I've never had that problem. Not on my instance's web page or using Sync on my phone.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 737
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 737
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
VP has the same requirements as President, which exclude Musk because he isn't a citizen by birth. Musk was essentially put in the highest possible position he could be that didn't require him to be elected or confirmed by Congress.
Which is why he needed a puppet to be President for him. I don't know that he ideally wanted a puppet he'd have to time-share with Putin, but that's the puppet he bought.
And I firmly believe that aside from the occasional going off script as a kind of tantrum that Trump is entirely a puppet - consider the narcissism and desire to exude power that he has, and then look at him in the photos of that meeting where Elon was in the Oval Office with little Kevlar Musk and just how defeated Trump looks. He knows his choices were win office or be buried by the courts, and he signed whatever deals with whatever devils were necessary to guarantee it happened, he's owned by Elon and Putin, he knows it and that eats at him.
I'll just go ahead and throw out as a starting point that the definitions used by NISVS specifically discount male rape victims and female rapists by essentially defining away anything that a woman is most likely to do when sexually assaulting a man into a subcategory of "other". This is a common wrinkle in a lot of the stats, and it goes back to some old and toxic ideas - to the point that I can find you a clip from a prominent sexual assault researcher (Mary Koss, many of the survey instruments used descend from her work, she's also the origin of the "1 in 4" stat that's oft quoted and coined the term "date rape", etc) describing a woman drugging a man into compliance in order to have intercourse with him as not "rape" or "sexual assault" but "unwanted contact."
There's a further issue with lifetime survey stats (which is what gets focused on in that link), which is pretty simple and obvious if you look at the data. There's this weird gap between what previous year numbers look like and what lifetime numbers look like that's very obviously off, specifically that once you account for weirdness in definitions the previous year numbers are much closer than the lifetime numbers - so either the rates used to be dramatically higher for women and have since equalized for some reason or for some reason men are less likely to report older incidents in the survey - either way previous year numbers being much more similar than lifetime numbers needs some explanation. If you've been told time and again that what happened to you doesn't count as assault, that you must have wanted it because men always do, etc, etc until you internalize the messaging, how do you think that impacts survey reporting long term?
I personally suffered from this one for a long time, and only literal decades later can wrap my head around not being "lucky" due to what happened to me. If I'd been asked to be a participant in NISVS ten years ago I would have answered very differently than I would now, despite the incident having happened long before that, because I'd mentally filed it away as not an assault because men always want it, at least from a woman so clearly what happened couldn't/didn't count, right? An even a casual look around would lead to realizing I'm not remotely unique in this. And yes, I'm implying that lifetime sexual victimization rates in men specifically are massively under-reported because social narratives surrounding the idea are heavily internalized by the men themselves. And I have no idea how you'd fix that because it fundamentally is a mental block on the part of the men themselves, an unwillingness to see themselves as victims or what happened to them as violation.
Again, maybe you should look at a racial breakdown on the same, and then ask yourself why you don't consider that trustworthy but are fine with using conviction numbers for men as proof of what reality looks like.
Again, the criminal justice system broadly speaking shits on black people and men (and as a consequence black men even moreso) in similar ways and by most measures to similar degrees. And by "shits on" I mean is more likely to charge, more likely to convict, gives longer sentences, is more likely to shoot, etc, etc.
Not quite. KiwiFarms is older than 8Chan. KiwiFarms was originally called CWCki and was dedicated specifically to Chris-chan because Encyclopedia Dramatica wasn't quite what some of that person's harassers wanted it to be. 8chan wouldn't open for another 8 months after CWCki was founded but before it was renamed KiwiFarms.
Let's be clear here - Chris-chan has been systematically harassed for literal decades, has a bunch of problems at least some of which are consequences of that. Chris-chan is also probably the single most documented human being in history as a consequence of the massive and dedicated "fan" base.
Most puberty blockers go to cis children too btw, and have for decades.
...specifically ones with precocious puberty, because hitting puberty at say 4 can have some lifelong detrimental effects.
Pretty sure there's at least one quote of Davis himself using the n-word to refer to federal agents before describing how bright they glow..
Not analogous in any meaningful way.
Let's try it. I'm thinking of a group of people. This group of people is disproportionately subjected to police violence, including police shootings. This group is more likely to be prosecuted when accused of a crime, is more likely to be convicted when prosecuted, and gets harsher sentences when convicted. What group am I describing? Hint: The answer is that all that applies to both black folks and men, and usually to similar degrees (close enough that some measures have a wider sex gap and others have a wider race gap). And that's not even a complete list of similarities.
