this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
597 points (99.0% liked)
Not The Onion
12309 readers
491 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this epitomizes all Republicans
they are just a panoply of mean, nasty people who are either religiously deluded into ignorance or avariciously salivating over class oppression or some combination thereof
gaslighting a colleague is no different than what all republicans do to transgenders every single day. i hope they all live long enough for tribunals to round these republicans up and try them for their crimes against transgenders after the constitution is changed to allow ex post facto laws for the limited purpose of fucking these assholes over for all the shit they are doing now to the trans community. the same hate they have towards transgenders we should all have towards these shitheads and ultimately, we the people write the laws and have a living constitution and should fuck these people over as hard as possible in the most lawful way possible about 20 years from now when the religious senior citizens who protect them with their religious delusions die off.
the only beneficent quality of republicans is supporting the NRA, which really should be a non-partisan issue since citizens need to be armed in case of tyranny
in the french revolution, moronic greedy oppressors were efficiently removed from power after the lower classes were pushed more and more into misery. luckily, unlike in france back then, we can vote greedy vile idiots out of office
unfortunately, we're going to have to wait for the deluded religious morons to naturally reduce in numbers by dying off to get rid of these fucks, since older people are more religious and easily deceived into voting for terrible politicians
Small nomenclature heads up "Transgenders" is a common conservative dogwhistle. In correct use trans and cis or transgender and cisgender are adjectives , it's always paired with a noun. For example "Transgender people" , "trans woman" , "trans man". It's like the rules for the racial term "black". Drcently cool to use as an adjective but when you hear someone nounify it to "the blacks" it leaves a certain impression.
The space between the words is actually important as well. In the UK changing the adjective into a noun by removing the space is used by TERF groups when they operate in more public discourse to signal to each other they imply that they aren't talking about a specific type of man or woman but a distinct second category. As in "That's not a man, That's a transman™.
It's not a huge deal, nobody's offended or anything, the post body is obviously trans supportive so nobody is gunna think you are repping the anti-trans agenda or anything but I figure it's something you'd probably want to know? I am not intending to be pedantic just sorta handily educational.
not OP but it's good to know thanks
How the absolute hell... During the reply section the correct comment was featured and I swore I double checked... Jerboa, why dost thou forsaketh me?!
Sorry stranger. Keep on being awesome.
no I'm saying I'm not the person you replied to but still want to voice my appreciation for learning this bit about the preferred nomenclature
Oh good! I accidentally replied to the wrong person a couple days ago and had a moment of wondering if maybe my app was fritzed.
I sort of understand your perspective.
I also hate cultural conservatives enough that if they want to make homosexual or transgenders pejorative, I want to use those words with positive connotations. I am aware of the negative connotations of certain words about the LGBT community (and other words that have turned pejorative that originally weren't) and am really against changing the words society uses because a word that denotes something starts to have a connotation because of idiots. The problem with changing to a different phrase is the new phrase is going to eventually get the same connotations by the same idiots.
As someone who has literally been fucked over by members of the transgender community more than once, why do I have to let religious right-wing republicans make words into bad things or apologize for using words in a way that is literal?
I feel like instead of objecting to nuances of dog whistle language, we need to be more direct in calling out delusional religious fuckwads for their absence of logic and advocate to find ways to inflict severe economic pain and other types of societally-permissable pain on them instead of trying to reach understanding or change people's views. Eventually, since more people have access to knowledge through the Internet, the religious generations of yore will die and most new generations will stop believing religious bullshit since they have access to actual information that isn't total garbage.
The thing about that... Is that whether or not something registers as cool or not generally needs to come from the group. As an example you could try to "take back" an n-slur from bigoted use ... but if that initiative isn't coming from the community to whom that term is levied you are basically just using an n-slur because you believe yourself entitled to use the slur for your own personal reasons.
