The focus isn’t on that though, and while you and The Leader of the Free World™ prevaricate and wish for a perfect solution, children are being slaughtered in their thousands. The focus, in my opinion, should be on stopping that slaughter immediately. You know, with a ceasefire or something.
No, you’re right. We absolutely need to move forward and progress, especially if that means pseudo-intellectuals have free rein to rape whomever they want, whenever they want. In fact, Jordan Peterson should probably be allowed to genocide anyone with unnatural hair colour, or people who chose their own pronouns!!! Otherwise it’s just basically the dark ages all over again, right?
Good question! It seems that their comment would only work as an exasperated remark if the level of rape/sexual assault/general disregard for women was higher now than it was when chaperoning and Victorian mores were prevalent, which it is not.
So we can fairly assume, unless the commenter chooses to clarify, that they were expressing annoyance at the relatively new phenomenon of women being able to retrospectively point the finger at their aggressors.
A lot of that judgement is based on seeing patterns in the arguments of conservatives and my own parsing of the comment, so it might be wrong and I’m willing to be corrected. It’s a genuinely interesting question, because without my experience of the cesspools of the internet which has caused a (reasonable) bias in my thinking, I don’t think I would have come to that conclusion. I hope we do hear more from the commenter and can see what exactly they meant.
Either way, Russell Brand is a diseased penis.
Edit: oh dear, down voted within 30 seconds of posting this very thoughtful reply! Whatever could that mean?
Its not really about the size, though. These dogs have been bred to have a trait called “gameness”, which is prized in fighting dogs, because it means they will disregard exhaustion, injury and all other distractions when in aggressive mode. They don’t let go, ever. Where most dogs, even big ones like German shepherds or rottweilers, will bite and tear and then let go and usually retreat, bull terriers will not stop until they or the prey are dead or incapacitated. Sometimes they will continue to attack even when their prey has stopped moving. That’s why these dogs are dangerous. Any dog can snap and attack. Yes, even your auntie’s 17-year old Bassett hound. Any dog. But when a bull terrier snaps it’s potentially life threatening.
Admittedly, I don’t know much about Brexit, but from what I have been exposed to, it seems like a decisively economical and political impairment that made travel and business with the rest of Europe more difficult and costly. Since it is so highly criticized as a terrible move, why doesn’t the UK just rejoin the EU?
Because there are about 4 billion other women on the planet you could date, and according to my emails, at least hundreds in your local area.
There are no other horny global trading blocs in Britain’s local area.
Not so. It makes sense to organise in trade unions. The heads of those unions are on the same side most of the time, as it would be in this case, and they can easily coordinate their actions. But in some cases the interests of one trade have no bearing on another, or are even in opposition, in which case it would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to organise a balloted action across the entire union. Thus nullifying the strength of the union and playing right into the capitalist’s hands.
Here’s what I don’t like about him: he’s dishonest. The man is a psychologist. He’s an expert in only one field: psychology. Yet he pontificates on any subject he pleases, trying to pass for some sort of generalized expert. He isn’t as smart as he wants you to think he is, and he’s certainly not an expert in sociology, economics, medicine, or any of the other things he likes to venture his unlearned opinion on.
Pseudoscientific woo dressed up in flowery language. Intellectually dishonest. Self serving egomaniac. Get in the sea, Peterson.
This relates to the BBC article [www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”....
£18.8 trillion divided by 67.7 million people is £278,000 per person.
That’s just not possible as a sum. 18.8 trillion is more money than the entire nation has. I’m all for reparations btw. But I can’t see how that much is realistic?
I’m really not trying to dunk on you when I say this: you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the left-right political theory. A previously left-wing party can drift to the right and vice versa. A party called the “lefty left socialist communist hippy party” can be made up completely of right-wingers, and that doesn’t change the definition of left and right. I won’t try and explain the definitions of political left and right to you because there are almost definitely better explanations out there than I could give. I just implore you to find an impartial, unbiased explainer.