By the vast majority of measures the way men are treated by the criminal justice system compared to women and the way black folks are treated by the criminal justice system compared to white folks line up (other non-white racial groupings tend to end up somewhere between). Race and sex also both apply, meaning that black men get treated the worst and white women get treated with kid gloves. Depending on the specific measure, sometimes the gender gap is actually wider than the racial gap but that again depends on the specific measure (for example black folks are more disproportionately killed by police than men are but mostly because that would require more than 100% of police shootings to be men instead of merely 95%, while men get disproportionately harsher sentencing for many crimes than women to a larger degree than black folks do compared to white folks).
I personally know a white woman from here who got busted for drugs in another state, was released on her own recognizance pending her hearing, fled back here, was eventually picked up, spent a few days in jail while the other state decided it wanted to extradite her and made arrangements to transfer her, went before a different judge and was released on her own recognizance pending her new hearing date a second time, despite demonstrably proving she was a flight risk. That's doesn't happen unless you are a white woman, preferably a young, pretty one because those traits both carry further privileged treatment by criminal justice.
Unless you want to argue that men are underprivileged in society.
I'd argue you are operating from a bad model. The core problem is that a lot of social justice models are ultimately built upon a bedrock of Marxist class conflict, with people being assigned into roles of bourgeois-analog "oppressor" and proletariat-analog "oppressed". The problem is that the degree to which Marxist class conflict actually works as the basis for a model is basically the degree that whatever feature you are basing it on functions as a proxy for economic class. For race, it does well enough in the aggregate that it works, albeit imperfectly. For sex, however it's a poor fit.
The trick is that to justify fitting sex into a model based on class conflict you lie to yourselves by looking at the sex distribution at the very top and pretending that that tells you anything useful about men as a whole (this is a fallacy of composition). Or to put it another way, Nancy Pelosi and
turtle lichMitch McConnell have more in common with each other than either of them does with men or women as a general class.A consequence of this is a whole series of apologetics and the like to try to justify why the model still holds even when evidence seems to run counter to it. Like using epicycles and deferents to try to make a geocentric model of the solar system fit reality. Except it;s all things about how "the patriarchy hurts men too" in exactly the way you wouldn't say "capitalism hurts billionaires too" and that kind of thing. Like why in a system allegedly built on male supremacy would men be treated worse by criminal justice than women, in all the same ways that this same system that is also allegedly built on white supremacy treats black folks worse than white folks? The short answer is that it's unfalsifiable, the model can be stretched to fit any measurement of reality.
A better though still imperfect approach is the concept of malagency which seems to do a better job of actually predicting how western culture actually treats people with respect to sex. The core notion of malagency is that society treats men as hyperagentic (that is men are perceived to have greater agency/responsibility than they actually might) and women as hypoagentic (that is women are perceived to have less agency/responsibility than they actually might). Applied to criminal justice, this directly explains things like men being given higher bail and longer sentences for the same crimes - men are seen as more responsible for their crimes, and so "deserve" a longer sentence. Even when a man and woman do a crime together, the man is often subject to higher bail or a longer sentence, which makes no sense as "privilege" but makes all kinds of sense if men are treated as having greater agency. When having lots of agency/responsibility for your actions is beneficial, this leads to better treatment for men and conversely when having greater agency/responsibility for your actions is not beneficial, this leads to worse treatment for men.
So for example, imagine we both saw a news headline on Reddit or Lemmy about a young woman throwing her newborn baby out a window, leading to it dying in the ambulance. Presumably under a model of privilege and male supremacy, we'd expect lots of blame directed at her and her behavior because she's a woman and any comments questioning her guilt or supporting her to be downvoted. Under malagency, you'd expect people to immediately start looking for ways to diminish her responsibility for throwing her child out a window and maybe even poking at the possibility of the father being at least partly to blame in some fashion for the baby killing and downvoting anyone laying responsibility for the killing squarely on her, because the slant is minimizing her agency for what she did and if possible assigning agency to a man.
What do you think we'd actually see in those comments? Hint: this isn't a hypothetical, it's a recent news story that's popped up on Reddit and you should take a look. It...strongly resembles what you'd expect under malagency.
Is it time to bust out the crime statistics?
What is it you'd call someone who said exactly this but was talking about crime statistics broken down by race rather than sex, again?
