat transition as a fetish which had “moral” considerations. Basically the whole auto ando/gynophillia stuff. They varied their approach based on whether they thought you were in it for kink and were generally more lenient if you were trying to model what they considered heterosexual norms.
Gender was selected as the more blanket friendly term which applies to how someone self conceptualizes themselves. This does include in it’s definition gender euphoria and dysphoria so by it’s definition it featureshow one feels about their personal physical sexual characteristics… It just places zero emphasis on how one chooses to respond to those forces leaving the door more open to a wider range of different transition presentations including purely social ones.
It’s less a euphemism and more a widening and restructuring to shake up the old harmful preconceptions that existed in old DSMs…it also had a particular historic use for trans people.
Functionally some of the lesser known history is it had a temporary practical purpose of providing red flags for patients of medical and psychiatric professionals who remained out of date to the rather durastic changes to the DSM that retired notions of sexuallity and attraction as a set of Freudianeque assumptions to the underpinning of behaviour that happened between 1990 and 2013. Basically if the doc was still using the term trans sexual you knew they were probably making a lot of their recommendations and limiting your choices based on whom you were sexually attracted to. If you knew your doc was not keeping upto date it gave you some level of personal advocating power in a system regularly stacked against trans patients.
Regardless of how one personally feels about the term it is not a euphemism.
You can edit in a cross out with two tildas ~ surrounding the word and put the correct word next to it if that’s your style. But it’s still somewhat akin to using the n word for some of us.
It’s not our word for how we describe ourselves/ what we transition for, when we transition, and it can have nothing to do with sex, mostly, we can be any sexuality.
That old language centers everything on the fact that people see us as sexual fetishes and not people. Transition is about gender, of which sex sometimes is not even a part, asexuality exists too. Thus the word transgender
And yet it’s still the most upvoted comment, keeping a slur up that hurts many trans people, but sure the teaching moment is more important than being inaccurate and insulting, but keep patting yourself on the back.
I watched vote manipulation happen. Transphobia is not this popular. Nor do organic vote totals match the trends in the thread. And this post specifically was at one point heavily down voted, beneath other alternatives with better more news centered discussions. The slur was the point for some.
While this is true, editing posts to avoid controversy is weird. They wrote what they wrote and noone can change that. Can’t unsay something, too. This also makes this conversation difficult to read for future passerbys.
I prefer transexual if I’m honest though, Transgender feels flimsier. I’m not trying to transcend the idea of what gender you see, I’m trying to transcend the boundaries of biological sex
I'm reading this super awesome book called "before we were trans" That kind of goes over the history of gender non-conformity and transgender identities. It's fucking amazing
I’m 100% a supporter of trans right to use the bathroom of their gender.
There is a reason that bathrooms are separated by gender.
So if you can’t understand why people who don’t believe trans people exist are upset that people are using the wrong restroom, you’re just like the people who can’t understand that trans people exist: it’s a lack of being able to see beyond your own self and understand the position of others. While I strongly disagree with them, their position is not very complicated and easy to understand.
I dont think there’s any need to give the benefit of the doubt to these people anymore. You might argue they believe LGBTQ people shouldn’t exist, and I might believe you, but I tend to think their main motivation is just stirring up anger and resentment against the “other side”.
If people were concerned about privacy or safety, the us would have single user bathrooms or at least stalls that didn’t have 1in gaps around the doors (my 90s high school didn’t have stall doors at all, and in some bathrooms didn’t even have stalls, just a toilet next to the sink in the locker room). The same people aren’t upset about those things, because they don’t actually care about any of this.
It’s frustrating to hear comments about “trans people” or “gay people” or whatever other identifier they choose, the conversation is never about treating them like people. The way they speak would make more sense if they were talking about a stray dog than an actual feeling, thinking person.
Trans folk are the newest “others,” though it seems that others basket is getting quite full lately.
Anytime someone in power says anything about needing to protect you from others, they are purposely sowing discord. It is the speaker that is trying to direct your anger away from them and unto the others.
Everyone is capable of being awesome and assholes. No identifying characteristic makes one anymore likely to be an asshole.