I mean that’s hardly fair, given that in the past, constitutional changes weren’t done on the basis of an advisory referendum with a tiny majority, and we weren’t told prior that the outcome would result in Brexit.
If you’re blaming the voters, you’re letting the Conservative party get away with it. It is decidedly their fault.
Let’s assume for a moment that what you say is accurate
Let’s not. Instead of assuming, we can agree that the referendum being advisory is a matter of fact. I can provide thousands of sources for this if you are unsure.
between the referendum and actual Brexit there were TWO general elections.
Two points here. Firstly, an election is not a single issue referendum and the Conservatives winning an election is therefore not equivalent to the voters agreeing on Brexit.
Secondly, in both of these elections the majority of voters voted for anti-Brexit parties. So, if we were to take the elections as referenda, (which, again, we can’t) the results would show that the UK voted subsequently against Brexit. Twice.
As for your last paragraph, the fact that “they lied” (not sure why this is in quote marks: they did) does matter. It’s not reasonable to expect that the whole populace will have the time, inclination, ability or education to be able to understand the full picture and determine which parts of what they’re being told are true and which are lies. This is partly why we elect and pay representatives. A lot of lies were told, some in completely novel ways and some in more traditional ways, but enough to at least confuse the average Joe. Why would you lay the blame at the door of people who made a decision based on the best information that was available to them when that information was bogus?
those lies at the time were constantly debunked in basically all of the media if you just bothered to look.
Outright incorrect here. The majority of the media was pro - brexit in the UK. Owned as it is by disaster capitalists and paid-up Tory supporters. At the very least, the message from the media as a whole was incoherent. I believe it’s fair to say that large parts of the mass media embarked on a targeted misinformation campaign for the very purpose of muddying the waters and convincing people to vote against their own interests.
I’m not sure why you overlook all of this. Perhaps you just didn’t know. Perhaps you’re a Tory supporter. Perhaps you just like nice, neat black-and-white answers. But by doing so, you’re blaming a lot of innocent people and letting a lot of guilty ones off without scrutiny. You’re literally making it worse.
Well it seems you’ve made up your mind. I can’t reason you out of a position you haven’t reasoned yourself into.
You seem to assume that a lot of people should or do have your intellect and education. They do not, and that is not their fault. You also make the mistake of simplifying what was an extraordinarily chaotic political landscape between 2016 and 2019. Finally, and most bizarrely, you seem to think it realistic to expect 90+% turnout in a general election which is, at best, astonishingly naïve.
But look, you do you. Obviously you didn’t come here to scrutinise your own firmly held beliefs. So have a good one.
You are incapable. That is because the comment is factually correct. US Federal law has protections for queerness. The cited law proves it. What point are you trying to make exactly?
But that’s not what was under discussion. Does there exist a federal law which protects queerness?
Yes, yes there does.
Is it perfect? By no means, there’s a long way to go. But the characterization of the US as queerphobic in the context of comparison to Russia is a nonsense. Both-sidesing this issue is a disgusting affront to the LGBTQ people suffering under Putin.
Legalising same sex marriage is an acceptance of queerness. At no point did I say that the issue was “met” (i.e. settled). In fact, I clearly said “it’s not perfect”.
Its not whataboutism though. It’s a response to the original (flippant) claim that the US is a queerphobic dictatorship.
I have not seen any pogroms against gay or trans people that have been funded or supported by the US government. Maybe going back a ways?
I fucking hate the US government. Just need to mention that. They’re a joke and I want to see huge reforms, though I don’t hold out much hope.
I hate the Russian government more, and with good reason, especially on the issue of queerphobia. Are you genuinely of the belief that the Russian government is less queerphobic than the US govt? If so, please explain that to me in big letters so that I can understand properly.
its not going to get less ridiculous if you keep saying it.
Nor will it get any less true until you refute it.
Are you even LGBT?
Fuck off. I don’t know you.