It's not just about sticking it to the Conservatives, it's about listening to the why that comes from a community that is often talked about rather than talked directly to... At best trans people who hear you are going to think you are out completely of touch like people who pronounce pokemon like "Poh-key-man"... Or that you cannot be counted on to listen, that you are a different kind if problem and you are someone to hide from being openly trans around if they can because it's ultimately safer than rolling the dice against whether you are a transphobe or not. Places (for example a work place) where terms like "transgenders" is openly used without challenge from other people is a message to us that that community is either not safe or at least very very ignorant... And that self advocating in that environment is going to be an uphill struggle of dealing with people who are convinced they know what's best for us more than we do...
I suppose you are right, but I just hate it
I want to live in a world where I can say "look, it's a pack of transgenders" and point to a group of trans people like it's exciting and cool, i just think, why can't transgender people be seen as so cool and interesting and fun that this doesn't matter?
can't tonality matter?
there's this 7 foot tall transgender black woman that shops in the same store as me and i never talk to her and always want to take photos of her because she's interesting to look at. but i never say anything. she's probably not 7 feet tall. she looks 7 feet tall. she seems so cool. i've never said anything to her because i don't know if she'd want to talk to me. i'm just a weird introvert who likes linux
i feel like it's so easy to be offensive in this world that tone and context should matter more, but at the same time, you're not actually putting me on blast or seeming that offended. im just being inflexible and hate being wrong. and we live in a world with a lot of religious shitheads who haven't died out yet and so i don't want to seem like one of those people i guess. also, it's not called Poh Key Man? How do you say it then? alright, i'll try to stop saying the term in the republican way: trans people
did i do it right?
Yes you did do it right, lol...and pokemon is pronounced Po- kay (or like Quay) and the same mon as in monster.
And I absolutely don't intend to put you on blast. It's just you can kind of look at language as a kind of technology. That tech can be used to spot minute differences to inform people of a lot of things... Trans people often have to live a little bit like spies in high risk situations so dogwhistles can actually be helpful technology to us assess an environment and risks. Muddying the water can actually make things harder.
Like I for instance pass mostly as a cis person... though not in the way I would hope for. I am not physically transitioning for partner related reasons so while a lot of people can suspect I am some kind of queer they often falsely assume my gender and pronouns based on my body.
Because I am always working with new people I basically take mental hits every all day at work that other people are entirely unaware of. It tends to absolutely wreck my self esteem and makes me feel really isolated...But it's sometimes safer than being "out". People who make a mistake because they don't know are trans are a lot easier to deal with then people who know and aren't adapting well. Like when someone is making a bunch of mistakes with my pronouns it brings way more attention to the fact their brains do not register me as my gender and they are undertaking an artificial process. When they undergo that process I have to work a little harder to teach, and let them know that I am okay, that I understand, reassure them they are doing fine... It takes a lot out of me to do. EVERYONE fucks up pronoun changes. Coming out and getting people used to me is work that I am gunna be doing over and over and over. If I am gunna have to do that I am gunna pick candidates who I know will be worth the personal effort of onboarding or who make my job easier who already have the playbook down and just haven't put it into practice.
Currently I am out selectively only to people I judge as safe. How I judge rather people are safe are not is by how they comport themselves. What sort of language they use, how attentive they are when I use they/them pronouns when referring to friends of mine when trading stories, how they react to different conversational topics, what do they find funny and how willing they are to defer to someone else's needs... It could be veganism, or a religious practice done for comfort or making adjustments for a person with a disability, if you show that you are willing to make concessions or small behavioural changes because you value other people's comfort that's a MAJOR green flag.
It sucks but I am literally running an active risk assessment of everyone I meet in a professional setting. I do this because even if they aren't actively bigoted they can make my life a hell.