You keep saying this, but you don’t speak for all women. I am a woman who does not care one flying fuck if the other ladies in the restroom were born with a penis, a vagina, or some variation thereof. I care much more about whether they flush & wipe the seat.
I’m certain you’re not conflating trans with violent, right?? Or sticking up for people who do?
No, actually, as transfem the only time anyone ever confronted me about the bathroom I used was a man before I switched. Evidently I was freaking guys out at the urinals 😅
I’m a woman and I don’t care. I’ve been in the bathroom with men before and even had a nice conversation with them. Do I not exist? Who gave you the rights to speak on behalf of all women everywhere?
I specified women because there is not a significant amount of men who are vocal about being opposed to sharing restrooms with women.
If you listen to women, many of them are legitimately afraid of sharing bathrooms with men. I think it’s unfair to pretend their concerns don’t exist just because you don’t share them.
Probably in reference to underaged spouses, basically you can’t be charged with anything related to having a kid in your home if said kid is your spouse
My mom married my 21 year old dad when she was 16.
In 2001, my ex gf married her 25 year old boyfriend like a month after she turned 17, which turned into a whole spat of men in their 20’s marrying girls in their teens at my church for about 3 years. It was fuckin gross and predatory and we just sat there and watched it happen. God damn fundamentalism.
You have to already get judicial approval to marry, and it’s literally only 17-year-olds being allowed to marry 18- and 19-year-olds. It’s not really “having a kid in your home”.
The laws have been restricted a lot in the last few years, so that isn’t really relevant anymore. California, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington are the only states without a minimum marriage age.
And I was just talking about Florida like in the article. It is one of the strictest states on child marriage in the country.
Are you intentionally using misleading phrasing here? Sure seems like it.
To put it a different way: 40 out of the 50 states allow minors under 18 to be married, with 30 of those 40 allowing children under 17 to be married.
Since those people being married are under 18, they don’t have the legal rights of an adult, with guardianship going to their spouse. Can you see how that is a problem?
That’s not how that works. Guardianship is a totally separate concept. To be married, someone would be simultaneously emancipated and legally treated as an adult from thenceforth.
I wasn’t trying to be misleading. I was just to trying to counter what I thought was very misleading language. When someone says a man has “a kid in his home” as an underaged spouse, the scenario that pops into your mind isn’t that it’s a 17-year-old emancipated girl who’s just married her 18-year-old boyfriend, which is essentially the only legal scenario in Florida.
It’s one of those situations where it makes it so an 18 and a 17 can marry and it not be illegal, but that doesn’t make it any less creepy when the age gap stretches further.
Oh yeah minors are allowed to marry adults in Ohio. It’s real fucked up. My girlfriend was a victim of it as a teenager, and it did quite a bit of damage, partly because it means your spouse is your guardian and you still don’t get all the adult rights.
When we update our laws, we’ll need to make sure there’s no loophole where parents can’t just sign off guardian rights to a suitor. I can see religious fundamentalists just “marring” off their kids and skipping the common law part. Too much sketchy shit already happens in those isolated communities.
This is basically what is currently happening in many states.
Many parents will also travel if their home state won’t allow it. Iirc, Missouri Kansas is a popular choice, because they will allow a child as young as 14 15 to be married to an adult.
My point is just making underage marriage illegal isn’t enough when they can just sign over guardianship. These transfers need to be vetted and recorded. The child should also have the right to sue if they believe the transfer was done in bad faith, including whatever government official if they all conspired.
I agree. What i’m saying is this wasn’t an oversight. It was made this way intentionally because the laws were written by backwards thinking religious nutjobs.
America still has a large problem with child marriages, as long as the parents consent to the marriage. It’s mostly a fundamentalist Christian thing; Young girl gets pregnant from an adult, then gets forced into marrying said rapist by her parents. Because now she’s not a virgin, the parents don’t want a bastard in the family, etc… Many states also have exemptions for things like statutory rape if the rapist is married to the victim, so the rapist is allowed to continue the abuse.
Three cheers for privatization of public utilities! /s
As an aside, I am gutted by 250+ people losing their lives because Texan politicians can’t get their act together to hold companies responsible. Legislation works … and politicians can, and should, make the laws.
