BlitzoTheOisSilent

I'm claiming Buddhism isn't a religion at all, it's a spiritual practice.

It's a spiritual practice, an ideology or philosophy, there's no centralized Buddhist religion with an unelected figurehead dictating your "religion." You can buy a pillow and watch some YouTube videos on Buddhist practices, and you're a Buddhist so long as you follow the ideology and practices. There's no weekly check-ins at the church, no needing to pass certain coming-of-age rights, no baptisms or indoctrination ceremonies, no pressure to convert those around you.

But I wouldn't call you religious, I'd call you spiritual. You're attempting to gain an enlightened and spiritual connection with the world/universe around you. You're not trying to appease a God in the hopes you'll be granted an eternal afterlife, and following every single religious rule/practice is the only way to ensure that.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. To me, it's solid advice (so long as the individual can own a firearm responsibly, which is an individual decision) for individuals of minority groups to arm themselves.

The majority of situations will be like the other commenter said: arm yourself to protect yourself against groups looking to do you harm. It won't surprise me to hear about groups of bigots rolling up on LGBTQ+ clubs and following people home to attack/assault/kill them, or if we see more Pulse Nightclub shooting events.

Remember, Reagan pushed for gun control as the Gov of California only after the Black Panthers started carrying weapons to their rallies. Yeah, push comes to shove, the police/government have way bigger and better weapons than the average American.

But that was true back then too, and it still scared the government enough to pass firearm restrictions. Peaceful protests can remain a lot more peaceful when the police know the other side is packing too. (I say CAN because obviously once weapons are introduced to any situation, violence is introduced as a potential consequence)

No one wants to be the first one shot, even if you've got a tank/machine gun behind you as backup.

I've always heard Buddhism referred to more as a spiritual practice than a religious one. Buddhism has no "deity," the Buddha would not have condoned the worship of himself as a God. Buddhism's whole thing deals with karma and the path the self enlightenment, which is the key difference between Buddhism (and other spiritual "religions"): spirituality is self contained, religion isn't.

Per most actual religions, you need to worship in certain places, listening to certain people, and many religions encourage the conversion of those outside of the religion (sometimes by force). The community aspect is a requirement of the religion, it's not considered "kosher" to just do it all by yourself in your house.

And thus, these religions tend to be organized: they have a hierarchy, a power structure, hell, some ever have their own governments/countries. They protect their own, shielding them from the law despite their pedophilic transgressions (cough cough Catholicism), they require tithes or their patrons but rarely offer financial assistance to their own parishes.

Buddhism can be practiced in groups (monks and monasteries), but those groups are not forcefully trying to convert outsiders (though they may welcome them), and they aren't necessary. You can practice Buddhism entirely on your own and still be faithfully practicing all of the tenets of the "religion," despite never interacting with any type of significant religious figures.

I've never met a Buddhist who sat down next to me at dinner and started asking when I'm going to accept Buddha and start going to meditation and find my inner chakra and give up all of my possessions for the pursuit of pure enlightenment, or tell me I'm going to reincarnate as a disfigured creature because I'm trans.

I have been told by various folks of various Abrahamic-Religion flavors that I'm going to hell for being trans, need to repent/kill myself, been asked when I'm going back to church, how I can turn my back on my creator, told religion will fix my depression/mental issues, and so on.

And the fact that the majority of religions rely on the indoctrination of children for their member base to remain consistent/strong enough, rather than allowing people to find their teachings and accept/deny them for themselves when they can consent as adults, should tell you most religions are more akin to cults than anything actually beneficial to society.

It was during the Great Depression and WWII that employer-provided health insurance took off. The fed instituted a wage freeze to combat inflation in the 40s, and as a result, employers had to start offering other incentives like health insurance to attract/retain their workforce.

FDR wanted to pass universal healthcare (along with a lot of other progressive policies) under his Second Bill of Rights, but it never came to be. Had his ideas been enshrined in law, we'd have universal healthcare, a minimum livable wage, adequate housing, the right to work, and several others.

Finding out who the true allies are to the LGBTQ+ community.

Once I lose my VA disability, I'll be priced out of existing, I won't be able to afford my debt, mortgage, bills, and then food and such. I'd have to double my income overnight, and I have zero training or certifications or degrees beyond an AS in General Studies, so it's not going to happen.

I'm less worried about the national guard than I am about local law enforcement across the country, Trump will give them the green light with impunity.

My biggest fear, though? They're going to ban all LGBTQ+-related healthcare using the same mechanisms as the Federal Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. "Sure, the states can choose the ~~drinking age~~ types of LGBTQ+ healthcare they offer in their state... They just won't have access to federal funding if it isn't ~~21~~ absolutely none."

Right, because this is only done to appease America, right? That's why Hollywood doesn't censor and change jokes/storylines to appease other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, etc when they have pro-LGBTQ+ messaging?

