Saxoboneless

Saxoboneless , 1 month ago

I’m sure there’s an in-depth reason for it, but there is one that scrapes Old Reddit, instead of the main site, and it works great for me (Stealth on f-droid). There’s also RedReader, a client that was allowed to keep API access because of it’s accessibility features… which I guess Reddit just couldn’t be bothered to implement into their own app.

Saxoboneless , 4 months ago

Found an article that pinned an update - she was suspended for 45 minutes. Weird.

meduza.io/…/x-formerly-twitter-suspends-yulia-nav…

Saxoboneless , 4 months ago

Though not as high risk as being a logger, a fishing worker, a pilot, a roofer, a general construction worker, any job driving a car or semi, any agricultural laborer, and certain types of maintenance work, among a few others.*

Saxoboneless , 4 months ago

This process is already gatekept, to my knowledge. In my state, changing your legal gender id or name requires going through the courts and a substantial amount of legal paperwork - even if you do so without a lawyer, there are some substantial fees associated with that process. Not to mention if someone wanted to become less identifiable, they probably wouldn’t want to do that in a way that is available as public record. Personally, I’d probably just get a haircut - they’re a lot faster and a lot cheaper.

Additionally, banning everyone - especially banning exclusively trans people - from fixing their documentation is not a reasonable solution to your hypothetical problem, a fact so obvious anyone arguing in good faith almost certainly would have caught it.

Saxoboneless , 4 months ago

I’m currently nonreligious, but there are hundreds of people that have influenced my personal philosophies. But despite the things I believe having come from or been influenced by other people, I still consider my beliefs to be my own. Why should the beliefs of religious or spiritual people be viewed any differently?

Saxoboneless , 4 months ago

Nah plenty of rich people have been deepfaked, this is probably getting addressed because of her massive and obsessive fanbase.

Saxoboneless , 4 months ago

That was the deal Hamas offered them days ago - Netanyahu refused it.

Saxoboneless , 4 months ago

Laws like this one (as well as far right fear mongering in general) misrepresent that situation even more than you’d think. Only 800 minors in the country (out of ~80 million depending on how you count, so ~0.001% of all US minors) got any transition related surgeries over the course of 2 years. On top of that, there aren’t a lot of surgeons who do these surgeries, and some of them won’t operate on minors. So because of the limited number of surgeons, trans people often have to travel across at least state lines to get these surgeries, which is why none of this very small population of minors even got their surgeries in Ohio.

These laws are made all the more sinister when you realize half of their content outlaws things that aren’t even happening entirely for the sake of feeding into bigoted fear mongering and dehumanization - “they’re coming for your kids.”

Saxoboneless , 5 months ago

Why would that work? At this point, the majority of people comfortable continuing to vote Republican after an attempted coup, the repeal of Roe, and an avalanche of explicitly harmful and bigoted legislation are die-hard reactionaries and Trump supporters, and the Republican primaries seem to be reflecting that. Nikki Haley is the closest thing we have to a center-right candidate, and her odds of beating Trump right now are pretty slim. The political right has been bleeding public support for a while now, and Trump is the only thing that’s been giving them momentum and wins - dropping him is desirable to at least some of the party, but it probably isn’t an actual option.

And even if they did drop Trump, like… they’re probably not going to course correct at this point. Enacting christofascism and appealing to reactionaries is looking more and more like the only hope for a future the party has left, and they’ll likely continue down that path with or without Trump. “Bringing Trump to justice” is still worthwhile, but on a number of levels, it will not suddenly make the party of the southern strategy electable.

Saxoboneless , 6 months ago

Pretty sure there’s an ocean of difference between Jesus Christ rebuking the literal devil and a politician traveling across state borders to illegally deface a statue as a publicity stunt to fundraise and get an interview on Fox about how he totally “decapitated Satan.” Even if his conviction was somehow driven by religion and not pure vanity (it wasn’t), any form of religious supremacy has no place in society at large, let alone a government building. The law recognizes this, “freedom of religion” is the backbone of this in the US, and I’d hope people understand why it might be a worthwhile and important protection to have and uphold.

Additionally, I have a suspicion that anyone who favorably compares a person who postures as a Christian supremacist to Christ is less the sort of person with an understanding of their religion and more the sort of person who knows how to search for the word “Satan” in their YouVersion Bible app.

Saxoboneless , 6 months ago

Well, people did stop this in Ohio, specifically. Local organizers recently successfully petitioned to put abortion rights (which Republican representatives had been threatening) on the ballot statewide - voters got it passed, alongside marijuana legalization, all while facing (and continuing to face) significant antagonism and legal backlash from “elected” Republicans in the 2nd most gerrymandered state in the union.