This was the second time it happened too. It happened ten years prior as I recall. So they did nothing then. Did nothing later. No responsibility for anything later. Fuck Texas.
Texas can always be counted on to take the evil side when a moral decision has to be made. Slavery, segregation, suffrage, bodily autonomy, companies’ “rights” over human rights.
Is it really thermonuclear if it can easily be dismissed with a couple of screenshots? And he is trying to allege fraud. This is the flimsiest crybaby tantrum he has had yet.
Right? The media matters article screenshots clearly prove it’s allegations. Unless he tries the angle that they were photoshopped (and obviously he needs proof for it) this gets dismissed immediately.
Hoping it doesn’t cost media matters anything or that they can recoup any fees they may incur from this. Nice to have real reporting with proof to back it up like they showed.
Maybe he meant thermonuclear in the sense that it is mutually assured destruction because, as most trigger happy lawsuit threats tend to forget, a lawsuit means discovery. So a lot more dirt about Xitter and Musk would have to become public record.
No shit. We had plenty of guns when I was a kid (52 now), even AR-15s and the like, and this wasn’t a normal thing until after Columbine.
I’d hold off on my manifesto, :), but mental health has taken a nosedive in this country. It’s far, far worse than kids can imagine. Fox News, Facebook, the internet, etc. has poisoned our collective brains and discourse.
The vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent. The idea that mental illness is largely responsible for the prevalence of mass shooters contributes to the stigma already attached to mental illness.
Know what did happen shortly before Columbine? Reagan dissembled our mental health infrastructure.
I was a teen in the late 80’s. Hell, I thought homelessness was a normal thing I simply hadn’t heard of until MTv started flogging it.
And if the mass shooting didn’t start post-Columbine…? LOL, we didn’t have that word in our lexicon.
FFS, we used to able to buy shotguns in the auto parts store. But suddenly, guns and “easy access” are the problem?
Why don’t you folks start a fight you have a chance of actually winning? Shut down the right-wing propaganda, hard, yesterday.
And while we’re at it, I’d kill for a solid study on how many killers, including suicides, are left/right politically. We both know how that’s gonna play out.
I am saying that something else started it. Mental health care has been terrible for way longer than Columbine. And youre going to have to explain why there was a decade and a half gap between Reagan and this mass shooting. Dont get me wrong, Reagan was a real piece of shit but I don’t think mental health or the lack of it is the major cause. Easy access to guns OTOH…
Mass shootings pre columbine were more rare but weren’t unheard of. Mostly they were belltower or highway sniper style incidents or postal related as they were severely overworked at the time.
Also, while mass shootings were more rare, not only could you get one at the hardware store you could order a full auto directly to your door with no background check or even ID for a while.
Up until 2000, the NRA was actually a big supporter of gun control. At that point they switched to being pretty much zero tolerance for any gun control, and even trying to dismantle gun control.
One could apply the same logic you just did to blame mental health regulations to blame this instead.
Its the guns. It was ALWAYS the guns. There was a significant increase in the number and severity of mass shootings after the federal assault weapons ban sunsetted. There is significant amounts of evidence that easy access to guns results in much higher homicide and mass shooting rates.
No one is saying all mentally ill people are violent. They’re saying most of these mass shooters are mentally ill. What stigma? That mentally ill people should have help available to them?
If it puts your mind at ease at all, crime (violent and otherwise) had been on a decline from 1993 until 2016 and while it has risen since 2016, it still hasn’t hit pre-'93 levels last I saw. Furthermore despite what you’d expect, those AR-15s are responsible for less than 500 (all rifles) of our 60,000 gun deaths, which is 0.833333333333% of our gun deaths. In fact, mass shootings account for less than 0.2% of our gun deaths per year. So, I mean “any is too much” yes, but it isn’t near as bad as it seems. source
I think what terrifies people about mass shootings is that they’re random. They just target random people (or God forbid fucking children).
I mean violence is obviously bad but most of the time it’s contained in certain areas of town, and so long as you’re not mixed up with the wrong people it’s probably not a major concern for most people.
