When it was making rules against gender-affirming care for children, at least they could hide behind the (ludicrously false) “we’re protecting the children!” argument.
They can’t even do that here. There is just no justification for this beyond either “god doesn’t want this to happen” or just basic cruelty.
This is how it was explained to me; I’ll do the best I can to write it out in a way that makes sense.
You know how most left-leaning see MAGA as a cult of idiocy? Really Really dumb people easily motivated by propaganda, that if it weren’t for trump and other republican bad actors, they would just otherwise be innocent idiots ready to be manipulated by someone else? There exists a subset of conservatives that believe idiocy and gullibility applies to both sides. Just like a simple farmer can get turned storm-the-capitol-terrorist by a few tweets and youtube videos, the theory is that an innocent dumb gay kid can be turned trans by a few tiktoks. They don’t look at it like a rights issue; they don’t believe that most trans people actually exist. They look at it like catering to a dangerous cult who manipulates their followers into self-mutilation and a terribly unhappy life.
The thing about making an argument in good faith, is that logic and reason generally always apply to produce the same conclusions if given the same set of facts. There are plenty of people out there perfectly content to make a bad faith argument for personal gain, and I’m not really talking about those people. The issue with trans rights is that it’s very easy to make a good faith argument with only a minor dispute in facts that leads down a path of “treat the disease” rather than “give them rights” when solving in good faith for “protect the vulnerable”.
Think about it this way, You probably wouldn’t argue that law should cater towards the reality MAGA repubes believe the world to exist in, right?
I would hope that the difference is a trans person wasn’t manipulated by a deranged cult during their formative years. If that isn’t the difference, then the repubes were right all along.
If maga folks who think this way actually could get over their fear and disgust and see trans people as fellow humans, maybe they could truly listen to trans people’s experiences and listen to the medical community, and come to realize their view doesn’t line up with reality.
Thinking trans people are trans because someone convinced them they are is similar to thinking sexual preference is a choice (it isn’t, if you didn’t know that).
They retool and reuse a lot of anti LGB arguments - they still hate gay people, they just know it doesn’t play well right now.
The “protect the children” crowd put out so many lies that it’s impossible to keep up with. Chuds pretend that kids can just walk into a clinic, say “I think I’m a boy/girl” and walk out with a hormone script and a surgery appointment, and because most people don’t know anything about transgender care they believe it. I don’t think your average person actually is that bothered by real trans people, they’re just lead to believe that 8 year olds are getting their penises lopped off.
they’re just lead to believe that 8 year olds are getting their penises lopped off.
This is a huge part of it. A lot of these people have a huge misunderstanding of gender dysphoria and seriously think that people are convincing 8 year olds to have a sex change. It’s a lack of education and critical thinking skills that the leaders of right wing politics and religious/cult leaders have been perpetuating for a long time. Stupid people are easier to control.
That and a lack of empathy to even try to understand what another human is going through, especially if they are different from themselves. This too, probably stems from the same fascist playbook.
You have a good point, but I’d like to add that the group mentality is probably different from what a single bully would do or feel.
I think that this comes from these people being scared of not fitting in and from not having anything in common with the other people who don’t fit it, so instead of uniting for a common goal, they can only find unity in being against something that they have in common not being. That’s why they attack minorities of all kinds.
It also explains the hypocrisy. The individual isn’t afraid of abortions, homosexuals or mexicans. Sometimes they need to accept those on an individual level, but they still go along with the anti-politics because it’s not about themselves personally.
Facism isn’t just based on simple hatred. It’s mostly based on fear of not fitting in, because the individual is well aware of their own not fitting in.
Fascism is also an ideology of fear. It requires an enemy that’s both weak and existentially threatening in order to frighten and divide people.
For the modern right that enemy is now the trans community. And make no mistake, it’s cynical and deliberate. Alt right figures sought and found the enemy they needed to galvanize voters, and now they’re stoking that fear as best they can.
It makes more sense if you look at this as them needing a scapegoat.
Most people don’t (or until very recently didn’t) really understand what being transgender actually is all about.
This makes it really easy to fearmonger the general population, by painting their “lifestyle” as everything that is wrong with society.
And if you want to solve this issue… well clearly you have to vote for them, because the other guys don’t see the inherent dangers of transgenderism, now do they?
This is not anything inherent to being transgender. The scapegoat before this were homosexuals.
However society has progressed to the point where most people understand what homosexuality is, and accept (or at the very least tolerate) homosexuals existing as a part of society. It turns out they weren’t pedophilic devil worshipers after all…
That will happen with transgender people too. People will learn, acceptance will grow.
And when it does, these cretins move on to the next minority group.
Bonus round: Replace “transgender” with “Jew” in the things I mentioned above, and see what that reminds you of.
I know this is going to sound petty but small point of order - transgender is an adjective. It goes before who is being described - example “Transgender people”
“Transgenders"is a word that we in the community sometimes see from sources that want to create us as a wholesale noun. Usually same linguistic place as removing " cis” as an equal adjective in language and an adjective (ie “there are normal people and then there are transgenders”) or to create a differentiating noun wholesale by removing the space between adjective and noun ( ie. “that’s not a woman it’s a transwoman”)
These may seem a ridiculously small thing but in some places these linguistic cues are used either as subtle anti-trans dog whistles on the right… And on the other side of it inside the community the kindest way we tend to use the term is jokingly when doing impersonations of grandparents and the like… ie “Those kids today and their pokemans and their transgenders! When I was a kid we had bottlecaps and we liked it!”
Yeah, I was hesitating between using “transgenders” or “transgender people” there.
In the end I chose “transgenders” because it fit better with “homosexuals” a paragraph prior. I didn’t really mean anything more by it.
I’ll be sure to edit the comment though :)
P.S. I also used the word “transgenderism” a few paragraphs prior, which I know is sometimes used as a dog whistle too.
In that case I specifically chose to use that word because of the context of that sentence being an example of hate.
Oh no problem, you definitely have ally vibes so I didn’t think you meant anything by it, just doing a heads up since some folk legit don’t know. I saw “transgenderism” was being used in context of framed as not being proper nomenclature/ used by bigots but “transgenders” appeared to be used without the same context cues.
