Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
388
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • How can it be good for the world if everyone is spending more money on their militaries?

  • And rare earths. Don't forget rare earths.

  • Lol what strawmen?

    You're like a teenager who discovered logical fallacies. You haven't made an argument mate. You're just asserting your disbelief without any rational basis for doing so.

    It's as much any one else's right to assume you've got some bigoted agenda. Clearly it isn't the facts that guide you or you'd have something worthwhile to contribute to the conversation.

  • Medicine company sets the highest price the government is prepared to subsidize on behalf of Americans who can't pay. But for some corrupt reason, the government sucks at negotiating.

  • Your claim to simplicity is bullshit. If you disagree wholesale with gay rights, you're a bigot. Likewise with trans rights.

    Or do you not actually disagree with "the whole concept" of either of these?

  • You're the one who asked if it's bigoted to use the wrong pronoun. The answer was yes, assuming the "right" one is the one the trans person asks you to use - their "preferred pronoun", and you refuse.

    You disagree with the "whole concept" which I must assume includes preferred pronouns, ergo I assume you refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, ergo bigot.

    If any of my assumptions are wrong, do let me know.

  • Removed Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I don't believe in free will, so it's a good thing just over half of all American voters didn't freely chose this giant douche.

    And among those of us who watch more than just Joe Rogan and Fox News, we haven't added any new adjectives to the U.S.S.R. Drumpf in years.

  • I do not think anywhere near most Reddit users came to Lemmy. I wish it were true.

    Do we know if Lemmy mods are doing quality content moderation? That and their locking out open source and third-parties is why I mostly avoid Reddit. But I'm not entirely gone.

  • And my axe.

  • Nope that's just lying, or maybe gaslighting depending on your agenda. I'm not asking you to do that.

    Patronizing is acting superior toward those who are not as good at something, whether it's knowledge or ability.

    It's okay you disagree with the whole concept of trans people. You'll surely get there if only you listen to the relevant scientists and the trans people themselves.

    Or in a less patronizing way... Your disagreement is irrational, and very likely makes you a bigot. Assuming you care not to be a bigot toward a whole cohort of vulnerable people, I'd be more than happy to help.

    (I've definitely used a bit of manipulative language still, but I've done so honestly. I don't think I've ever talked an anti-trans person on the internet into being an ally. But the leading reason anyone should at least care to let them be, is because they think they're a good person .)

  • Totally think that makes sense, but also what a waste of admin that really shouldn't have to exist in the first place, if people never when in to debt to begin with.

    We're updating old code instead of rewriting it from scratch. Has to be done, but I wish we were working on the new version in the background with any kind of seriousness.

    In theory, insurance companies shouldn't be putting people in debt. They're the ones who should be in debt to the pharmaceutical companies and the government because they're paying out more claims than they can afford to cover with their revenue from premiums.

    This being true would force the government and insurance companies to both be fighting the pharmaceutical companies for better prices and for accelerating decelopnent of generic medicines. Also, it would make putting research funding into long-term cures rather than lifelong treatments a more worthwhile gamble compared to now.

  • Not actually true, unless your means of supporting people includes provisions for the extravagances of carbon-based energy and huge amounts of inefficiency everywhere in the supply chain.

    If we want to carry on with capitalism as we know it now, yes. And you know it's going to be the elderly, sick, disabled, among the working class population that need to go first. You know, those who can't be forced to work. It's not the poor working class populations who wealthy right-wing policy makers are asking to have more babies.

    The world is already on track for around 10 billion people anyway, because there are already enough young people in developing nations who we expect to have families of their own in the next few decades.

    So good thing we could carry that many people sustainably if we get our shit together.

    Not that I'm against Pokemon inspired sexy times between consenting adults.

  • I don't see any specific defense in her argument. No mention of anything in particular the episode might have gotten wrong.

    I didn't expect anything of substance but I do like happy surprises. Sadly, I am not amused.

  • Isn't that debt still paid back to the private insurance companies?

    Better people's debt is erased, but even better if the debt is absorbed by the insurance companies which is the point of having insurance in the first place.

  • It's important to those people whose lives are affect who long for validation and legitimacy in the culture. They made great strides amidst women's rights and gay rights getting across the line, but the world wasn't quite as ready for trans rights to be brought to the forefront of public awareness.

  • The wrong one, obviously. With the "right" one being the one a person insists upon. It's okay to guess incorrectly the first time.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Guessing you live in NZ... Can't remember the last dry Christmas.

  • No worries. Yeah, definitely crazy and abusive. Setting other people up to be rude, only so you can scold them is weird Machiavellian behavior.

  • That clue at the end suggests what was really going on there. Some degree of crazy. Not really getting the point trans SJWs are making.

    Insisting on gender neutral pronouns for pre-language kids is dumb, and only the rarest of crazies would ever do it or insist others do it. It's child abuse plain and simple. I have no doubt the original idea came from an anti-woke Internet troll which blew up in the media.

    We're as woke as you can get. We dressed our boy with whatever hand-me-downs, sometimes "girls' colors". He had lots of hair for a baby. Most people assumed he was a girl. We only corrected friends who of course we would see again. Never a tense moment, lol.

    If he shows any signs of being a girl on the inside, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. The answer is not to resist if they insist despite all reasonable attempts to keep the status quo. That's when you start considering whether to seek a professional child psychologist and go from there.

    Sorry for the Ted talk, but we're all out of kilter on this subject around the world now.