Both parties suck, I’d go so far as to say both parties frequently do outright evil shit, but they are not the fucking same, and even if they were, that has yet stop people from coming together to get involved and improve their communities themselves. Observing politics near exclusively at the federal level tends to obscure that reality. I accept that this sort of doomerism can come from a place of ignorance, so I offer you suggestion: if you want things to get better, go help. Go find out what groups are actively working to induce local- or state-level government reform, or who are working to directly improve the lives of marginalized people in your community, and go help them. You can’t exactly stop fed-level Dems from being useless hypocrites, but you can get involved with groups in your community to help with the work of bringing about positive change - and while that is harder than stewing about the state of things, it actually gets results.

Saxoboneless , 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

I feel like I might’ve gotten a little off topic with this, but I just see this sentiment of “both parties are the same (so let’s completely abandon electoralism)” so often online right now and I find it so exhausting and unconstructive.

Saxoboneless , 6 months ago

Just edited the followup reply to clarify what I was trying to say- I don’t think it’s what you thought it was, and I can see how it was unclear

Saxoboneless , 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

I don’t understand the replies here - this bill was drafted in response to multiple events where ethno-nationalists burned the Qur’an in front of audiences with the implicit intent to incite violence against Denmark’s Muslim minority population. If you read the article, the bill bans the only the public burning of any religious book, not just the Qur’an. This bill would not “limit freedom of speech,” it would limit a form of hate speech and arguably stochastic terrorism being employed by the far right in Denmark. I do not see a problem with this bill.

Saxoboneless , 6 months ago

Well for one, Jews and specifically Israelis don’t have to go anywhere for Palestine and Palestinians to be free?

Like the slogan just does not at all necessarily imply what you’re imagining (or what the US congress claims) it does. That slogan’s been around longer than Hamas.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

I’m a little more torn over this than others… On one hand, this is the appropriate messaging to force Democrats to actually represent the interests of their electorate, the thing they’re specifically elected to do. The phone lines of these politicians should be going off 24 hours a day with callers telling them they will never even consider voting for them again unless they show an appropriate level of change, remorse, and action to stop this. Biden should be receiving that 10x over. Additionally, there are groups of people I will never criticize for refusing to vote - should the white lefty criticize the Muslim for refusing to vote for a leader that does not value the lives of Muslims? Should they criticize the Jew for refusing to vote for a leader who commits genocide in their name?

…and on the other hand, as a queer person who follows politics, I still feel any public refusal to vote Biden on my part must be a bluff. There’s too much at stake for me to justify going through with it privately… there’s my trans life, yes, but then there’s also the lives of my trans and generally queer friends, the freedoms of the women in my life, the lives and freedoms of those groups on the national scale, the ability for anyone to vote at all down the line - privately refusing to vote blue for the presidency would not feel like solidarity (partly because it would make the situation I’m refusing to vote over worse, and also potentially make life in the US for Jews and Muslims worse, as Republicans and Trump specifically have enacted things like explicit travel bans before). It would not feel like praxis to virtue signal my refusal to be complicit in one genocide only to be complicit in the all-to-possible ellimination of democracy at home and a subsequent net increase in genocide and funding for it around the world. Voting for Genocide Joe is not cool or satisfying or even right - it’s just the least bad… and honestly for what its worth, the least bad has never looked worse in my life.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

Well yeah no ones going to watch a video you don’t even link?

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

That in no way exonerates or justifies those who are killing patients in an active hospital.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

It’s for people that both own a PS5 and liked the Wii U.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

Is this a joke? If the IDF had any desire to even pretend that they were interested in protecting civilian life, they would obviously refrain from bombing civilian exit routes 24 hours a day, not 4. And even then, the actual point of this burning olive branch is obvious - the only option Israel offers to Palestinian civilians that isn’t certain death is the barely less certain death of fleeing, and after they flee, Israel will settle what remains, as they have done in Palestine for over 70 years.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

Good point, must not have been that bad, supreme court could really bring that one back with zero consequences, huh?

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

I pretty much already stated all that. When it’s about performing some act, and where “what you don’t agree with” impacts the work being performed.

…so if we go with the previous example, a photographer should be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple if they’re “not at ease” with seeing them -

“move a little closer”, “look this way”, "kiss lightly ", etc., etc.

Well the hypothetical protection you’re describing would in practice protect and embolden people who hold white supremacist beliefs. I say “embolden” because you know what a racist photographer would do without those protections? They’d either turn them down, or they would take the pictures, take the money, and keep their ugly mouths shut. Because those are better options than fighting a battle they believe they could lose.

