He/Him or They/Them

  • 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • It’s the second half of your claim you’d have to support with evidence. Of course we help fund them, but it’s not so clear that they “benefit Hamas”".

    If you read something like this article here, you’d note that of the 19 alleged ties to Hamas (of 34,000 workers btw) none have been found to be supported by evidence. Some of them are still going, and maybe they will show some kind of connection, but A) the time to believe that is when evidence is provided, not when the claim is made and B) I don’t really think cutting funding for an agency that does legitimate help to people currently starving and dying is justified just because 0.05% of employees have ties to Hamas. Would you be Ok condemning and demanding we cut funding to the IDF if we found 0.05% of their personnel had ties to radical Zionist movements calling for the eradication of Palestinians? Something tells me you wouldn’t.





  • WTF are you even talking about? You keep using super vague phrases to try and argue that (and I’m just guessing here since I legitimately can’t tell what you are trying to say) LGBTQ advocates are ignoring history?

    What history are you pointing to? Why would that history matter in fields like medical science? Would the history of gender help us understand that some people identify as trans? Would it help us understand the best practices in helping them?

    Was this all just a way to complain about “men” going into women’s spaces?



  • From what I’ve previously read the agency that had the frozen embryos did not let them die off, they stored them properly in an industrial freezer kept at far below 0 temps. The issue was a person who didn’t work at the clinic snuck into the room with the fridge, opened it and then dropped the embryos and ran away (the article said the assumption was because the containers were so cold he got freeze-burned). There might be a case here that they didn’t do enough to stop the individual, or check on them often enough, I don’t know enough details to know, but it doesn’t sound like they just simply didn’t care or didn’t store them properly.

    States have long had laws against forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy and those have stood up even before Roe died. It’s not usually on the level of murder/manslaughter, but at a minimum it’s been treated as a destruction of property. You don’t have to treat the embryo as a person to charge someone with aggravated battery or something similar.

    The main issue here is the broadness of this ruling (besides the whole quoting the Bible thing) which equates embryos with full-human life. It won’t change a whole lot in this case, the families could have still sued for negligence or destruction of property, or any number of other civil remedies of this was denied, but now it’s laid the ground work to do much worse things in the future.



  • For good reason the US and others don’t make public their playbook for responding to nuclear attacks on themselves or others with very few exceptions. We know about “mutually assured destruction” in the case of an ICBM, but not much else.

    “Proportional” probably doesn’t apply in the case of nukes, it’s usually described as a maximal response to ensure it never happens again. However, the rumor has always been that an enemy using a nuke on an allied country would result in the US engaging in “total eradication” of that government. Probably, in this case, the complete destruction of Moscow. If I had to guess I’d think that would (since we’re pretty damn sure we could) do that with conventional arms to limit escalation.


  • Ya. This only ends one of two ways, either Israel succeeds in killing /displacing the people of Gaza (West Bank and Golem Heights next) and fills it with people loyal to them, or they stop the occupation. Terrorist groups don’t do well in stable, prosperous nations. If they really want Hamas and groups like them gone forever, they will have to take the winds out of their sails by letting the Palestinians have a real government with real control over itself. Even if they meet their stated goal of “destroying Hamas”, it (or another similar but even more extreme) group will take over.


  • I am obligated by my work to offer this to customers when they buy an HP printer and I make it really clear that it’s a bad deal for most customers. There are some edge case examples, like a lady with a small business who always prints exactly like 3 pages a day. The other customers who agree to buy it are almost always the super old people who don’t want to have to come to the store to get more ink. I think it’s a shit program that should be scrapped entirely, but some people really don’t care if it’s a bad deal as long as they get the convenience. No different than 7-11 up charging shit because it’s easier to buy it at the market down the street than the Walmart a few miles down the road.




  • There would be the same reaction if FB or Instagram or any other big platform was found to be allowing ads next to objectionable content (content the company in the ads would not want associated with their brand) AND that platform said that it wasn’t an issue, they won’t change policies to prevent it, and told them to go fuck themselves.