So when they see people get shot up at the mall or at a concert or at school they think “shit that could be me or my kids”
But yeah you’re 100% right and they are blown completely out of proportion.
Yeah and I get that for sure, that’s part of what makes Aneurysms so scary too, can randomly happen at any moment. Tbh I’ve realized best thing I can do is just try to keep myself and those around me safe as best I can and carry one of my own, it’s the only thing that is actually within my power, unlike “fix the entire country” lol.
I’m 38, and yeah it’s seriously fucked. I keep saying this and people still want to plug their ears and scream “it’s the guns!”.
I’m a prime example, I have ADHD and hardcore insomnia, and I got laid off a few months ago, my health insurance just ended. In order to see a psychiatrist it’s gonna cost me $300 out of pocket for the visit, and then generic Ambien is like $120 for 60 pills. I got letters that say I could get health insurance via the COBRA Act of 1985, but it’s SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY DOLLARS A MONTH. Healthcare.gov keeps playing commercials that say “enroll now and you can get health insurance for as low as $10/month!”. I went on there to look and it’s only available for 2024 right now and they want to know your income for 2024. I put in 80k and they said I wasn’t eligible, I put in 40k and it said it was gonna cost $350/month.
My dad is 73 and he constantly has to fight with insurance and the pharmacy to get his Ambien as well.
Ah thanks for the info, but it will still probably be less to pay out of pocket. The shrink’s follow up is $200 and the Ambien will be $120. IDK how much I can get the premium down to, and even then there’s the deductibles.
That’s brutal, and I’m very sorry to hear that. No one should have to struggle to find help, especially for stuff like that.
I think this whole system is stupid, even from a business sense. If you want quality labour, “happy employees” are the way to go. If you prevent people from getting much wanted/needed help, you’ll have a lot less of those “happy employees”. You’ll also have fewer taxes being paid, less money being spent, fewer people attending events and buying non-essential things, etc. The current set-up makes no sense to me. Instead of imporving anything, let’s just keep continuing to make things worse and then complain that society is getting worse. That will totally fix things. It hasn’t worked for the past couple of decades, but it will totally magically change tomorrow. Assholes.
I hope things get much better for you and your father soon. Y’all deserve MUCH better than this.
Thanks 😊 The problem is that they have no souls and conscience, and only care about money, so I don’t think anything will change this unless we go with public/socialized healthcare but that will never happen because “socialism” is “the worst thing that could happen” according to some people… my dad is against it because he “doesn’t want to help pay for some low-life’s healthcare which he has worked his ass off to pay into” 🤦♂️
They took about 30% of my yearly income for local (I lived and worked in NYC for 7 years), state, and federal taxes for the past few years! I may get about 5% or less of that back in my tax return.
rage-farming as a genre of syndicated media (think: Limbaugh, Hannity, InfoWars)
selling fear becomes huge moneymaker for opinion programmers (Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, etc)
politics as a staple on social media comment threads
offshore groups (like troll farms, etc) posing as domestic political actors, targeting particular demographics
Ready access to guns is of course a problem, but it’s probably made worse when all those folks with ready access to guns are bathed in fear and loathing 24/7 by millionaires making lots of money telling them things to make them or their families afraid or angry. Just a thought
Sorry, to be callous, but good riddance. You should hear what Jello Biafra has to say about the time Feinstein was Mayor of San Francisco:
Jello Biafra: Quentin Kopp was actually very jovial, friendly, kind of a character. He and Feinstein had been on the Board Of Supervisors, but when George Moscone and Harvey Milk were assassinated Feinstein was appointed as Acting Mayor. She ran the city with an iron fist, and the police were completely out of control, which she seemed to get off on. I have never been very fond of her, and any grief I can cause that creature, I’m happy to oblige. But that wasn’t why I ran for Mayor. It was more like: wouldn’t this be a great prank?
Jello Biafra: I had some pretty interesting proposals. Making businessmen wear clown suits was the one the media seized on, but there was a lot more to it than they realised. It was my response to Frankenfeinstein [Feinstein] saying she was going to “clean up” Market Street, by which she meant throwing the homeless out of all the vacant buildings.