Because we’re the enemy. We’re different and bad and we make them uncomfortable so we must be why they’re unhappy and why their lives aren’t what they thought they should be
I’ve been finding a strange peace in understanding our history. Not just the history beginning with the 20th century but the reality that we’ve always been everywhere. When we’re cracked down on we rise back in the shadows in a generation, the second the grip inevitably slips enough. Is it a good life? No, it’s one of crimes of desperation, like sex work. But it is a life, and it’s a life that many found worth living unlike a life in the closet.
Even if the worst comes to pass some of our killers’ descendants will claim us as ancestors. And I for one claim them as my descendants.
It’s a wedge issue. They incite hatred against their preferred minority (trans people in this case) and then score points with their voters by passing laws to harm that minority.
The real question here is why driver’s licenses have a gender field; we can’t sanely discuss questions about it (including why “they” care about this field so much) without answering this first.
These are people who make up their own fantasies about oppression where they walk away the hero and someone starts a slow clap. All of this is based really on insecurity and projecting that outwards rather than to try to become a better person inside. They project their fears on others and make others suffer, as that is the only thing that can satisfy someone who believes they are pushed into a corner.
But Great Barrington Police Chief Paul Storti said in a statement, “Because this complaint was made directly to the police department, we are obligated and have a duty to examine the complaint further."
I call bullshit, and would like to see the law and/or court rulings that support this assertion.
Because if cops have no duty to protect the public, then in what sense do they have a duty to take this complaint seriously?
You are right they have no duty to protect the public, their job is to maintain the status quo and defend capitalist interests. Two guesses into which category searching for this book in a middle school falls under.
When people say police have no duty to protect the public, they are talking about a legal affirmative duty to act.
Usually the law does not impose a duty to act. If you see someone drowning, it’s not negligent to NOT jump into the water and save the person. You can stand there and watch your neighbor’s kid drown and you’re neither breaking the law nor being negligent. Even if your neighbor’s kid screams for help and looks right at you and says please help me, it’s legal to do nothing: there is no affirmative duty to rescue.
It’s the same for police. The exception are when there is a fiduciary relationship, if you created the peril, or if you start rescuing someone you can’t leave them worse off. Usually these exceptions don’t apply to police, even if you call and ask for help, they have no duty to act. That doesn’t mean they won’t show up and do their best. Just means you can’t sue them for negligence if they fail to save you.
Therapists, doctors, lawyers, architects, have legal duties to act.
It’s the same for police. The exception are when there is a fiduciary relationship, if you created the peril, or if you start rescuing someone you can’t leave them worse off. Usually these exceptions don’t apply to police, even if you call and ask for help, they have no duty to act.
Clear takeaway: when they said “Because this complaint was made directly to the police department, we are obligated and have a duty to examine the complaint further" it really means they wanted to do it but didn’t want to be held responsible for wanting that. (after all, if they had no choice in the matter it’s not their fault they’re doing ghoulish police-state things most people don’t want done)
Does MA have some statutory requirement, such as how many states have statutes requiring police to followup to a 911 hangup call, perhaps requiring a response to complaints about sexual deviance with children or something, and perhaps the police had no choice but to make contact with the teacher. They didn’t find the book. Could have been showing up a friendly warning of a nutjob parent, and the ACLU is taking liberty with the term.
What was the extent of the search? IMO, even showing up at the school and entering the classroom whilst having eyeballs, let alone a camera, is a search.
What the fuck is wrong with parents that they can’t have these conversations with their kids, or… Fuck, I don’t know, check the book out at the library and read it to their kid and talk about it in a context they are comfortable with? Oh k forgot, that requires emotional intelligence and these people who try to control their environment instead of their emotions are fucking ghouls that nobody wants to fuck.
Anyone who has had their bike stolen or car broken into or otherwise be victim of a crime the police don’t really care about knows this is not the case. You’ll be told to come in and fill out a form, or if you’re lucky you might have someone call you and fill out the form for you. They’re not going to send a cop out for that, and the form doesn’t really get acted on, it’s just for records keeping.
Unfortunately, that’s not the tradeoff the police department offers. And we do need to distinguish between relative and absolute values. Relative to myself, having a multi-thousand dollar bike loss isn’t all that big of a deal, and I have insurance anyway. For others who depend on their bikes as their primary mode of transportation and who don’t have the ability to just walk into a bike store and slap down a credit card without thinking twice, it’s a much bigger deal. For those people, their lives are impacted as much as a car theft would on someone else.
I do get that we have limited resources and they need to be used for more serious violations, but by that same token book banning isn’t one, and would not have required an officer to physically investigate. This is about purely fascistic thought control and book banning. Honestly, I would have preferred that cop go track down a stolen bike ring.
I agree with all of this. Especially the part about insuring against risks you cannot afford. How much was your policy? I imagine it’s less than $100 per year.
I have to confess that I don’t remember. I carry riders on my other policy for high value items like my camera gear and bike. It all goes into a lump sum that just gets auto paid annually.
But you’re right - they’re fairly inexpensive to insure.
The last time I had my car broken into, they sent an officer out to take the report. They, of course, did nothing with that report, and I found the person who had broken into my car later through reliable sources.
For a while, I had a partner who lived in Harlem. Their apartment was broken into multiple times by forced entry via the fire escape.
I remember the cops laughing as they took the report, which we only filed to get the insurance claims. Nothing was done other than sending out two officers to spend five minutes taking the report. I’m not saying they need to find every stolen laptop in NYC, though. I’m just saying that they absolutely choose how to investigate and resource complaints.
And furthermore, what exactly are they really protecting the public from? A book that talks about queer identities? Instead we should put bibles into every kids hands, bibles only contain rape, incest, murder, and genocide on a global scale. Nothing that would warp a kid's brain. (Rolling eyes).
The full news article states that they do not have that authority, this is just ass covering by wanna be heroes of oppression.
This “report” was done anonymously probably for the reason they knew it was BS, and just looking at the report should have been enough to dismiss it. At the very most a phone call to see if the school wanted to handle it, but sending an officer should get all involved parties suspended without pay. That principal should have also called bullshit and never escorted a cop to a classroom to search for a book. They should also be suspended and the policy gone over again on what to do with these bullshit book banning “reports” (deleted/recycled).