However, if they are legally protected by the federal government in communicating to interracial couples they won’t provide service to them because they are an interracial couple, can you imagine the actions a now unrepressed fanatic would take? You think you wouldn’t see “whites only” on some of these people’s websites? And can you begin to imagine the fear and anxiety that would inspire in the people who now have to see those kinds of notices while looking for a wedding photographer? A wedding cake? Who now have to ask every photographer and cake maker if they serve “couples like them” if they don’t have a notice? Can you see the parallels?

Legal action that empowers bigots and disempowers those they hate at scale is all it takes to develop a foundation and vocal support for the return of socially acceptable and legally backed discrimination. And you better believe that a foundation is exactly what the far-right politicians that brought about these “protections” view it as, because plenty have signaled openly that they have no interest in stopping legalized queer discrimination here, and will absolutely use this decision to justify going further in the future, the same strategy they use for all their culture wars.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

YouTube is also that way. It’s just that it gets buried down by the shitload of people who use it.

Eh to degree, but the reason neonazis and bigots seem to flock to/make up a majority of these sites is often because they’re getting banned on YouTube - and these video platforms opt to survive by leaning into that instead of properly moderating their platform.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

Hyperpipe (self-hostable YTMusic frontend) supports accounts, which allows for syncing between devices. It really needs an app on at least mobile for it to really be worth it though, as right now it can only be used through the web UI.

Saxoboneless , 7 months ago

They were hiding behind over three thousand children? That’s the argument youre going to make? And Israel still hasn’t gotten all of Hamas? Is Hamas just hiding under piles of children? How the fuck do you look at over 3,000 corpses of children and claim that a significant majority were actually just obscuring Hamas members, you fucking nutjob?

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

…and the video game industry makes more money than any other entertainment industry. Yes, these things should cost more than just their production cost, but there is currently an obscene amount of money being made by the people at the top of these industries - y’know, the ones whose main role in making and distributing the product is just already being obscenely wealthy. And while I don’t really care if AAA games are overpriced if they’re only $60, I do care if life-saving meds are being held for ransom.

Do y’all need reminded that insulin, a life-or-death drug that’s been around since the fucking 1920s, only costs at most $10 to make but currently retails for up to $300 a vial? It does not fucking matter whether or not this particular treatment should cost $13 or $90, the markup on any life saving drug being over 1,000% is blatant price gauging at the expense of human life, and the fact that the pharmaceutical industry does this all the time is common fucking knowledge. Anything approaching a defense of this shit either is in fact astroturfing or is so braindead as to call it a necessity that a publicly traded company demand the sick either choose debt or the grave.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

I think you’re both right, I’m surprised you disagree. Yes, this problem has existed longed than the Biden administration, but also yes, this administration unsurprisingly continues to perpetuate it. A person leaving the administration because of its support of Israel does not refute that fact, it supports it. I’m not aware of a US president/administration, Democrat or Republican, that has ever supported Palestine, and I’m not under the impression that any of them were somehow forced to hold the positions they did - it has always been a choice.

Also, I don’t know what’s up with the replies saying the US should force them to stop fighting at metaphorical gunpoint - not only does that support the godawful myth of America as world police, but anyone familiar with this conflict should know that both Hamas and the Israeli government are fighting in the name of supremacist beliefs, and neither have any interest in ceasing until the other side is completely obliterated.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

Worth repeating that when American evangelical Christians support Israel, it’s because of they think it will bring about the literal end of the world, and to them that is a good thing. I assume that’s not Biden’s angle, but it’s certainly the angle of a significant portion of Republicans.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

Maybe… But the far right also famously hates Amber Heard, as they were ones pushing much of the negative media attention against her during the public trial. Hell, the Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro’s outlet) was running an entire ad campaign against her. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Heard, the idea Musk could believably threaten anyone with “the far right” in this situation isn’t realistic.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

I think the claims I’ve heard irl are something along the lines of “can’t trust Google search results, they’re censoring 'em!” I figure the things they’re mad Google “censors” are probably literal or borderline fascist content - and I also tend to assume they’re probably misusing the word censor. I think the tenuous connection here is just that yeah Google is probably doing some shady stuff with their search results.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

WOW does this article bend over backwards to obscure the likelihood that “treatment” is not going to be voluntary. First of all, this is not affected individuals applying for these services, as that would just be social services, a thing that already exists. Here’s how this system works:

Family members and first responders are among those who can now file a petition on behalf of an adult they believe “is unlikely to survive safely” without supervision and whose condition is rapidly deteriorating. They also can file if an adult needs services and support to prevent relapse or deterioration that would likely result in “grave disability or serious harm” to themselves or others.