Thank you. I’m going to have to dig up a copy. I haven’t heard any of his spoken word albums in literally decades. Still listen to DK all the time though.
Governments across the world need to effectively age down. It's ridiculous that those old clowns who aren't even affected by the consequences of their actions can just continue to do this shit. Yeah, they get voted in, but that's because of the aging populations of so many countries being such a majority while most of those who are going to be affected don't even have a legal say in the matter, since they can't vote themselves. Millennials got already fucked over repeatedly through politics in the past decades and now Gen Z has to face the same bullshit. People will just further radicalize if they don't address this.
I don’t understand why not retire. She held on to that seat till the bitter end, for what?
She could have had time with her family and we could have had a seamless replacement. Instead, she got to die at work (basically) and there is a hole in representation right as the government is about to shut down.
I wonder how this will impact the gov shutdown results
But regardless, the best thing for Cali that she’s gone, is they get a fucking choice in who replaces her. The party “picking” someone to hold that seat for the next couple decades and be more Conservative than Cali voters should be an obvious problem.
But for some reason I doubt anyone will be able to explain that to you in a way you understand…
Gavin Newsome has gone on record stating he’s going to pick a placeholder to keep the seat warm instead of one of the major contenders for the seat, like Schiff.
And I don’t see why you’re being a rude asshole. If you want, you can speak like an adult and we can have a decent conversation. But if you insist on being a prick, then I can just start insulting you right back if you prefer.
Gavin Newsome has gone on record stating he’s going to pick a placeholder to keep the seat warm instead of one of the major contenders for the seat, like Schiff.
Because in all likelihood he’s going to run for it…
It’s not altruism, it’s selfishness.
And I’m not even getting into the rest of what he said that made his statement problematic.
But calling someone rude for being sarcastic and then going on a rant with personal insults…
Yeah, you said like a neoliberal bud. Which explains why you don’t see any issues with what Newsome is doing
Dude, you heavily implied I was an idiot. All because I came into this not having assumed the conclusion that Gavin Newsome is some evil, power mad puppet master.
You fucking people in the Always Online Lefty Left can be just so goddamn insufferable. It’s like you’re absolutely committed to ensuring that no one can reasonably talk to someone who has a mildly divergent opinion. God, imagine being such a tool that you can’t be comfortable in a political coalition with someone as progressive as Newsome. How the fuck do you clowns propose to win an election when you’re running around pretending he and anyone he agrees with is a “neoliberal”
Her handlers were enjoying making all the decisions and running her Senate office for her, wheeling her around and playing weekend at Bernie’s. I’d say it was abuse but tbh it’s what she deserved and probably what she wanted anyway.
You mention family and smoother governance, but to some people their work connections are more important to them than their families and she could have thought that resigning would have been less smooth than trying to finish out the term.
Those things are possible, but I really think that her identity was being a senator and she didn't want to give that up.
…her identity was being a senator and she didn’t want to give that up.
Fuck her then. It’s the US Senate, not daddy’s law firm. No one should be in the Senate just because it makes them feel important. The job is too important for that.
Newsom has been clear that he's appointing someone as a placeholder so as not to interfere in next year's Senate race by giving one of the actual contenders (Schiff, Porter, or Lee) the advantage of incumbency. But I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi, being Nancy Pelosi, would prefer the Party put their finger on the scale for the candidate leadership wants (which is probably 77 year-old Barabra Lee)
Aren’t they all in the House right now? Appointing one of them is a mixed bag, because it also leaves their House seat vacant until a special election is held, and Democrats need every vote they can get there. House seats can’t be filled with temporary appointments like Senate seats can.
Pelosi wants Adam Schiff. Newsom stated he wants a black woman (bc ofc he cares about identity politics) in the interim, likely Lee. Pelosi doesn’t want Lee since she’s more progressive than Schiff.
The temporary choice will have a massive leg up as an incumbent in the next election.
He wants a black woman in the seat because despite making up 15% of the population, there are zero black women in the senate. Why wouldn’t they deserve representation in our senate?
Race and gender should be irrelevant in politics. The only thing that should matter in the end are policies, since that is what affects the constituency.