The problem with the principal refusing to escort the officer is then they are obstructing a police investigation, and that is a crime. It isn't fair to put this burden on them, the blame lies squarely with the police chain of command.
In fact the root problem of all things police is that once police decide to do something, even if that thing is illegal, interfering is a crime.
This is how we end up with people being charged with resisting arrest, and no other crimes that would warrant an arrest. This is also how we end up with a bunch of people live streaming George Floyd's execution, because stopping a cop from killing someone is a crime.
Should have asked them to come back with a warrant as that is within his legal rights. The officer had no reason to suspect any real harm to any child in a school classroom after hours (this all happened after school was out for the day).
On the complaint of a book? I’ll call bullshit on that, and no way that would hold up in any sane court. A book is not something that should give police any probable cause, and really something that the police shouldn’t even be investigating. Having police coming in to schools to look for books is so far out of what they should be doing the principal should have laughed and called the station to ask what the hell is going on over there.
I agree with you, but it doesn't change the implications of a police officer having a complaint and a sufficient description to follow up on it without a warrant.
It is at their discretion, same as if you called in that your grandma didn't answer the phone, they could ignore it or bust down the door. Both would be fully legal.
Court is a different matter. A judge could say there wasn't cause to search after the fact, but that won't change what the police do in the moment.
No! The doctor should be telling me about drugs. And only because they actually might fix what’s wrong, not because they’ll get a kick-back for shoving pills at me.
Kickback thing is kinda a reason to keep the ads tbh… Plenty of docs will 100% insist that the best med for something is whatever brand is plastered all over their calendar, calculator, desk toys, office decorations, etc…
Having ads kinda gives people options their doc wont mention because kickbacks.
As a European this mindset sounds completely insane to me. If my doctor tried to goad me into treatment with his sponsored products, I’d be looking for a new doctor and put the medical ethics oversight on their ass.
A doctor has to provide you with the correct treatment choice, not whatever he gets paid the most for.
I assure you the doctor both recommends what they think will be effective and plug what is being sold. Pharmaceutical market absolutely exists in the EU.
Yeah that’s the compromise we make with public healthcare supplied by private companies. But I am still confident that any doctor will suggest the best treatment, and not the cheapest or best reimbursed. They might consider that too, but only after establishing the proper treatment.
Plus just libeling and slandering them. I'm beyond sick of his bullshit like calling prosecutors doing their jobs 'DERANGED'. Trump is a believer in 'repeat things enough times and they become true'. With his stupid nicknames and labels, we hear them so often that it comes to mind for me when I think of the person, even though I think whatever he said was incredibly stupid. The problem is the media dutifully amplifies his message... "Trump calls Jack Smith deranged! Deranged Jack Smith!"
Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.
Thank you for admitting your cowardice. I’d welcome the challenge of it, and be honored to be in the select group of people able to actually hold him accountable
Over the following weeks, Brand referred to her as “the child”, asked her to read Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita and coached her on what to say to her parents when he wanted to see her, Alice says.
She was 16, so yeah, he’s right: he was banging a child.
Even if he isn’t convicted of the others (one was treated at a clinic after the assault) dating a 16 year old when you’re 30 is gonna get you some time.
Assuming this is all true (I do believe them, but it’s up to judge/jury to decide) but he somehow manages to get out of this, his reputation is in the toilet
16 is above the age of consent in the UK as far as I know, so the issue wouldn’t be the dating of a sixteen year old, it’d be the apparent rampant rapes and assaults regardless of age.
Not to dog on the UK but maybe they should raise that a little, it’s incredibly easy for an adult to take advantage of a 16 year old, not even just sexually.
I think it’s actually the USA who has an unusually high age of consent. Most of us have an age of consent of 16 and a drinking age of 18.
I don’t exactly think we should raise it, but I sure wouldn’t be against a Romeo and Juliet style amendment. I remember dating an 18 year old when I was 21, and that felt like a big gap. I can’t begin to imagine 16 to 30+. Though that wouldn’t be illegal here either^*.
We have exceptions if the older person is in a position of trust like a teacher, coach etc. Then it’s illegal.
It’s creepy and abusive as fuck so I don’t say this out of any great desire to defend him, but that girl is of legal age in the UK, so by our standards he isn’t a nonce, legally speaking.
Ya’ll motherfuckers need Romeo and Juliet laws. Age of consent at 14-16 isn’t a horrid idea, but slap a “within 5 years of the age of the oldest companion” and you fix Richard Brand grooming a fucking child.
The thing is, if this happens 4 times, most likely there are more who might speak up. The thing with these victims, in many cases, they think they are the only one. Knowing there might be others, would increase the chances of them to go public with their experience which might be even worse.
There’s no defence here, just correcting someone who seems to be defaulting to the USA law
I literally said brand is a cunt in my comment, what more do you want me to say? That he’s a total cunt? He’s still a rapist regardless if this is all true.
I mean, it’s not a myth, billionaires literally have enough financial freedom to live large for 100 lifetimes.
The myth is that they’re willing to share their rigged casino gambling “speculative investment” derived wealth/winnings, because reminder: nobody can come remotely close to earning a billion dollars through honest labor.
Cause a theoretical ancap hellscape would still have billionaires despite being stateless by definition.
You need power and control to get that rich. The only way that happens today is by the state, but that doesn’t preclude other forms of violence and power.
Your previous statement was just more broadly applied than our existing capitalist system and I find the distinctions interesting to discuss, as it helps identify the root.
Walmart couldn’t exist without exploiting the poor. Even though they could pay their workers enough to live, the majority of them are on food stamps: which is just the govt subsidizing exploitation.
You don’t need billions for most definitions of financial freedom. Unless your definition is spend whatever you want, never worry about running out of money, and not have a job, you really don’t need billions.
That’s why I said 100 lifetimes charitably. That’s 10 million from 1 billion, and even less than half of that is enough for a lifetime of responsible financial freedom.
Capitalism requires most people to be dependent on selling their labor to capitalists at a rate less than it’s worth. No meaningful definition of financial freedom can exist for a majority of the population in a system that creates and supports billionaires.
We could, it’s kind of the the Gene Roddenberry vision, use our burgeoning automation/robotics/AI to do the labor so that Humankind could pursue our passions for everyone’s benefit, but of course those technologies will be patented and used for the exclusive further profit of the non-laboring owner’s club at everyone else’s further expense, exploding our population of homeless peasants with nothing, and “our” government will continue to defend their ability to get away with it at gun point.