What did you (I) do to deserve Donald Trump? Is this a punishment for misandry?
Yes. Unironically, yes. Young men have swung right in a way that the youth usually doesn't and it is in a meaningful way because Dems and progressives offer them little, blame them for much and the right welcomes them in with open arms.
but they come after watching Trump receive 34 felony convictions with no actual punishment for those convictions
Yeah, well, blame the courts for sentencing him to "Never mind, we cool bro."
any consequences to him for Jan 06.
That gets tricky. The core argument would be that Trump's speech before the attack is firmly within his 1A rights (and it almost certainly is, 1A speech rights are extremely broad and anything short of a direct call to immediate lawless action is usually protected) and that his not doing anything to stop it once it started is him doing a shit job, but not technically illegal (but hypothetically impeachable, if both houses would agree to it which was never going to happen).
You'd have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he planned for J6 to happen the way it did in a fashion that is definitely not attached to his duties as president in any even vaguely reasonable way to have anything to hang on him at all without an impeachment. Something like hard evidence of him coordinating specifically the attack on the capitol (as opposed to the rally or march to the capitol steps) with the people entering the capitol or their leadership and not merely an otherwise legal protest/rally. Which is a high bar to reach.
I mean, except of those with agoraphobia or those who are incapable of leaving their residence due to physical infirmity of some kind.
I just want to point out that there were text generators before ChatGPT, and they were ruining the internet for years.
Hey now, King James Programming was pretty funny.
For those unfamiliar, King James Programming is a Markov chain trained on the King James Bible and the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, with quotes posted at https://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/
4:24 For the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to.
In APL all data are represented as arrays, and there shall they see the Son of man, in whose sight I brought them out
3:23 And these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, and all the abominations that be done in (log n) steps.
I was first introduced to it when I started reading UNSONG.
My cat figured out the dog door by watching the dogs. She's inside 80% of the time but prefers to do her business outside if the weather's clear and goes out for an hour or so about twice a day besides that.
Of all things, my part basset hound mix is a bird killing machine despite the stubby legs, broken hip and arthritis. I don't know how she manages to do it, but lots of half eaten bird corpses started showing up in our yard right after we got her, but only in the back yard which she could reach via the dog door. Starting before the cat started using the dog door.
He's in about as safely a blue state as they come, his circle is generally very progressive, and he works for a liberal/progressive leaning employer. He's about as safe as he can be, all things considered.
I however live in the reddest of red states that used to be safely blue and would consider leaving if it weren't for my folks and my wife's folks being here and needing help.
At least we're probably pretty safe from the worst of it until the targets get down to people with medical issues.
DOGE?
Department Of Guzzling Ejaculate? Explains why they've got Big Balls working there. Somebody's got to be the supply side.
My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.
Two routes to amend the Constitution.
- Both houses of Congress pass a proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority. Then 3/4 of states ratify that amendment in their state legislatures. This is how every amendment to date has occurred.
- 2/3 of state legislatures call for a Constitutional Congress, during which any number of changes may be made, but any changes must be agreed to by 3/4 of the states. Congress gets no say in this process. Congress getting no say in this process is the point - it exists so that if there's an issue with the Constitution that Congress is unable or unwilling to resolve (for example if Congressional power needs to be curtailed in some fashion), it can be fixed despite them.
Note the key thing here: Republicans have been pushing hard at the state level for decades, and 2 is why. If ever 38 state legislatures are red, they can more or less arbitrarily rewrite the Constitution to their will regardless of what the remaining states or anything at the federal level has to say about it.
It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.
An amendment would have taken 38 state legislatures ratifying it. There aren't 38 state legislatures likely to pass ratification of an amendment that guarantees a right for any two adults to marry without exception and also guarantees a right for any woman to terminate any pregnancy without exception at her will.
That's probably tied for the lowest odds any hypothetical amendment has of being ratified.
and whether or not they want to respect the interracial marriages performed by other states.
That'll require some very entertaining twisting of the full faith and credit clause, or do you think we'll be well past the point where they even go through the motions to pretend to have a legal rationale for anything they're doing by the time this happens?
Or one with the broadest possible federation like lemmy.sdf.org, though they are US based if that's a problem for you.
SDF does not defederate. The blocklist is empty. And it's small enough and chill enough that it's unlikely to get blocked by other instances much.
They're a non-profit that's older than the web and offers a variety of network and retrocomputing services including most famously a public access Unix server. They started as a dialup anime BBS.