Here's 11 examples, some I didn't even know about.

Huh, A Streetcar Named Desire was altered for the Irish release to downplay/eliminate the themes of homosexuality, and the movie becomes unrecognizable as the main character visits her sister and just goes insane.

The Die Hard terrorists were changed from German extremists to former IRA members who became mercenaries. There was a special release of The Sound of Music for Germany that eliminates basically everything after the wedding and the majority of the Nazi subplot.

Disney also makes lots of changes to their movies, not even just to appease homophobic countries: they changed the animal anchors in Zootopia based on the release country, in Inside Out they changed the vegetables she eats based on the release country, etc.

So maybe Wallace and Gromit could have, idk, recorded slightly different audio for those scenes so that everyone could be appeased? Since apparently not being able to make a joke about a "bog chain" makes Americans the biggest pussies in the world?

~~I know who you're talking about, drag, drag has called me a racist, Trump supporting fascist who wants drag and all of drags friends dead because I had the audacity to criticize Harris and the DNC. Drag backed off that when I pointed out to drag that I'm a trans veteran who voted for Harris.~~

~~I've never had difficulty understanding drag, and as much as I think drag is full of hot air, I respect drag enough as a fellow human to refer to drag in drag's preferred way. Drag is using the third person, this has been a trope in popular media for years and no one has complained about it.~~

Did y'all have a hard time relating to and understanding The Boulder in Avatar the Last Airbender? He refers to himself as "The Boulder" instead of his pronouns, where's the uproar around that?

Let's take it to real life: I googled it, pro wrestlers The Rock, The Big Guy, Santina Marella, Kanyon, and Stone Cold Steve Austin all regularly used the third person to refer to themselves. They used other pronouns as well, I'm not denying that, but you all act like this is some completely unheard of new thing that only these woke leftists are doing.

It's respect, full stop. It's the equivalent of someone saying their name is Rajesh and you say, "Eh, Steve is easier, I'm used to the name Steve, I can't pronounce whatever you just said so the only way we're equals is if I can just call you Steve." That's insane, y'all need to stop making excuses as to why showing respect to another individual is sooooooo hard.

~~And FYI, in writing this, I only had to go back and make three changes where I used an improper pronoun in when referring to drag. Again, if I can show basic respect to someone who called me a fascist nazi, why can't y'all do it for your friends, family, and coworkers?~~ It's not hard, and I'm 30, so it's not like I was brought up with zhe/zher/zhers and all this other stuff either my entire childhood, I didn't learn what transgender was until I was in the Navy.

Edit: Drag told me I insulted drag and lied to Lemmy by defending drag here, so I've crossed it out and will let drag defend drag's pronouns alone. Drag doesn't want my help because, in drag's own words, I'm a Nazi who purposefully misgendered drag and only wrote the above to insult and hurt drag.

Yet refuses to apologize for falsely calling me a Nazi:

We're still in the growing pains version of it, though, where there are far too many people taking advantage of a legitimate position just for the attention.

I would argue "who cares?" And please, explain to me how many "far too many" is? Because the trans population makes up under 1% of the US population, so I'm really trying to wrap my head around <1% is "far too many" of anything.

This is just excuses, I'm sorry. I get "zhe/zher/zhers" is awkward to see, but watch this: "Debra is amazing, have you had zher apple pie?"

Phew, nearly suffered an aneurysm on that one. 🙄

Another issue is that there is a component of needing to be vocal and firm or no one will take you seriously, but it's a fine line between that and being obnoxious and over-asking....reminding someone who wants to be considerate is good, being offended at someone intentionally mis-labeling may be necessary, but being offended by honest mistakes or berating someone for not realizing zhe or zher or some newly defined label was a thing definitely hurts the cause.

First, your last line is bullshit, it's the same logic that's been used for every single oppressed group asking for basic respect from their oppressors.

When women standing up against sexual harassment really started to gain national attention, the news anchors made the exact same arguments you're making now. "Oh, it's just a man being friendly! Now men won't want to hire women because they'll be sued! We've behaved this way for decades and now it's a problem? God, Debbie is such a cunt for reporting me for rubbing her shoulders, I was just trying to be nice!"

When women reported it, it was often, "They're just looking for a payout/attention! Why didn't they bring this up for the last X amount of time?! Why do women have to be so rude about it?!"

When gay marriage was being fought for, what did we hear? "Oh, can't they keep that behind closed doors? It just makes me uncomfortable, I don't think the children should see that! It's always been Adam and Eve for me, I'm 40 years old, how am I supposed to learn to use the word "partner" instead of "husband/wife"?!"

Notice how it's always the oppressed who are asking for too much, always? Always, it's always the oppressed asking for too much. But when they say, "Hey, society, can you do XYZ to show me some basic dignity and respect?" what are we met with?

"We're still in the growing pains, people are taking advantage, we need to be patient, you need to know your place and when it's ok to speak up, but make sure you know the correct amount to speak up, otherwise they have the right to just not respect you."