It’s like so many things. Human kind should have been united in celebration when we split the atom and harnessed it’s awesome energy generation, a warm light for all mankind, instead our first monkey ass impulse was to use it to incinerate a rival monkey tribe.
Humanity: Juuuust smart enough to be a belligerent threat to ourselves and others, yet too impulsive, short sighted, selfish, and stupid as a species to be anything more.
In the mid to late 1960s economists were predicting 20 hour work weeks and month-long vacations. So it was perfectly reasonable for Gene to imagine a future where nobody had to work.
It wasn’t a falsehood. It was stolen by Reagan and the owner class. Reagan gave away the store and shifted all societal power to the oligarchs, while corporate America, led by GE, shifted from the correct “customers first, employees (who were valued!) second, investors third” model to the “investors first, second, and only” rigged market profiteering dystopia we all suffer today.
The citizen’s of happiest developed nations of the world, not our gold plated cesspool to be clear, as a rule get months off a year, in addition to innumerable social supports. It’s a proven lie that this is how it has to be. This is just how the greediest/most sociopathic people want it to be, and since those traits are what our society rewards, and punishes their opposites, they have all the power.
The play by the owners started well before Reagan. Reagan codified it into law in perpetuity, institutionalized funneling all the money to the owners under the lie of “efficient distribution,” got his “opposition” to take the bribe money en masse, our modern neoliberals, and basically got America to cheer for their own destruction in the decades to follow with his intentionally divisive and manipulative narrative.
Until Trump, Reagan was still the Republican mascot long after his death, that even Democrats claimed reverence for.
Reagan changed the political dynamics in America. The Democrats were a pro-labor party prior to the 1980s. Afterwards they were pretty much lock step with Republicans, and by extension the oligarchs, into today, because the “Reagan revolution” opened their eyes to the fact that bribes by unions, lets be honest, could never come close to the bribes offered by the owners that hated the unions. And in proudly corrupt America, thats what you become a politician to do, get bought.
Since the 1980s, we’ve had no opposition party on economic policy. All we get to vote on is divisive social issues, largely exasurbated by our crony capitalist economic system, by design.
Do you want to be a wage slave subsisting in service to the owners until your death with or without gay marriage?
That is the extent of American freedom since the Reagan Revolution. With the side benefit of keeping the peasants at eachother’s throats instead of looking up.
Our Democrat Senate and Democrat President literally passed a law to bust a prominent union strike last year. There is no vote an American peasant is offered that would be in their corner, only slightly varying degrees of against them.
Long term, the only faint hope I see the Ranked Choice voting compact between states, some of which have passed in some states, but hasn’t reached critical mass yet. Unlike the Federal government, the oligarchs haven’t been able to fully or reliably capture all state governments.
If we keep being presented candidates from the only 2 relevant already purchased parties, there is no hope. Neoliberal Democrats and Fascist Republicans screech over social issues, but are largely the same on economic policy, ie give everything to the owner class and maybe they’ll piss on you one day herp derp.
The only other way this ends is overdue revolution, as even the framers admitted would be necessary at some point. The problem is, our people suffer, but they are also hopelessly addicted to opiates both literal and metaphorical: social media, fast food, literal opiates, etc, and aren’t willing to risk losing those small comforts even to save their larger situation.
So either ranked choice voting or the eventual, inevitable painful collapse are the only 2 possible salvations. Revolution would be preferable to waiting possibly generations of suffering peope for collapse, but I don’t see the will, we’re too intentionally divided by our common enemy the oligarch owner class to see straight enough to agree they are our common enemy and the source of our failing society. Too many gullible Americans will blame a political party, or anyone who says something is wrong, or darkly hilariously homeless people and people with nothing, as if our society’s many, many victims have any power whatsoever.
You know what the sad part is? When you tell people that’s exactly what we should be doing, exploring space, etc, they get mad at you and demand you tell them how pursuing anything more meaningful than throwing shit at their enemies benefits them. How it pays their bills. How it pays their rent.
It’s no secret that a very large percent of people live well beyond their means when a modest lifestyle with retirement funds is obtainable for the vast majority of the population. One doesn’t need a new car every few years, the newest gadget, eating out constantly, and an apartment in a high cost of living area. It’s certainly not morally wrong to buy what you want, but just know that not investing in your own future is making life harder for you in the medium and long term.
If you drop the spending whatever you want, a few million should be sufficient. If you get a 5% annual return that's $50,000 a year per million invested. $150-200k a year if you own your house is more than enough to not worry about having enough money. Plus there's millions in the bank for any truly major expense.
If you mean that they eventually got placed on Social Security disability then yes the majority do retire. You should see what the nursing homes for people in the government system are like.
My definition of financial freedom is not being dependent on an employer. It’s being wealthy enough to be able to walk away from crappy jobs however long it takes to find a better one.
Not true, it seems that way but it is a thing that non-billionaires have. It’s just that those who have such freedom choose to live and often work out of view of everyone else, so you never see them. It plays heavily into confirmation bias. That isn’t to say that the wealth distribution is off, everyone should be in their class including billionaires. They do exist.
Or any other policy that isn’t supported by the political duopoly. Stuff like higher minimum wages, expanding Medicare and allowing felons to vote got passed in otherwise Republican states this way, which is why they wanted to require a supermajority.
This got tied to abortion because “wow isn’t that convenient timing” but was so much bigger. Republicans are watching other midwest states push through progressive policies using boots on the ground signature collection and it scares the shit out of them.
They and any other network that wants to be considered “journalism/news” should NOT be allowed to have their opinion entertainment shows on the same network/channel as their journalistic programs.
It’s absolute bullshit that they’re allowed to get away with this crap where working hours when no one is home to watch is when we have our journalists on, then primetime is when we lie with impunity on our opinion shows because It’S EnTeRtAiNmEnT NoT NeWs!
I’m really sick of the fact that Fox has had this decade long run of “The Days of our Trump’s” drama…
Texans can check their voter registration status, register to vote, check polling hours and locations, and find other information about the election. At this website: www.votetexas.gov/mobile/index.htm
Polls open October 21-November 1, with one final day to cast your vote on November 5. Polls are required to be open at least 9 hours the first week and at least 12 hours the second week of voting. Some polling places may be open on the weekend. If you don’t want to wait in line, don’t wait until thw last day to cast your vote!