Race and gender now are used as distractions to make people think that someone is more progressive than they really are.
You can still be corrupt if you are a black woman.
It’s a fair point to say race/gender aren’t the most important type of representation. There’s a whole lot of white men in Congress, and as a white man I don’t feel particularly “represented” by Tuberville or Gaetz
This viewpoint is simplistic to the point of losing all sense. As another commenter pointed out, representation is the entire point of a republic. Countries have split and wars have been fought over this exact point. Hell, the United States only exists at all because of it.
Race and gender start to matter as soon as they become significant factors in our laws and that has been a constant from day one. I don’t care how much you think you know, you do not fully understand the perspective of someone with a radically different life than your own, because of what they have faced due to their race, gender, or any other distinguishing factor. They deserve representation so that their perspective is heard and factored into the laws that govern them.
This is the basis of what a republic is. You can’t take race and gender out. You can only over represent your own and ignore others while patting yourself on the back like you solved it. It’s intellectual, moral, and legal cowardice.
Senators don’t work that much. She had plenty of time with her family. She didn’t retire because she made lots of money being a centrist senator in a safe seat with enough seniority to do whatever she wanted.
This won’t impact the shutdown at all, since the House republicans want a shutdown.
Now Newsom will appoint a moderate black woman who will provide the optics without causing chaos. You might think that sounds cynical, but that’s exactly what Newsom already promised to do.
Others have touched on the political machinations aspect.
But a bigger, arguably “real”, reason, is that replacing Feinstein is largely trivial. Democrat from a (kind of) Democratic state. But getting said replacement approved on various committees, some of which are republican controlled, becomes the big mess. Which leads to more dysfunction and power stealing and less ability to even discuss if a vote should occur on something.
It is similar to the RBG issue. She should have stepped down YEARS before she died. She didn’t. And by the time people realized “yo, your ass is old and kind of stupid” it was too late because republicans would have just stalled until they could replace her with someone they wanted… which they did.
Because of her senority, she was one of the leaders of the party. I agree these elderly politicians need to retire, but that means at best they get replaced by a freshman senator of the same party with no political power. It’s the same reason why McConnell hasn’t retired even though he can’t finish a speech without zonking out and being whisked away by his handlers.
Fully agree, these companies need broken up into baby bells and they need to be prevented from joining back up together like AT&T did every time they were broke up. Fining 1% of profits as a punishment is not enough to prevent these practices
At first I read this headline as a good thing, but after reading the article it’s bullshit. They’re just giving temporary discounts to new tenants while still gouging the existing ones. And it’s all in an effort to maintain their ridiculous prices 🙄
Yeah in the start they literally say median rent is 2 dollars lower than the record high which was set last year so with a paywall in front of it its basically misinformation by insuring most people only see the headline.
Also they are doing it to keep their assets looking good on paper cause what you charge in rent values the asset which is dumb as fuck.
If it’s a temporary discount it still reads on paper as if the rent hasn’t decreased but if it does go down and suddenly people who have you loans based on that passive income and asset wealth catch on they will realize their loans are fucked.
We are on such a dangerous precipice because everyone has to pretend that this is totally sustainable or else we absolutely have a market crash a lot like 2008 and wow who would have seen that coming right?
This chip isn’t merely “very spicy food”, it is explicitly designed to be a challenge. One single chip costs $10 and the packaging is literally shaped like a coffin.
If such a reaction is remote, yet foreseeable to the manufacturer, the severity of the reaction (death) dictates a warning. It is a known, material risk, and the burden of warning is outweighedby the severity of the harm.
There’s no warning on the package that it could result in death. The maker could be sued in products liability for negligent failure to warn.
There was a good case in Mass. against Tylenol. One possible reaction of Tylenol is that your skin could melt and fall off (not even really exaggerating). Very remote possibility, but so, so severe. Manufacture knew it was possible, didn’t warn because it was so remote. But such a serious injury makes the risk material to a consumer, and so there’s a duty to warn.
So I think this is the problem, the packaging says only for adults (these kids were obviously not adults), not for those sensitive to spicy food or with allergies to what I can assume are the main ingredients.