The US is a plutocracy. You need to have a look at the definitions. It’s definitely not a dictatorship because there is a regular handover of power. Is it any better than a dictatorship? Up for discussion. But the definitions of words have to matter, and you’ve got the wrong one.
So no examples of US government-led/supported pogroms against queer people then? Not even a single link to a pogrom which was supported by someone who was supported by an American capitalist who is demonstrably in bed with the American government? That’s looking like a pretty weak line of argument at the minute, though I’m open to hearing more.
Your last paragraph is similarly hugely lacking in supporting evidence. It may be true, but at the moment I have to dismiss it utterly since it’s just your opinion, and, again, I don’t know you.
If the act protected queer people, then I would defend Saudi Arabia against comparisons with countries that actively litigate against the existence of queer people, like Russia, yes.
But I would not consider it proof that Saudi was accepting of queer people. For that I would probably look at testimonies of queer people in the country. Like the ones you can see from millions of US citizens.
That’s not the point. I feel I’ve already answered your argument in other comments. If you don’t agree, please let me know why and I’ll happily address it.
I mean that’s just completely false. The Act requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.
From the Act:
Congress finds the following: ((a) In General.–No person acting under color of State law may deny– (1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or (2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
Seems pretty clear, no?
Again I’m not trying to say this is a fait accompli and we can just sit back on our laurels and consider it done. But it’s a hell of a lot better than Russia’s law.
Except I never made that claim. Is English not your first language? Your comprehension seems a bit below par and I don’t want to bully you out of the conversation if that’s the case. I could be less idiomatic if that would help?
Glad to have surprised you. And yet, if you actually parse what I’m saying, you’ll see that the evidence in providing is a presumed lack of testimony being evidence of a lack of acceptance which indicates a comparison which is favourable to my argument.
Yep. They don’t prove the US is a queerphobic dictatorship. Not even close. I don’t know what more to say. Maybe you should open your mind a bit? There is some pretty good literature out there on the nature and inherent value of truth that might be illuminating for you.
And one last thing. I’m not a liberal. Not everyone who you argue with is.
Or, I’m considering your argument which is supported by your evidence that some US citizens aided homophobia in other parts of the world. What was that again?
Nice! I’ve read the manifesto, most of Das Kapital and some of his essays and his thinking is a big part of my worldview. I’m reading “at the café” by Malatesta at the moment and I think I like it enough to recommend.
Continuous calculation (telegra.ph)
US vetoes UN resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire (www.semafor.com)
The U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution Friday calling for a ceasefire to the fighting in Gaza....
What country are you using lemmy from?
;-)
UK Has Passed The Online Safety Bill (www.bbc.com)
Dark day for online privacy in the UK.
What's the biggest plot hole in real life?
Since the latest season hasn’t concluded yet, let’s only look at plot holes from 1990 and before.
"Wiffract" Wi-Fi method can read letters through walls (www.techspot.com)
Russell Brand had to have 'no sex' clause written into his Big Brother contract (www.mirror.co.uk)
cross-posted from: feddit.uk/post/2414370...
Suella Braverman pushes for ban of 'lethal danger' XL Bully dogs (uk.yahoo.com)
Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.
What widely-praised historical figure do you think was actually not very admirable when you scrutinize them?
Why doesn't the United Kingdom rejoin the European Union?
Admittedly, I don’t know much about Brexit, but from what I have been exposed to, it seems like a decisively economical and political impairment that made travel and business with the rest of Europe more difficult and costly. Since it is so highly criticized as a terrible move, why doesn’t the UK just rejoin the EU?
SAG-AFTRA votes unanimously to expand its strike to include the games industry (www.eurogamer.net)
Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order (www.cbc.ca)
How are slavery reparations fair?
This relates to the BBC article [www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”....
No one really understands our struggle (lemmy.world)
‘It all disappeared with Brexit’: Craft beer boom ends as more than 100 UK firms go bust (www.theguardian.com)
‘We Cannot Win’ Says Top Russian Commander (www.kyivpost.com)
https://archive.li/Z0m5m...