“My doctor says you have the highest greatest LDL count of any president ever.” “Lipitor, sweet lipitor, isn’t it great folks, eat all the McDonald’s you could ever want, take one little pill and it all washes away, right into the toilet that won’t flush, 7-8 times you have to flush that thing.”
Don’t count all of us in, funnies scene in Greenland was watching Orlando get taken out via asteroid hit and how am I going to find the IRL version funny if I’m dead for it?
Some of it. I don’t know that even a sizable portion of this country wants to raise prescription drug prices. I also think a very small percentage wants to get rid of no fault divorce or contraception. Even most Catholics are fine with contraception. And use it too.
Raising the retirement age? I’d guess that their sizable voting bloc in their 60s wouldn’t be good with that.
Honestly, I think the more people learn about this, the more they will find things they don’t like about it. Even Republicans.
I was going to make this point too, that regular Americans who support this stuff think it will only affect people they don’t like. Like how the presidential immunity only covers “official acts,” a term left completely undefined so they can claim things they like official and things they don’t unofficial.
Of course, those broke bitches on the ground aren’t going to get that same consideration and will get fucked same as “DA lIbZ”
I’m surprised this graphic doesn’t mention banning porn and jailing those who produce and distribute it (page 5). Even for non-porn consumers, when you remember that they’re trying to lump non-explicit LGBT media in as porn (for example), that becomes a pretty dangerous stance.
On this. You and I 100% agree. Which should be a shock for you coming from someone you mistakenly labeled conservative. I’m just anti authoritarian, but very pro solidarity.
I’d like to get more involved with something, but not the SRA. Tried that and felt like it was not much more than burning $35 for the membership fees. I need something a little bit more substantial and a bit more cohesive than some discord channel.
i can’t speak for the US, but there are plenty of bad orgs out there, sadly.
i think its important to understand the theory behind it because it makes it easier to spot the good ones vs the bad ones vs the ones that won’t be effective.
The real reason is that conservative ideology dictates that society will have winners and losers who end up in the correct spot in the heirarchy if society doesn’t interfere with the natural sorting.
So it follows that homeless people don’t deserve a “handout” or a leg-up just because they squandered their opportunities.
Leftists think that an ideology follows from a moral interrogation of the world as it should be, whereas reactionaries think the highest good is done by ensuring that people are in their correct spot in the heirarchy in relation to others; since some people are inevitably going to be homeless, there isn’t much to be done about it and the leftists complaining about it are just virtue signaling to get votes.
Their justification is irrelevant once you realize the actual ideological reasoning.
Edit: I’m confused by the downvotes. Anyone want to tell me how I’m wrong? This isn’t my ideology, but I think it’s useful to understand your opposition on more than a cartoon-villain level, especially since they are so effective at selling their ideas to low-information voters.
They post all their reasonings for every opinion on supremecourt.gov
In this case the tldr is the 8th amendment is concerned with the method or kind of punishment. And here it’s a limited fine for 1st time offenders, a court order prohibiting camping in parks, then to a max of 30 days in jail for people who violate that order.
That sounds reasonable until you remember that debtors prison is back, most states make people pay for their incarceration, and semi regular arrests are going to make sure you can’t keep a job to pay that “obligation”.
This is a backdoor into giving more people to the prison industry.
They aren’t trying to find what’s reasonable, they’re trying to find what the law says. There are a lot of stupid things that aren’t unconstitutional, like the death penalty. The majority operates on a ‘garbage in garbage out’ basis. We got a garbage outcome because they have a garbage law, and we haven’t gotten an amendment against it yet.
That said I wholly agree with the sentiment and message regarding the penal institutions we have. The attempts the find different ways to fund that correctional system are consistently producing negative outcomes. The state should bear it’s full weight so that they have incentive to maintain a low prison pop.
SCOTUS has absolutely set realist standards in the past. For example, gun regulations that are de facto bans are treated as such and declared unconstitutional.
They absolutely do not have to sit back and consign homeless people to the prison debt system while bemoaning their inability to enforce the 8th amendment.
The issue is the 8A is understood to have refered to the punishments being cruel or unusual, per the Court, not the offense. The actual punishments here (fine, court order, or 30 days in jail) are fairly normal for laws, the only odd thing about the statute is what the “crime” is.
The court chose that narrow view. They chose to naively interpret the punishment as ending and not transitioning into new forms that can dog people the rest of their lives. It is not something they were required to do. As the dissent points out.
Officially? Something mundane, I’m sure. Unofficially and actually? The “labor shortage” we have (which is actually people being reasonably unwilling to work abusive body-destroying soul-crushing senselessly-cruel jobs for less than poverty-level wages) is causing economic damage that’s visible in their portfolios, and a new massive infusion of slave labor (because prisoners can legally be used as slaves) that have no legal means to resist abuse and exploitation would fix that situation right up.
Anyone who can’t keep up with the numerous corporate money vacuums in their lives (rent, rent increases, bills, bill increases, taxes, more taxes, more bill increases, grocery cost increases, more utility increases, more more more) will become homeless, and the homeless will serve as our new pool of slave labor for dirt cheap. Keep up, hustle harder, pay more, pay faster, or be put in chains and tortured in solitary confinement with moldy nutriloaf until you agree to work to death for nothing.
This conservative wet dream is coming unless we collectively pull our heads out of our asses.
A lot of people seem to think that you can shame people out of obesity, which is nonsense. We live in a country where processed foods are cheap and easy when people barely have enough time to relax, let alone cook. Those processed foods are also designed by everything from scientists specializing in creating new flavors to psychologists to get people to buy them, so they do. We also live in a country where a lot of people are expected to just sit in a chair for eight hours with maybe a couple of short breaks and a lot of them end up doing regular overtime (and that doesn’t count commuting time, when they are also likely sitting).
Of course there’s an obesity epidemic. Why wouldn’t there be? But shaming people for being fat when they don’t have time to cook or the energy to exercise and are forced to spend large portions of their lives sedentary is not the solution. You need to attack the problem at the source, not the terminus.