As far as I can tell, this isn’t even remotely exclusive to homeless people, and it feels like burying the lead that Cali’s homeless population is mentioned at all. This is anyone with a psychotic disorder that can be forced into “treatment” by a badge or random family member who claims they’re “deteriorating.” If you think that sounds like it’s putting people with psychotic disorders at a even more heightened risk of being forced into conservatorships, you’d be right:

A person who does not successfully complete a plan could be subject to conservatorship and involuntary treatment, said Tal Klement, a deputy public defender in San Francisco who is among critics of the new process.

The article immediately moved to muddy this fact by following it up with two paragraphs that start with this sentence:

But the statute also allows the court to dismiss the proceedings if the individual declines to participate or to follow the agreement.

That’s all you need to read - “allows” is extremely different from “requires.” The court is in no way required to respect the wishes of the affected individual as the article irresponsibly attempts to imply, and as these courts are likely to be biased to view the affected individual as a crazy person and the people that reported them as Good Samaritans “just trying to help,” they are probably far more likely to opt for treatment, consensual or not, and this court becomes an excellent method of fast tracking vulnerable people into conservatorships.

Assuming “first responders” make any use of this, maybe this shields a few people from jail, but as cops aren’t really opposed to sending people to jail, it’s more likely they’ll just use this system when they suspect someone of having a psychotic disorder but can’t get them for an actual crime, if they bother to use it at all.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

Not a prison alternative:

Family members and first responders are among those who can now file a petition on behalf of an adult they believe “is unlikely to survive safely” without supervision and whose condition is rapidly deteriorating. They also can file if an adult needs services and support to prevent relapse or deterioration that would likely result in “grave disability or serious harm” to themselves or others.

It doesnt really have anything to do with homeless people, either. It reads to me like it’s designed to get people into conservatorships and not much else.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

Not directed exclusively at me, but I had a math teacher throw a temper tantrum directed at a classroom of 4th graders about how much of a personal injustice it was to her that our parents kept sending her complaints, and that has got to be the worst thing she did.

To give you a picture as to why she might’ve been getting so many, when my Mom sent in one of these “complaints,” she received a response in the form of a metaphor about how coal must be put under immense pressure in order to become a diamond… I think my Mom responded that something like a flower might serve as a better metaphor for a fucking 9 year old, though I doubt it did much to change that jerk’s mind.

Anyway, having her as an instructor set me back at least a year in math, and I’ve had other people who were in that class say that that’s where their issues with anxiety started.

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

If that’s you’re reasoning, why even bother locking them up? Why not argue to execute all criminals, if your only desire is too keep all those dangerous convicts out of society for as long as possible?

Saxoboneless , 8 months ago

Might’ve taken this in good faith had I not checked your comment history to see you insisting all drag queens are a danger to children, so let’s just dress you down and block you real quick, mkay?

The point has been made in another reply to the initial comment that rehabilitation would still yield better results than incarceration for keeping the “people on the street” safe, as the only way incarceration is able to lower the number of “dangerous convicts” is by putting them in a cell for life. When rehabilitation is successful, the number of “dangerous criminals” can actually go down in a way that does not deprive those individuals from seeing trees for the rest of their lives.

Additionally, convicts absolutely can and do hurt people in prison, the people hurt just happen to be other convicts, not to mention the violence they often face from the people who run the place, who have a tendency to enter the field of incarceration with authoritarian personality types and the intent of mistreating or exploiting prisoners. All this disregarded, despite the fact that you acknowledge the possibility that some of those who end up in these facilities are innocents - the only category of person you are supposedly interested in protecting is not protected in these institutions as they currently exist.

There’s much more I could say about prisons to make this point, but what I’m saying is that prisons do not provide a neutral experience, they are not just people sitting in empty rooms experiencing nothing - they are places that generally leave people more damaged than when they came in, and often inflict that damage for years, in some cases for something as victimless as a marijuana charge. Thus, while rehabilitation has the potential to concretely improve society and the lives of people (y’know, the thing convicts are), incarceration as it currently exists can only hurt people and send them back out into society worse off than they were before. The only argument for it is to insist it is justified for doing so, by inventing a dynamic where “they,” strangers placed into prison, ALL present a danger to “us,” the “people on the street,” that they either cannot be fixed or we should not bother, and that whatever they get, they deserve. Maybe you can convince someone that’s true for a convicted rapist, but I think you’d have a harder time when it comes to victims of addiction, poverty, and/or an imperfect justice system.