I know disclaimers are a bit woolly as to what can stand up in court, but what more should they have put:
Perhaps something like “this food may cause severe gastrointestinal distress or internal bleeding, which may contribute to pulmonary distress, which in some cases may lead to heart attack, stroke, or death.”
Is this one of those same anti-science, know-nothing takes like those that were too dumb to understand how COVID positive patients that died of heart attacks were legitimate counted as dying from COVID?
Have you ever eaten anything spicy? Did it not provoke an instantaneous physiological response? Sweating? Urinary urgency? Tachycardia? Tachypnea? Erythema?
Capsaicin is neurotoxic, a sufficient dose will kill you. In a sensitive person, or person with pre-existing conditions, a hot chip can definitely be the thing that overwhelms a person. Maybe the chip was the straw that broke the camel’s back, in law and medicine, that’s causal.
Yes, a sufficient dose of anything generally does. What’s your point? The fact that millions of other people eat spicy foods at these levels and survive would indicate that no, this is not about the dose in general.
Have you ever eaten anything spicy?
I’m Asian. We inhale spicy food. No, I don’t recall Asians dying of eating something spicy. If they were sensitive (read: allergic), that’s on them to know their own allergies. We don’t blame peanut butter because people die after eating it.
Covid was a new virus that popped up in 2019, chilli peppers are ingredients we’ve been cooking with for thousends of years. We’re well aware of their effects.
Yes it’s a nuero-toxin, but it takes a lot to kill you. There’s sauces out there that are millions of scovilles higher than either of the chillis in these crisps, as they’re made with extracts and people eat them without dying all the time.
It doesn warn if gastrointestinal diestess on the left if you look “abdomen attack”. The other stuff you have listed is nonsense and spicy food doesn’t cause that.
cost between $40,000 to $100,000 just to retain a private lawyer to fly to Georgia.
Are there no lawyers IN Georgia??
Also important to note this guy assaulted an FBI agent and is considered at risk to continue committing crimes, a major reason he was denied bond and is currently in jail awaiting trial
I don’t want to diminish what this guy did. But let’s remember that people died and were hurt that day as a result of what these 19 assholes did. They all should be in jail without bond.
Last week Country Music Television, which initially aired the video, pulled it from rotation. But after Aldean defended the music video by stating that “there isn’t a single video clip that isn’t real news footage,” Stark said it was easy to prove him wrong
In a TikTok video that’s gotten at least 1.5 million views, Stark found that two of the clips in the video came from stock footage. One showed a woman flipping off police at at labor day event in Germany and another was a commercial stock clip of a molotov cocktail.
Lying about it and then getting caught.
Stark shared screenshots with NBC News of hateful messages she’s received since posting her videos about Aldean’s song, which included racist slurs, fatphobic remarks and death threats.
That's a very bias comment, there are hateful people on both sides. And calling a whole group of people terrorists isn't going to do anything but divide people more.
The public actions taken by right-wing activists include showing up a events heavily armed, attempting to abduct politicians, and militia-style parading
Last I checked only one side wrote a super racist song about killing the other side of they “come to our small town and try that”.
I don’t see left wing terror attacks in this country do you? Because I see a lot of right wing ones, at pride, at power stations, at events with people reading books to children…
You have an incredibly stupid take and the “it will only divide us further” narrative is just pleading with one side to accept the terrorism of the other as not to make it worse. It’s like saying that the abused in an abusive relationship is also at fault, “They are both good people, she just makes him so mad sometimes that he hits her, she should stop making him mad” .
Also love that this is your only comment on lemmy….
I had to look that up because I wasn’t sure what you’re talking about. I agree, that was a shitty thing Kathy Griffin did in 2017. She shouldn’t have done that.
Still doesn’t change the fact that the republican president literally attempted to overturn a free and fair election via a violent insurrection. Still doesn’t change that republican politicians and pundits use violent rhetoric while attempting to take away human rights from everyone who isn’t a wealthy white male.
And tens of thousands of people looted and burned down businesses and vehicles and several people died across the country when some cops killed a guy outside a convenience store.