That’s also without going into how shaming someone can easily send them into a spiral where it’s even harder for them to motivate themselves to improve (this isn’t just regarding fat people, but rather shaming anyone for something that requires lifestyle changes to remedy)
Happy people tend to make less self-destructive life choices
Well said, and thank you. I agree that shaming doesn’t work. Fat people have the unfortunate disadvantage that their personal problem is so visible to others. The social dynamics would radically change if other types of problems were equally visible. Say you have a gambling problem and your skin turns green, or you cheated on your spouse and you grow a third eye on your forehead. Things like that. People love to judge and not be judged.
I hate this line. “Processed foods are cheap and easy.”
Theyre easy, but they’re not cheap.
You can eat much more cheaply if you spend a little bit of time cooking. There’s no fast food meal that beats the price of a simple pasta with some chicken, or rice and beans with bacon, or a beef stew. You can get per serving portions of those for less than $2 USD and all of them use meat. You can get vegetarian dishes down to less than a dollar per portion.
None of those require anything more than a single pot and pan, and a half hour of actual cooking.
Besides, the vast majority of obese people are drinking 1000+ calories a day. Thats not about cheap or easy, water is the cheapest and easiest drink available. They just choose not to.
I say this as someone who drinks coke every single day, and has a BMI under 20. Weight is about portion control. Health is about nutritional balance and exercise.
Now, the lack of education around cooking and nutrition, that’s a problem.
You can eat much more cheaply if you spend a little bit of time cooking.
I addressed this already. Many people barely have enough time to relax and de-stress from their horrible job possibly plus their horrible commute. Expecting everyone to be able to have the psychological fortitude to take the time to cook a meal regularly is asking a lot of a lot of people. Ingredients for cooking may be cheap. Energy for cooking is not a purchasable commodity.
This can’t be overstated enough. There are huge swathes of the USA where the only stores within half an hour are dollar general or gas station convenience stores. You literally can’t eat healthy on those sources, and the nearest actual grocery store could be an hour or even more away.
Kinda hard to eat well when just getting the ingredients would take half a days time.
Hell, I’m in a city and if I didn’t have a car my only options in walking distance are a convenience store and a couple fast food places. Nearest grocery store is a 12 minute drive or a 3 hour bus ride if the bus even shows up.
I’m just arguing that it’s not BOTH cheap and easy. It’s only one of those.
Also, don’t cook every meal. I cook 10 portions at a time for my family every time I make dinner and put leftovers in the fridge (or freezer) which reduces the total time to cook per week quite significantly. It barely takes longer to cook 10 portions compared to 2 portions, which drops the per portion cook time down to single digit minutes.
If you think it is easy to have the mental and physical fortitude to cook, you are not working a job that grinds you into the dirt like so many others.
The biggest problem is the lack of planning. If you come home after working and don’t know what you have or what you’re going to make of course it’s going to feel difficult.
So spend 15 minutes on the weekend making a plan for all your meals for the week. Do a single grocery shop for everything you need to reduce trips to the store.
The when you get home on Wednesday, you already know you’re going to cook up some grilled cheese with soup (that’s in your freezer from last week when you made 5 portions) and you can pull it together while you watch an episode of your favorite tv show on the tablet you prop up on your counter.
No, the biggest problem is, as I keep saying, the lack of energy. You can plan to do whatever you want before work. By the time work is over, you won’t have the energy to do it. That’s why I at my last job I got up at 5:30 am to exercise, because as tired as I was, I knew I wouldn’t be able to do it after work no matter what sort of exercise I was planning to do.
If your job is so physically demanding as to make it impossible to stand, cut, and stir things, then why the fuck are you working out on top of that? Not to mention how much harder it should be to get fat in the first place…
You can eat ultra processed meals at that point, just don’t have four potions of them per meal and you won’t gain weight.
You seem to think mental weariness isn’t a problem when it’s a huge problem. Maybe your job doesn’t wear your out psychologically. Many people can’t say the same.
All of that can be true (and is) and it still doesn’t mean you can’t stop dinner before the fries are gone or cut your sandwich into pieces to eat and then don’t eat them all.
If you’re eating to destress you’re choosing your psychological health over physical health and that’s it’s own problem to address.
And, again, body shaming causes stress, which will result in stress eating, which is why one day a year fat people can go to one of the eight public beaches in New York City without being body shamed is not a bad thing.
I didn’t think anybody is arguing it’s a bad thing to avoid / reduce body shaming. Instead, the argument is that overeating is not predestined and out of people’s control and it’s also not a blameless activity.
By all means go to the beach every day, and fuck anybody that says anything negative. Not everybody has to like the look of your skeleton or your furry suit or the look of you spilling out of your bathing suit though: that’s preference not shame.
What people are arguing is that this one day a year shouldn’t happen, while ignoring the issue that fat people, especially fat women, face a lot of body shaming when they’re at the beach. Many fat women can tell you stories.
Also, on top of just random people giving them shit, they also have to deal with things like this when not even near a beach, which make them not want to go to the beach at all because of the shame being forced on them.
So, again, I think giving them one day a year on one beach in one city with eight beaches where they don’t have to walk around in a bathing suit and getting shamed for it is a good thing.
Treating a fat person poorly is just not going to do anything about the obesity epidemic. I am seeing a bunch of posts here talking about reasons why people are fat and what they should do to not be fat, but they are fat right now even if they are now taking that advice and losing weight, so maybe a little compassion is needed.
I still don’t think it’s a great perspective to normalize or justify obesity because people cope poorly with stress / only have access to fast food / really like French fries / have a back injury / etc. It’s not (generally) an unchangeable destiny, and everyone at every moment is the caretaker of their own bodies.
I don’t think I was normalizing or justifying it. I was saying that people are living in a country that actively encourages it and that is where things need to be attacked if we want to solve the issue, just like you’re never going to end smoking while tobacco is still being sold.
I don’t see any normalizing of obesity. I see a lot of empathy for people whose circumstances have led them to this point. I see a lot of explaining why someone may actively choose foregoing physical health for another reason.
You can support people who are in a position, even by “their own hand” without saying it’s cool, or normal, or anything. You can give just a little back to these people, to hopefully help move them back towards an actual normal living without saying where they are now is good or healthy. That’s what I’m seeing.