I had a boss who just wanted to debate trans talking points all the time while we could not leave our posts and I lived in constant fear he'd figure me out... because becoming his personal entrapped ambassador for a community he had zero understanding of was going to add way more patience and effort just to get through my day than any of my coworkers would be required to muster. I would likely lose my job because even if he was not intentionally mean dealing with being the subject of his intensified curiosity and questions that are generally invasive would drive me to either need to leave or do something that would get me fired.
We trans folk are generally skittish of folk who take a little too much interest in us because of our transness. It's can be a lot of work to just get people to calm down, not be self conscious around us like you're scared doing of something wrong and not treat us as special. Just making us feel like comfortably normal people doing regular people things is a wonderful gift. In the case of your store based acquaintance it's generally safer to like compliment her clothes or jewelry or something. It's like saying "I think you're cool" without making her feel self conscious that people are staring at aspects herself that trigger that fear of being observed as something abnormal.
So if it helps think of the adaptation as learning to speak trans safety code. If you are saying "trans people" in an office full of co-workers who use "transgenders" you are using language technology to fly your green flag in a sea of ambiguously checkered red. We'll spot you.
Look, I like guns far, far more than most people, but I draw the line at the NRA, and Wayne LaPierre's suit-fetish. Most people that work on 2A issues at a local level will tell you that the NRA will swoop in after a deal has already been made, and fuck everything up. If you look at the history of Heller v. D.C., you'll find that the NRA tried to kill the suit before it even got off the ground, because they were afraid it would hurt their funding.
If you want to support 2A causes, the Firearms Policy Coalition is on of the few right now that's both effective, and appears to avoid other 'culture wars' (e.g., "anti-wokeism") nonsense. At a non-policy level, the various John Brown Gun Clubs are doing good work, the Liberal Gun Club is helping create a space for people that are both pro-gun and generally identify as left of center, and the SRA is pretty okay once you get past the tankies.
there's a war on guns with anti-gun zealots trying to take away rights little by little by little...
it is a slippery slope to the hell of tyranny
you should be grateful for the hard work the supporters and members of the NRA that are only trying to prevent the US from descending into a totalitarian monstrosity in which people's only choice is how low to bow
The NRA hasn't done jack shit in decades. As I said, the NRA did their level best to kill Heller v. D.C. before it even got off the ground, and that was the single most important 2A win in the last 50 years.
Don't give me that bullshit about them being the line between the US and tyranny, when they won't even speak up against tyranny when cops murder legally armed citizens.
You are confusing actual results with people being on the right side of a conflict.
The NRA, even if it is an incompetent worthless organization as you suggest, at least is trying to stop the slippery slope towards a society of people who kneel to the wishes of the new king.
The corruption of police does not mean an excuse to de-arm the populace so they can be lose their freedoms to authoritarianism and the NRA supporting guns in every context, even ones that seemingly are awful, doesn't mean that they are awful. Perhaps the NRA supports cops doing awful things because they don't want to lose a large pillar of support.
Instead of criticizing the very people who are preventing society from crumbling into a new technocratic kingship, what about thanking them? What about saying "thanks NRA for encouraging the world to be filled with guns?"
Only those ignorant of history (and to be clear, I am not implying this is you, I am explicitly saying this is you) are against the NRA and it's wish to prevent the world from going to pre-democratic times in which only the king decided who should have arms.
No, I'm not. The NRA is not on the right side; they're on the side of authoritarians. They're on the side of the boot that is kicking you in the face. They're on the side of the cops that will be the ones disarming people, and on the side of the christian nationalists that want to take guns from everyone but white evangelical christians. The NRA does not believe that the second amendment exists for ALL people, regardless of race, religion, age, disability, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation, and they've never even tried to really conceal that. That's why they are silent when someone like Filandro Castile is murdered by a cop.
When the NRA fixes it's own shit so that, as an organization, they truly believe that 2A rights exist for everyone, and are willing to treat the disarming of any group as a crime, then we can talk. But that's not who they are now, and it's not likely that this is who they will be at any time in the future, since they've made it nearly impossible for grassroots change to happen within the org.