For fucking words, that's what y'all are doubling down on, something that costs you no money or effort beyond treating someone like a person, and respecting their reasonable request. They're not asking for you to paint their face from memory, or have their star-chart memorized and they yell at you for not knowing that Mercury was in retrograde, or chastising you for not knowing the exact date and time they were born.

If they've introduced themselves and their pronouns, and you can't be bothered to respect that, you're just a dick at best and transphobic at worst. It's really that simple, it's a sign of respect, and any excuse for why you can't use words is just an excuse to disrespect those you don't feel deserve it. And that's an internal issue the individual needs to get over, but the LGBTQ+ community doesn't need to coddle a society that can't be bothered to show them the respect of using proper pronouns.

Okay, first of all, if you counted how many pronouns you use, per day, it would likely surprise you. Second, it once again, costs you nothing to use someone's pronouns after they've been identified to you. If you're arguing "it's not fair to be yelled at for something you aren't aware of" then that's completely reasonable.

If your argument is "I don't want to be bothered learning 3 new words in a language I've spoken my entire life," then I have no sympathy for you, and you're at best just someone who's disrespectful to those they (WOW I used they as a singular, THAT was hard, cost me $400 to write that just now) don't feel deserve respect. It's that simple.

If someone introduces themselves as Jennifer, and you immediately start calling them Jen/Jenny/Etc, and they ask tell you it's Jennifer, do you double down because, well, Jen is just easier, Jen is just easier, I'll just stop bringing up Jen.

Perhaps an undesirable outcome is that if the pronoun is a hurdle to overcome, it's easier for Bob just not to bring Sally up at all, a possibly unfortunate result because it might have been an interesting conversation that is now simply avoided.

And then you sit there, while explaining this to me, and act like what you're describing isn't blatant discrimination. The exact same "LoGiC" that has been used to discriminate against "difficult women," y'know, the ones that were sexually harassed in the workplace for decades.

How did the News react to women standing up against harassment and discrimination in the workplace? Oh, that's right, they said things like, "Well, now men aren't going to promote women into managerial positions because they'll be afraid of being sued! Now men can't even have conversations with their coworkers without fear of reprimand! Won't anyone think of how the poor men feel?!"

Notice a pattern? It's always the oppressed asking too much, because they don't understand the undo burden of checks notes for this discussion not harassing women and, wow, big ask here, using the names and preferred pronouns of your coworkers.

You're right, I didn't think how hard that must be on the average person, completely unreasonable ask on the part of the LGBTQ+ community, next they'll want equal rights under the law! Disgusting. 🙄

This doesn't work.

1. They've got the money and connections to make their little traffic stop go away while simultaneously making your life/career a living hell.

2. They would just make a campaign donation to whatever public figure was in charge of the police and tell them to stop pulling over the rich/wealthy/etc.

3. The cops will almost immediately roll over when confronted by the wealthy/powerful individual. I remember watching a video that was talking about law enforcement, and they showed two examples: a cop pulling over a working-class minority woman, and a cop pulling over an older wealthy white gentleman.

Cop 1 approaches the woman's car aggressively, very short and demanding, wants things now, doesn't want excuses, etc. The typical "respect muh authoritay" kind of interaction, and issues her a ticket for whatever speeding offense there was.

Cop 2 pulls over an older gentleman in a nice SUV. As soon as they stop, old guy aggressively gets out of his vehicle and starts shouting at the cop about "You better run that plate and understand who you're dealing with!" The cop very politely asks him to get back in his vehicle while he figures it all out, and the entire time, this guy is ripping into this cop and he's apologetically trying to gobble the older guy's balls in his entire interaction.

Cop ends up giving the older guy several apologies and a warning (despite him speeding before) because he was one of the local judges.

We, the little guy, don't matter.

Look up the Baltimore PD officer who spoke out against his colleagues and found himself not receiving backup when he called for it, being called a rat by his cop colleagues, having pieces of cheese left on his desk, and then dead rats left in his desk and car.

Or look up the NYPD officer who was arrested and involuntarily committed by the NYPD into a mental institution for blowing the whistle on some of their corruption.

Or look up how the police and sheriff's offices work out in California, where the police departments and sheriff's have been flagged by the FBI as essentially being government-sanctioned gang organizations.

ACAB, full stop. A few bad apples spoils the bunch, that's the whole phrase, it's not "Oh, some are good, some are bad," they're class traitors who will Back the Blue 11 times out of 10 before they would ever even admit a mistake, nevermind they were ever at fault.

Tip: If you have trouble getting the cranberry sauce out of the can ala can-form, use a knife you don't care too much about and strike the bottom of the can with the heel of the blade a couple times to create air holes. Do this before you remove the top of the can.

It should help the sauce slide right out, and can be applied to anything with that type of viscosity found in a can.