Sure you can. But there’s a difference in being compassionate and saying “yeah I can see how you got where you are” and saying “corpos and your stressful job made you obese, you sweet child” which was the vibe I was getting.
I’m not someone deep in the throes of poverty, I’m decently middle class and I work an office job but 12 hours of my day is dedicated in service of my job. My alarm goes off at 6 so I get up, washed, and dressed in the morning, leave by 7 for about an hour drive to work, I have an 8 hour work day with an unpaid hour for work, and an hour drive back home which brings me to about 6 pm. I’m already tired from the day and by the time I’ve made dinner, eaten and cleaned up it’s easily close to 8:00. Before I’m too tired to go much further past 9:00 or 10:00.
And before you say, “why not move closer to your job” Gee I wish I thought of that but I live at home with my parents because homeownership is quite a bit beyond my economic ability at the present moment and rent is even more expensive than having a mortgage.
I already have a hybrid schedule, so the days that I am worming room home gives me so much time back, but that also still doesn’t help me budget my way out of living with my parents.
I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.
Revolutionary suicide does not mean that I and my comrades have a death wish; it means just the opposite. We have such a strong desire to live with hope and human dignity that existence without them is impossible. When reactionary forces crush us, we must move against these forces, even at the risk of death. We will have to be driven out with a stick.
I already have a hybrid schedule, so the days that I am working room home gives me so much time back, but that also still doesn’t particularly help me budget my way out of living with my parents.
I had this problem. How I solved it was signing up for the planet fitness near the office. I was always too tired after the commute to work out at home, but found that if I go straight from work to the gym, I could get an hour workout in, while also skipping some of the heaviest traffic. Even if you show up, put on your gym clothes, and free-spin on an exercise bike for 30 minutes, it’s more than you’re doing now, and will add up.
I’m lucky enough that I don’t have a huge weight problem, and the bit of pudge I do have would probably be pretty easily solved by drinking less sugary drinks. But I’m also speaking from a place of empathy because I get that there are basically no options that cover the healthy, quick, and cheap requirements people want from their food.
Empathy in all things, friend! When I originally posted my comments, I was all full of piss and vinegar. I was fresh from my city’s pride parade festival, and as per usual, there were a bunch of protestors, hucksters, and others trying to scream at, ridicule, and scam everyone in attendance. What should be a safe space, gets turned into something else. I guess that’s what happens when you try to be extra inclusive, you end up welcoming everyone who would also try to ruin the event. It upset me. Particularly this article, where it seems like now even just being overweight gives people the entitlement to steamroll what should be a celebration of gay culture.
That being said, I do have empathy for people addicted to sugar and carbs. When I’m extra sad, I let myself splurge on calories because it’s better than the two alternatives, booze and suicide. And when I’m sad for long enough, I gain weight, and then that becomes another thing to be sad about. It usually culminates in my becoming so upset that I say “EFF IT” and start working out/eating better. Losing weight ALWAYS helps me feel better again. The process of taking control of what I eat and how/when I exercise is fundamental to tackling my depression.
and one of the best tips you can give to someone just starting out, is how to find fast food that’s healthy. Pro-tip, get the wheat bread at subway. The Sweet-onion chicken teriyaki sandwich is only 360 calories and tastes amazing.
Time is a cost too. When people say processed foods are cheaper, time is part of that. If you spend an hour grocery shopping, you can buy a processed meal for each day of the week, and take whatever time it is to microwave it. That’s a lot less than the 30 minutes minimum to make a meal from ingredients. That time becomes important when you have obligations past the ‘regular’ 40 hours a week job.
When we say cheaper we mean dollars. The easier part of the statement covers the time.
If it takes you 30 minutes to make a single meal, it takes you 35 minutes to make 5-10 portions and freeze them. Then you can do the same as the processed meals and pull a different one out each day.
The amount of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup that the U.S. allows in our foodstuffs is so much that it’d carry criminal penalties in European countries. That shit can be just as addictive as heroin, and is in EVERYTHING. It’s also been shown that sweet but sugar free substances that let your body taste sweet without receiving any glucose, increases your craving for the real thing. So while eating sugar free stuff can help satisfy a sweet craving, it can also exacerbate it.
When I see an overweight person, I don’t think “oh what a lazy POS,” I think “There is someone in the throes of addiction.”
There’s a reason Jenny Craig modeled her weight watchers club after AA.
There are many reasons that someone could be overweight and that is definitely a big one. We shouldn’t assume anything. We shouldn’t even assume someone is overweight.
I didn’t want to make this personal until now, but I was overweight and I’ve lost a ton of weight due to an illness, so I’m actually at the average weight for my height now. But I still have a big belly, which will probably never go away. So I look fat, but I’m of average weight.
I’m sure plenty of people would not have a second thought about telling me I need to eat less and exercise more even though this illness means I literally can’t eat and haven’t for almost a year now and I am getting most of my calories and nutrition from Ensure and V8. I cannot possibly eat less.
[Please no medical advice or suggestions. I already have doctors.]
You’re always going to be judged. If you base your own happiness on the collective opinion of society about you, you will never be happy. You can’t control how other people feel, so you need to focus your mental energy on controlling your own feelings.
Sure, but that doesn’t address harassment and bullying. If you think they just “need a thicker skin” you haven’t been bullied in any meaningful way by a large group of hostile people.
That’s not what we’re talking about and you know it. False narrative. The article specifically mentions violence and bullying. If you don’t know that fat people also get viciously bullied on top of the “concerned about your health” from loved ones, you are the one who is isolated from reality.
It’s a conflation from people who misinterpret worry from family as accusations. 90% of cases will have the very people who cry “fat-shaming” actually just be receiving advice from family or friends.
True, however when I was visiting my brother earlier this year (for about a month) at least every three-four days he’d say something about my weight and how concerned he is.
It got very very tiring/grating after the first couple times he said something, so I just kinda had to tell him what’s what with that part of my life. He still says it, but it’s a bit less now.
I get how that could be “annoying”, I don’t get how that could be “bullying” or “fat-shaming”, because honestly, it really isn’t.
The worry seems to come from a place of love and care from what you’re retelling, pushing away that advice from people close to you is not a solution to anything.
Edit: also it seems like you told him to stop after 2 times, when earlier you mention it happening every 3-4 days… It’s not my place to ask but obviously your story has holes in it.