Yeah you are a right wing type.
War on guns and muh rights and tyranny, it's all right wing talking points.
No-one is "waging a war against guns", it's a bullshit argument, just like "guns are needed against tyranny"
What people want is sane gun laws, so that -for example- crazies that want to shoot up schools and such, can't get their hands on them. I'll assume you disagree there and you enjoy school shootings and would want to arm teachers because nothing is better than a gun fight in a school hallway, right?
You've never noticed that the gun violence as it is is a uniquely US problem? Doesn't happen anywhere else in the world at that insane level. Yeah, each country once in a decade or damn near century might experience a mass shooting, the US experiences those at about once a day. The US is also unique in its gun laws that they want as many guns for people as possible. It totally has nothing to do with gun makers having politicians int heir pockets, mixed with people like you who are Brainwashed into actually believing you need guns to protect against the US armed forces
I'm literally laughing while writing this, because you peope actually believe that a) you'd stand a chance to survive even a minute, and b) you'd actually fight tyranny. Trump literally is claiming multiple times he'll install himself as a dictator, and his gun loving followers not only love him for it, they just go in and claim democracy is bad.
All US gun laws have done is cause suffering and death, and yes, guns and ammo should be heavily restricted. That would make your country liveable instead of it being the hell hole it currently is.
i'm not sure the number of dicks that a person needs to suck to no longer be in the right wing camp, but i am way past whatever number that is
you're completely wrong. the solution isn't fewer guns, it's many MORE guns. if teachers all had guns, none of these school shootings would happen
the problem is that in the US mental health is not free and mental health evaluations are tied to people being deemed second-class citizens.
these laws that are designed to remove guns from crazy people mostly result in 18 and 19 year olds who are at higher risk of going crazy specifically avoiding mental health help so they aren't permanently denied rights and become second-class citizens, and they are already likely to avoid mental health help as a result of cost factors
shockingly, many teenagers with mental health problems don't have just bags of money lying around to pay for extremely expensive professionals while in a highly stratified society with extremely unequal wealth distribution.
you and your ilk create bizarre incentives for people to not get mental health help, encourage schools to be completely gun free, and then are pikuchu-level-shocked when some crazed 19 year old doesn't get mental health help and then goes to a school in the USA and kills children
YOU are saying all the left wing talking points, and they may sound nice in a country that has a safety net, and there may be so-called data to support these theories that if you disarm everyone then everything is better, but the reality is if you disarm everyone, you set the stage for a new white nationalist dictator to decimate the USA without providing that much additional safety that couldn't be accomplished in other ways
Instead of complaining about too many guns, you should be advocating for free guns for teachers and making health care universal and disentangled from other aspects of civic life
but it's SO much easier to call me a right wing maniac right? And it's SO much easier to push ideas that would never work in the US and are not only politically infeasible but would also be disastrous... At least everyone will think you are smart for parroting all the liberal talking points.
Holy crap, where to begin.
Where I'm from, mental illness is treated for free, and quite well. I'm currently living in Canada, where mental illness is not treated for free, and fuck, It shows. Even in Mexico we take better care of those wil mental illness and again, it shows.
I'm 100% in favor of free (mental, dental, eye, brain, whatever, everything) healthcare for everyone world wide, it would fix so so much shit. It would cost a penny and save us all a pound, next to it being the right thing to do.
Having said that. You want more guns, thinking it will fix the too many guns issue. You think guns in the classroom is a good idea.
Are you crazy?
It's a serious question. You, like many extremists in the US, have lost perspective. Let me give you an alternative country. At those point it doesn't matter which, because any country literally will do as the US is very alone with this particular problem
In this other country, we don't give guns to anyone nilly willy. Actually, we don't give guns to anyone but police and a few people that are at very well registered and regulated sports shooting clubs. Moet types of guns are simply outlawed. AR15? Not even for the police, and the military will use something better.