    Twitter could absolutely have filters in place to prevent ads from showing up next to literal Nazi posts with a simple word list. The posts Media Matters showed were not subtle or underhanded, they were saying the quiet parts out loud. It would be trivial to prevent ads entirely from those posts, but then they’d lose ad space. It would mean less if this had happened with borderline posts or posts using coded language.


  • Facebook faced a ton of backlash for it and only stayed around because they are big enough that companies thought they’d lose more money by not offering their app then they’d lose by offering it. Also, as bad as Facebook moderation is, they were actively removing posts and banning users for things they said about J6 (odd to call it a protest but ok), which Parlor was refusing to do until after they were removed from the app stores. Parlor wanted to be all about free speech (hmmm just like Twitter now says they want to be) and refused to moderate the calls for violence until they were forced to by the big three, which led a lot of users to be angry at them and leave for other free speech platforms even less moderate than FB or Parlor.

    So, are you saying you don’t have any evidence they colluded in the past, and no evidence that they colluded now, but are still believing it?


  • until they were able to get ads to show up

    Yes, so they were able to get them to show up then. That means there are not mechanisms in place at Twitter that would prevent those ads from showing up next to Nazi posts. Which means the companies absolutely had a reason to pull ad funding. If you owned a company and were spending millions on ads, would you be ok knowing that it’s possible your ad shows up next to Nazi posts or Holocaust denial? Would it matter that it doesn’t happen most of the time? If it’s possible then Twitter has massively dropped the ball.

    Where in the article do they say those ads “always” show up beside Nazi posts? They outlined their methods, and showed screenshots for proof. Even the CEO confirmed that those ads did show up next to Nazi posts, she just claimed it didn’t happen often. Media matters never claimed they happened all the time with every ad. If you had above a 5th grade reading level or had read the original article you’d know better.


  • Did any of those hearings end with a conclusion and solid evidence of collusion? How many of those companies or executives at those companies got convicted of market manipulation or conspiracy, or even charged?

    Once again you are pointing to multiple independent companies, who are each other’s direct competitors, doing something at the same time and attributing that to collusion when there is no evidence for that at all. Is it that hard to imagine that multiple companies would decide at the same time to stop offering an app that harms their brand? Especially when those companies were getting heat because Parlor was used to organize the Insurrection and had many calls for violence? Also, are you now claiming that they previously colluded in support of Twitter but are now colluding against it?

    You seem to have a tenuous grasp on…well, everything, but certainly reality. Companies do what they think will make them the most money. If all three thought that having Parlor on their app store, or ads on Twitter next to neonazis would make them less money than not doing those things, they would decide not to do them. It’s really really basic stuff.


  • By definition, a blockade is an act of war, regardless of who does it. I’m not sure why you’d think I wouldn’t call the US blockading some country and act of war (although I have a guess), just as much as I’d call Israel blockading Palestine as an act of war.

    The reason other countries don’t respond to a US blockade with all-out war is because we get other countries to agree to the blockade first and then do it as a block, which means the blockaded country would have to be prepared to fight the US plus its allies. Given the relative size of the countries’ militaries involved, the blockaded ones usually decide not to fight.

    Agreeing with the US’s decision to support Taiwan against China is not the same as support for all US military decisions, or even most of them.


  • That’s a pretty wild guess given how China keeps doing military drills involving amphibious landings and flying into Taiwanese airspace/going into Taiwanese waters. You wouldn’t practice amphibious landings to prepare a defense against the US, you’d do that to prepare for an invasion. China talks a lot about not using its military outside its borders, which has been mostly true, but they see Taiwan as within their borders so it doesn’t really tell us much.

    If China wants to limit imports of goods from Taiwan they absolutely could, and it would be difficult for the US/Japan to respond to, but if by “restricting trade” you mean a blockade then that is an act of war that the US/Japan would respond to much more aggressively. Just like China would respond if we blockaded them.