You’re in a state of undress, in public. Bright sun illuminating everything, where the main activity is sitting and staring.
If you’re fat you feel judged for your belly.
If you’re a woman you feel judged for your attire.
If you’re a man you feel judged for your lack of muscles.
If you’re a teen you feel judged (I’m pretty sure this is just a permanent state of feeling judged between ages 13-23).
If you’re alone you feel judged for being alone.
Everyone feels judged at the beach.
But that’s OK because who cares what they think anyway? fuck’em, enjoy the feeling of sand between your toes. See how far you can punt that child. Collect a seashell.
I don’t really want to get into it, but, we have campaigns that actively target people who smoke and/or drink. Two other things that people can indulge in that can and will eventually lead to negative health effects and kill you, much like overeating will.
Again, that is not attacking the problem at the source. Unlike smoking and drinking, you have to eat to survive. And corporations have taken that necessity and twisted it so that people are not making healthy choices.
And there is still the problem of having the energy to cook when you’re a wage slave.
No amount of “stop overeating and exercise” campaigns can solve those issues. You have to attack them at the source.
Unlike smoking and drinking, you have to eat to survive.
Except you don’t need to stress eat or eat when you’re bored. At some point you’re eating over the calories required just for living. To act like what you’re eating is the only problem is disingenuous.
Stress eating is a much smaller problem compared to the issues I was discussing- companies using science to make processed food very difficult to resist and many people finding it hard to get the energy- both physical and mental- to cook in this modern oligarchical world.
Also, if fat people are stress eating, body shaming them would make that worse. And my original point was about body shaming.
Sure, you don’t need to stress eat while you’re bored. But eating is already a thing you do, it makes you feel good, and it’s there.
Imagine if you actually had to smoke a cigarette 3 times a day. The smoke is a requirement for your body. It makes you feel good, but you can go to excess and it’s bad for you. This is MUCH closer to food.
You HAVE to eat. You eat daily. Not doing so is a disorder. So you can’t just not eat, you have to develop a healthy relationship with food. With this thing that tastes good, makes you feel good, and you have to do anyway. Well, that’s okay. We can have a healthy relationship with it!
Oh no. You’re sad. Something bad happened. You need something to help you out. Well, how about some food? It’s usually pretty enjoyable. You eat every day anyway, so like… It’s not a HUGE deal, surely, and you’re fuckin SAD man. Fuck it, whole pizza it is! Let’s get happy!
Rinse and repeat, because life is inevitably a big series of bad things (and good, but we’re not focusing on those) happening. Now your emotional coping is tied to food. It’s not as addictive as nicotine, but it is a requirement for life. It’s a lot harder to change THAT than it is to just say “don’t smoke.” It’s like going to a smoker and saying “smoke, but only 3 times a day.”
Exactly. We don’t need to bully anyone smokers or fat people, but normalizing and “accepting” either is not an option. These people aren’t just killing themselves, they are also heavily impacting our healthcare system.
I’m not porposing or defending any approach here, where do you draw the line between the decision to address the underlying issues and catering to creating isolated environments to shelter the marginalized groups, tho?
I get that taking a breather in a safe environment to help with self-esteem and love is critical so as not to sink below that threshold of constantly feeling overwhelmed that is different for everyone, and I’m in no way seeing a one-day thing as anything else, but as public coordination events, how do you draw the line between the two I mentioned above? First example of going beyond giving breathing room to making a segregation comes to mind as the “pink buses” in which only women are allowed to be feel safe from men that some right-wing politicians bring up from time to time as a similar topic on addressing the cause vs treating the symptom or even causing different problems under such intention.
Thin people consume the least. Once we stop growing we stop needing new clothes. Obesity changes this. Clothes wear out faster, you need new sizes. Obesity leads to depressive states where people buy more to feel better. Speaking of more: eat more! Have some sweets to feel better!
Be bold. Be beautiful. Be you (for us!)
Clothing stores and food chains done with you? Guess you are broken now…
Welcome to the medical system you will now need to rely on to function and stay alive! Till death do we part.
Obesity is an epidemic and it’s too profitable to actually do anything about. They don’t care about you, your feelings, or your health. You are literally livestock to these corporations that you think are caudling you and your way of life. This is a wake up call.
Obesity is difficult to conquer. It requires change and persistence. It requires support. Not everyone can achieve a ‘healthy ideal’ but everyone can do better.
I have a family member with Hashimoto’s disease. Hormone treatment, regular exercise, and a healthy diet keep her as healthy as she can be, but still very obese.
Some people have no control over their weight. Is it fair that they are criticized for having a medical issue? Are you going to ask someone why they’re overweight before judging them?
Does Hashimoto’s disease actually cause obesity? Feels like a lot of people blame thyroid diseases for issues that are actually mostly under their control.
In the grand scheme of things, weight is a physics problem. I seriously doubt that outside of extreme cases that someone would be obese solely from hyperthyroidism.
Hashimoto’s disease is a form of hypothyroidism. Hyperthyroidism is an overactive thyroid.
No, it doesn’t always result in substantial weight gain. Eating less results in rapid energy decrease. Consistently fighting through that exhausting exercise still hasn’t resulted in weight loss for her.
She’s gone to several endocrinologists and nutritionists seeking answers. She was also on dexadrine at three years old, because doctors were medicating energetic children in the 90s. She’s been given plenty of advice and speculation, but still hasn’t received a definitive answer to the problem.
The details of the problem don’t change my point though. Someone could be doing everything they can to address the issue, and will be judged just the same. It’s all the more reason that we shouldn’t criticize others for their weight.
You’re right there are so many things that are not in control and it’s not easy. It might not just be a thyroid issue that is causing it, but it doesn’t help matters any. Many people have hashimoto’s and are thin.
If only fat people KNEW they were fat!! We have to fuck with them. If they could just realize they’re fat and hideous, then they would all be skinny!
Man, if feeling like shit that you’re fat was a solution to being fat, there would be no fat people.
I have a friend whose a professional trainer. Mostly for people trying to lose a fair amount of weight. She says the biggest problem is getting clients to care about themselves and love their body enough to work on feeling better and making progress. She is entirely against fat shaming. It’s only bad for everyone.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.