Those that do get guns get VERY long and intensive training beforenthey are allowed to even touch guns, let alone shoot them, let alone take them on the streets.
Howuch gun crime do we have? Pretty much zero. How many mass shootings? In the past 2 decades: One and that is because the police severely fucked up with background checks on one of those sports shooting clubs. People don't want these gun laws to change, nobody does. Why not?
Because we see what happens when you let people play with guns. The US is the perfect example of how NOT to do guns
You have mass shootings DAILY. like WTF, how even.... Kids get taught what to do in an "active shooter situation" because obviously the US being the US, they have to make tragedies sound cool.
And you think arming teachers will fix this? You actually believe this? You know, teachers, those severely underpaid people who are there to relay knowledge to kids? They're supposed to be Rambo now too? Those same teachers who already "accidentally discharged a firearm" (that is cool sounding US bull for "fucked up and shot a gun") at schools? Those teachers that can half the time not control truly classes and sometimes go off and hit students?
Yeah, that is a recipe for a fucking bloodbath, not to mention... Why?
Just ban all guns. At this point it's proven a million times over, thousands over thousands of Children have died showing you the point: people (and Americans in particular) cannot be trusted with dangerous toys. Take away the toys, fix the problem.
All that sanctimonious "but muy rights" bullshit is nonsense. No, the founding fathers (uuuugghhh) did not envision everyone having 5 AR15's and teachers having anti air installed, as none of that shit existed. Had they known what was coming, they would NOT have allowed everyone bear arms, they would have allowed no-one but police to bear arms. Hell, even police didn't exist back then
Guns are cool and dangerous toys, that's it. Americans love anything that's "cool" so they love guns. Dear God, at least admit that part. While at it, admit you love guns so much that you don't mind kids killed because that's what happens.
NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS THESE IDIOTIC GUN RULES AND NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS THIS IDIOTIC PROBLEM.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ READ THAT ^^^^^^^^^^
Get rid of guns, get rid of the problem. Mexico is half way a fucking ear zone and I feel safer there every single time that any time I'm in the US.
You teach little children what to do in case a gunman comes in to murder them all, why are we even having this ridiculous discussion? AAAHHHH!
How many women who keep guns in their purses have been raped?
Everyone should own guns, with no restriction.
The answer is ALWAYS taking away rights from people for your kind, isn't it?
And yet another one with a dumb hypothetical. This is just a different version of the "hero with a gun"tripe that damn near never happens. Rape doesn't work like that, it's not like a big burly guy comes at a girl shouting "Imma rape you!" and the girl goes "oh well then let me get my gun out of my purse!". Watch less TV.
Rape happens between spouses, it happens between people that know eachother, it happens when you don't have your purse gun by your side.
You know what does happens? Guns being used every day hundreds of times.to murder innocent men, women, and children. They're used at school shooting, which are now so normal.in US society that you teach children what to do if there is an "active shooter", because of course, this being the US, it has to sound cool. Why at the very least do you call it what it is? A psycho who got where he is due to lack of metal healthcare (and the social care to give it to him) has a gun (because we give guns to psychos, rights man!) and will murder the fuck out of you innocent little children, now hide!
Why is this seen as normal, and why do the kinds like you always fucking excuse it AND NEVER AMSWER THE REALLY TOUGH QUESTIONS ON HOWNTO ACTUALLY FIX IT?
And your rights? Fuck your rights, how about that? Those dumb "much rights!" slogans say it all. You are dumb to think that you have more rights than any other country, BECAUSE YOU DON'T. You have less civil rights in america than in Europe. Ooohhh, you are allowed to carry a gun at breakfast, awesome dude! THAT IS NOT A RIGHT, THAT IS INSANITY. In Europe, Canada, fuck even Mexico you're not allowed to carry guns like crazy because NOBODY WANTS IT. Do you know why? Because we don't want to be like the US where we have to be afraid everywhere. Do you know what rights we have in Europe though? The right to free healthcare if we get hurt. The right to a fair trial independent on our skin color. The right not to be locked up for minor bullshit like smoking a joint. The right to not having tondear the police murdering you with impunity. The right to make a normal living without being forced into poverty by large companies. You got none of that.
