GarbageShoot [he/him]

I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that “I’m trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin’ sucks,” your internal response would be “This person is trans, but doesn’t understand why they are trans.” [Or that it is likely that they don’t understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]

Is that a more fair representation of your view?

(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)

deleted by creator

We’re talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are “likely not trans”, that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren’t. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were “80% sure” that someone wasn’t trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren’t.

All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can’t access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the “Excuse you”.

You can’t tell in the movie but in the script, all his lines and stage directions are written in greentext.

This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.

That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.

They absolutely are, and many people would be excited to answer questions you have (including me, depending on the question). You just need to be careful not to come across as combative, because they’ll meet you in kind and it’ll be a dogpile.

c/askchapo , depending on the question

None of its supposed assets make up for the corporate overlords who run it and promote or permit all sorts of terrible things

Adam Johnson and Nima Shirazi

Citations Needed, excellent reporting on the way corporate news distorts various issues to shape public opinion, occasionally with historical examples going back to the antebellum period.

Reddit is notorious for astroturfing. The lemmy hivemind(s) is the lemmitor hivemind from people socialized on Reddit who came to lemmy and brought that shit with them. Same with other instances like .world, but worse because they have fewer legacy users.

What do you mean fiat doesn’t work on a finite planet? Current economic models certainly don’t work on a finite planet, but fiat was here before them and will be here after they are long gone.

what is a good way for the working class (90%+ of all humans) to save and succeed in this current environment?

There isn’t one. A big chunk of that class can do just fine and you probably already have good normative answers in that respect, but the current economic model is one that demands poverty. Even with all of the ridiculous developments in production we have, the available infrastructure even with the qualms we might have with it, and all the other things going for us that you might want to list, the closest that the current economic model has achieved to escaping its age-old need for having a sizeable portion of the able-bodied population unemployed is by slightly expanding that same portion and then having them sell themselves by the hour and minute in the Gig Economy. If you want that whole 90% of the population to all be able to do well, you need to change the system they are operating within.

tl;dr I don’t have an answer for your problem, but I have some thoughts on it that hopefully might contribute to you finding an answer.

I think it’s probably bad to think of the homeless, etc. as being drug-addled and especially as being dangerous. Usually, if they do have a drug problem (especially alcoholism) it came after becoming homeless and not before, and functions as a way to self-medicate to ease the pain of their terrible conditions. There is, of course, a strong correlation with mental illness that they are often also self-medicating, but “mentally ill” does not mean the same thing as “dangerous”. You probably don’t want to have them as a baby sitter, but that’s much more because of mental illness impairing their ability to care for others (and often themselves) rather than there being a realistic chance they would actually hurt the child directly.

People, religions, politicians, corporations and so on speak of charity as a great thing, and it’s certainly not a bad thing, but there being a need for charity for people to survive is a symptom of a system that doesn’t care for a substantial portion of the population that lives in it, and typically brutally exploiting those people. Charity is like a bandage, it can help to tend to a wound that has been inflicted, but we must ask “Why is there a wound in the first place? What inflicted it? How can it be prevented?” Your society, like mine, is organized in part to hurt these people in order to exploit them. No amount of charity can change that fact, only a change in social organization can change it.

You Ain’t Been Doing Nothing If You Ain’t Been Called A Red

It might be helpful to the survey to include a y/n so they don’t need to guess whether you are a dom or a sub in that situation

The only thing it’s useful for is an approximate answer to the question “Who does the Economist Group want to lionize?”

but works alot more like the type of socialism that’s common in Europe.

i.e. not the socialism of Marx

but I still think the Nordic countries are what most people would refere to as at least a little bit socialist.

If you ignore that country with 1.4 billion people and a few others, i.e. the majority of country calling their countries socialist.

Maybe the proper term is social democratic?

Yes, that is the proper term

Only one of those four is white, and it’s a classic reactionary tactic to downplay him compared to the Georgian and the older Han Chinese example

Because authority carried out under the pretenses of private property is whitewashed in liberal states, who are the ones in your question doing the “considering”.

Always neat to see another fan of CSB/Woolie around. I haven’t seen your instance name before, at least that I can remember.