The problem with outing someone is that it risks subjecting them to discrimination and bigotry by homophobic assholes. Shunning it as a cardinal sin is a defense mechanism to protect each other.
If right-wing bigots hide behind those protections, while being part of the problem that necessitates them in the first place, they deserve no protections.
I agree. It’s like the whole “Not all men” deal: nitpicking the details of the phrasing instead of tackling the root issue. You’re only fighting those symptoms that affect you directly, not the root cause.
The day I have someone yelling in my face that I’m to blame for some other man’s rape is the day I’ll argue about that issue. Until then, let’s focus on the actual problem: In this case (some) young men being pieces of garbage.
No, but the point is that posting “Stalin executes people” jokes in .ml-run communities would not go over well.
It’s bad, but not so bad it can’t get worse
We’re not.
But then, who is, these days?
Are you an Arab-Antarctican?
revolutionize how women get care
About fucking time for that
One time long ago, a guy on the train (whether tweaking or mental issues, I don’t know) sat down across from me, which was probably the most spacious spot in a fairly busy train. I didn’t register any unusual behaviour, nor was I - white male teen, at the time - particularly concerned.
He suddenly leaned in and asked me what I’d do if he killed me. Die, obviously. He then followed up telling me he could punch me in the face. He did neither of these things, eventually got off the train, and I never saw him again. The incident obviously left an impression, but I wouldn’t say I am or was traumatised by it.
I think this exemplifies that difficult grey zone. I don’t think it was motivated by hate, given I’m a fairly “safe” demographic. I also didn’t take him for the type of bully that does it for the power fantasy, or the type of macho needing to establish superiority.
Was it a threat or just a rather unhinged musing on social restraints? Was there actual intent to hurt me, kept in check by some lucky circumstances, or was it just a brief outburst of intrusive thoughts? I did feel threatened and intimidated, but is what I felt enough to judge his actions?
Regardless of the legal question, he probably needed help - medical or social - rather than punishment. I’m not qualified to assess that, but that question has bounced around my head ever since. What led to this outburst? What could be done to prevent that? What could be done to help him?
It’s not strictly relevant to the legal question - his actions are his own to account for, though his mental state may be a mitigating factor - but I figured I’d add it as context because I think it’s worth considering.
The more workers you attract, the higher your standards for hiring can be. That goes for any job, including jobs of passion. If you need to fill three positions and get three applicants willing to do them for shit pay… odds are your applicants are shit too, or they’d be going for better paid positions.
If you offer more, people with better qualifications will be interested more. You get more applicants and can be picky who you want.
As a bonus: better paid employees have more incentive to stay and do a good job to ensure they keep their position.
An introduction to which topic?
Yes! It’s pretty nice!
I’ve been giggling for three minutes now. Thanks for making my morning a little sweeter <3
Ah yes, let’s skip the social part and get right to the obligatory consumption.
I don’t really care for Halloween, but I don’t actively hate it either. I like seeing kids and parents in cute costumes walking around. To me, the whole point has always been one of social activity, of walking around the neighbourhood and showing off your cool costume and such. You know, the whole “reinforcing horizontal social ties” deal we’ve done since forever.
Yeah, well, some of us aren’t willing to give up just yet. Some of us are willing to reach for that slim chance that there is a way out. Some of us are trying to make things better, but like all political activism that has to follow some strategic approach.
I didn’t hear many people complain about “both sides endorse genocide” until this election. Up to the primaries, pressuring your party to be anti-genocide is good and reasonable, and after the election is done, when the new government is being formed, pressuring it to be anti-genocide is critical, but right now, the strategic thing is to focus on things this election can change.
That sudden upsurge of “both sides” rhetoric particularly in leftist spaces is concerning. Whether out of ignorance of how funding works, defeatism like yours or genuinely bad actors seeking to manipulate the election, it sabotages that pragmatic effort to keep the fascist out of office and buy time for more direct measures like protests, petitions, whatever else you want.
“Both sides bad” may be true, but right now, it’s not helpful for leftist efforts.
Will anything make a difference to Israel being allowed to continue state terrorism and war against civilians?
Only one way to find out: Trying. But mathematically, drawing votes away from the non-Trump candidate increases the risk of another Trump presidency, and that carries the risk of further curtailing options.
The killing of innocents is not less important just because of political convenience.
…and which innocents do you actually have a chance to protect?
On a pragmatic level, what is your suggested course of action?
Yes, saying that killing innocents is wrong is ‘vapid’.
No. Refusing to vote or voting third party is. At best, it will make no difference.
Protesting against the Genocide is right and important, but I’m railing against the people intent on dragging this topic to the public right before an election. The only people it will affect are left-leaning voters, and drawing them away from the non-Trump option sabotages that option.
Save the protest until the election is done, then hold the government (not just Harris; allocation of funding is a parliamentary decision and the President’s veto can’t do much but delay it and lock up government) accountable.
To be clear, Genocide is bad, what’s happening in Gaza is Genocide, the US regime is complicit and all of this is fucked up. But the immediate priority should be unity to keep things from escalating beyond democratic control.
‘hunter-gathering was the peak of human society’
I love perpetually balancing on the edge of subsistence, one step below the agrarian societies that drove me out to the marginal lands unfit for more efficient cultivation! I want to be stuck in a loop of raiding other tribes in the attempt to drive them out of their hunting grounds, then having them raid mine in turn in an eternal struggle to get away from the precipice of doom!
I think it’s really hard from a modern perspective to gauge just how unpleasant life was. Nothing about low-tech farming is simple.
Ooh, let’s play “find the dark history”! What better way to distract from today’s issues and avoid talking about solutions for tomorrow’s problem!
This is me agreeing with you, to be clear. The description “taints in its history” is so ubiquitous as to be useless. Yes, acknowledging the errors of the past is important to learn from them and improve, but the focus needs to be on that learning and improving.
The NATO has potential to be a force of security. In a modern world, conflict between peers is more destructive than ever and the returns on aggressive action are more strongly affected by the strength of the defense, such a union of forces can discourage attack by making it too unprofitable.
Of course, that requires the union to actually stand united and the potential aggressor to be reasonable and motivated by the state’s prosperity. Neither of those seem entirely guaranteed right now…