Shootings barely ever happen in other countries. And I don't mean first world, well developed countries. I mean pretty much any other country. Hell, Mexico is still in a drug war and I'm still safer here from gun fire than I'd be in the US. Doesn't that tell you anything? Is your mind so brainwashed by fox news that you can't think for yourself any more?
Fuck gun rights, you don't need them, guns are hurting you and everyone and you've been brainwashed into thinking that is a great thing.
Answer me this: do you understand that there are other countries than the US? I've had people from the US not even getting that concept, so just asking to be sure... With that in mind, do you understand that this gun shit DOES NOT HAPPEN ANYWHERE BUT INSIDE THE US.? Now use your brain for a second here... Why would that be? Why is it safer to live in other countries, even a country like mexico, in the middle of a drug war, than it is to live in the US?
Please answer that simple question
I was raped and if I had a gun with me in a purse or bag I wouldn't have been raped. I did own a gun at home for protection but didn't keep it with me because of concealed carry laws, which is why I got raped. So yeah, rape does work like that, unfortunately. I'm not against free health care and wish everyone had universal health care.
Part of my calculation when being held down and deciding whether or not to fight back was whether I would get killed if I really fought back intensely. I tried pushing him off but he weighted a lot. I had initially tried to reason with him, but reasoning your way out of being raped apparently doesn't work. The easiest way to fight back in the situation I was in would have been to have pressed my thumbs into his eyeballs and I thought if I did that, I might be able to get away, but I also might end up strangled to death. So I didn't do that.
With something like mace or a taser, if I had that, it would have helped, but mace is a bit hard to aim in the dark. With both a taser and mace, yes, they may have worked, but they may not have. I really think if I had merely injured him, he would have killed me after.
It would have been much better had there been a gun with me.
Guns give ordinary people the autonomy to fight back against extreme brutality. It's unfortunate the issue has become polarized. All people should be able to own guns, all people should have universal health care, and all people should have the right to peacefully die if they want. Many of the "crazed" people in the US likely would have chosen a peaceful state-approved suicide or free emotional health service or both when their conditions deteriorated if the laws were different, and linking seeking care to forever having restricted rights (such as the ability to fly a plane or own a gun) is why so many men don't seek mental health support. Idiot liberals think if they buy more ads publicizing the importance of "mental health awareness" that men will suddenly go get help despite the restricted rights that always come with any diagnosis, which is always needed for insurance purposes. Countries that don't have an armed citizen are opening themselves up to brutal extreme tyranny, including dictators and oligopoly rule using the latest tech and AI, and only the stupid and naive don't see the risk or realize that in some countries it may already be here. The solution is more guns. For everyone.
With all you're saying, you also say the NRA is good because of the same reasons Republicans state?
Mental gymnastics for sure
On the one hand, if the people are armed, the government should theoretically fear the people and want to keep them happy.
But even with millions of armed citizens, nobody is even close to putting up a fight against the US. And they know that. And they keep shitting on you because they know you ain't doing shit about it.
And then you look at the countries that are more democratically reflective of the will of the people... and they have strong gun regulations. It's almost like maybe governments that at least work even a little don't need the fear of popular revolution to keep them in check.
Do you really think that the US army is even remotely impressed by the armed citizens? If need be, they stop on top of them and it's done.
To add to that, all those armed citizens that will protect us from tyranny are supporting the tyrant, it's facepalm worthy, really
Yeah, the reason for owning guns isn't to protect against the government's tyranny, it's to help half the country's military fight the other half of the country's military in some (hopefully still theoretical) civil war.
If Republicans like apples, should I stop eating those?