Those people weren’t trying to overturn a “free and fair” election. They were trying to overturn an election they believed to be fraudulent. Now I don’t think it was fraudulent, but also you and everyone else are intentionally misrepresenting the situation. And I would hope you would do the same if you believed that to be true.
It’s really not at this point. And claiming both sides are hateful is completely disingenuous at this point. One side is making death threats, talking about holy wars against Jews and intimidating the other side. It’s like saying your raving gun toting uncle is the same as his brother who said some bad stuff 20 years ago. Sure what was said 20 years ago is awful, but the other uncle is planning to shoot up a school because it won’t teach kids that slavery was good.
Looks at people on the other side of the divide, ranting about the latest conspiracy theory, very against abortion (to the point of stoning women who want an abortion), saying that slavery was beneficial towards slave's skill sets, wanting to expand child labor because "No oNe Wants to woRk aNYmoRe" (rather than no one paying enough, which seems to be the real reason):
The right wingers and their former president literally attempted a coup. Yes, they are idiots and did a shit job of planning and preparing and trump lost his nerve but they still tried it.
Or they live in a healthier democracy and their right wing isn’t as debased as yours. Not everyone is American and not every conservative party is advocating fascism.
If they don’t understand American politics they shouldn’t be lecturing Americans about it. I don’t go around telling people in other countries what their political parties stand for.
One side is literally trying to erase the rights of people like me and my friends, while the other isn’t. So what I think is that you should shut the fuck up.
Want to know the difference between people who vote Democrat and people who vote Republican? Most people either vote for Republicans or against them. There isn’t a “both sides” it’s “these people scare me because they stand for violence, hate speech, less rights for anyone who isn’t a wealthy white male, and they attempted a literal insurrection when their guy lost an election”
Ayo remind me real quick which political party is forcing women to give birth to babies that won’t live and putting their lives in danger? Also, which one put up barbed wire in a river to try and drown people/children legally seeking asylum? Which political party was it again that had a shit-fit about being “forced” to make a website for gay people and it turned out that never happened but legislature was made anyway because your right to discriminate matters more than treating people like human beings?
If these are the people that you willingly affiliate with then you’re one of them. At least own it.
Yeah that two sides shit isn’t going to fly anymore. There is nothing more to divide. They are literally terrorists at this point and defending it puts you right with them.
This is a guy who pummeled a semi-conscious president in a debate and literally out of a race.
Yeah… no he didn’t. They just knew they couldn’t get enough Democrats energized to vote. And that was totally due to Biden and nothing to do with what Trump did.
I want him to show up to his next rally with a different kind of bronzer and a brown wig claiming to be the new nominee, John Barron, Man of the People. Preferably with a completely insane back story about how he grew up poor in the south and joined a union at 13 at a steel mill.
I admit I didn’t watch it and I only scanned the coverage because I really didn’t think it was going to change people’s minds enough for Biden to drop out, although I clearly was wrong.
Honestly watch it. The whole debate is rough and then we hit this and I could feel the souls of Americans just huff. The whole debate Trump is saying nothing nonsense with no point. Biden is half awake and limping through it. Then this insane conversation takes place
At any moment any one of them could’ve bodied the other in this conversation and probably won the presidency if you had anyone more reasonable, intelligent, lucid there that would’ve been such a moment. Instead I’m sweating from cringe. With the state of everything, why the fuck are you arguing about golf?
Wow, I hadn’t watched any of it either but damn. Trump just being Trump by bragging about shit that only sounds impressive or meaningful to dumb people and then Biden, looking good until he opened his mouth, showed that maybe he should even resign right now because he’s not all there and barely has any energy.
At some point, if we live long enough, there’s a sudden and drastic decline where we go from just an older version of ourselves to elderly. Looks like Biden hit that point sometime during his current term.
I wonder if he’s the first president to do so. Reagan had Alzheimer’s, which can be worse mentally, but I don’t know if he had the physical decline also.
That said, elderly Biden would still have been a better option than Trump. Not great (I don’t think the Democrats will ever offer an option that threatens the status quo), but better than Trump.
The golf debate was the wtf are we even doing moment for me. It turned out to be a very powerful moment that allowed a new democratic candidate to rise above two old men blathering about their golf game.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.