Anki might be worth your while if you are trying to learn something.
Load it up with a flashcard deck of something you want to remember, and it’ll show you those flashcards. Lots of people use it to learn languages, but it’s also good for anything that requires memorisation.
sigh I don’t know why I bother speaking with TERFs.
There is harm being done to the entire class of women for the loss of the concept of sex as the source of female oppression. Sex matters and these distinctions are being removed in language.
Firstly, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote or the chain of comments thus far. It’s just a completely non-sequitur accusation.
But secondly, this isn’t happening.
An intersectional understanding of oppression and privilege does not erase the oppression cisgender women face.
And the distinctions in language are absolutely not being removed. The words “transgender” and “cisgender” exist precisely to make discussing these issues in a clear and respectful manner possible. That’s exactly what those words are for.
I do not think that the current zeitgeist surrounding this issue has been resolved through rigorous science and the best attempts to do no harm: to everyone.
The problem is that in order to prevent the incredibly rare occurrence of a cisgender person mistakenly undergoing transition, you are advocating for policies that would force a far greater number of transgender people to undergo that same horror.
I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.
Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.
Like you are doing now.
No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.
What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.
Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.
Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?
First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.
Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.
I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.
Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.
I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.
But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.
Any promotion of the concept of gender and gender roles in schools is a bad idea in my opinion.
Gender is a concept that exists. That kids will interact with throughout their lives. They deserve to be equipped with the information that helps them makes sense of that.
The “genderbread person” that pops up is one instance, and it’s discussion of gender includes gender roles: those are societal expectations of actions and characteristics.
It doesn’t include gender roles in any version that I have seen.
The closest I’ve seen it get to gender roles is “gender expression”, which it touches on to explicitly separate the concept of gendered expression, from gender identity and biological sex.
In other words, it does the exact opposite of the thing you fear that it does. Its entire purpose is to state that the things you described about yourself earlier, such as being a tomboy, are separate from gender identity and biological sex. That being a tomboy, or having interests that are stereotypically gendered, DO NOT make you that gender.
Regarding gender roles, how do you respond to the current zeitgeist that asks if gender nonconforming women in literature and film are in fact trans? For example, Jo March in Little Women, and Mulan.
Those can be interesting conversations even if the answer at the end is “they’re still cisgender”. Cisgender people have been writing gender into stories for a long time, and a lot of those stories do end up have themes very relatable for trans people. Relooking at media through a queer lens is not harmful.
You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.
But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.
Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.
Ehh, it’s worth noting that developing nations tend to pollute a lot less per capita. And as they develop they can transition to cleaner forms of energy, as they gain the economic ability to do so.
Pointing at developing nations is a convenient excuse for developed nations to avoid taking the actions we need to take.
I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.
In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.
We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.
Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.
So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.
I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.
The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.
If I were a child now, I would potentially be pushed to be trans or NB.
No that’s not how that works. People aren’t “pushed” into becoming trans, let alone into a medical transition. Trans people, especially trans youths, usually have to fight tooth and nail to have their identities taken seriously, and even harder to access healthcare.
especially because at least certain segments of the trans argument seems to hinge on enforcing gender roles.
This is just such tired nonsense. I have never met a community more supportive of people breaking gender norms than transgender and non-binary people.
Honestly the protesters that everyone hates kinda have the right idea.
The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.
We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.
Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.
I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.
Ah no, that sucks. I’ve been using a lot of those apps.
The system doesn’t actually require any collaboration to eventually become a two-party race. It’s pretty much statistically assured if voters behave rationally, but with limited information.
Well, sorta but also not really.
Neither party seems to have any interest in reforming the voting system to something more representative. So in that way I guess you could say they are colluding, but more reasonably they simply share a common incentive.
But it really is the system itself that makes third party candidates basically impossible. It incentivises people to vote strategically, not for the party they want but rather against the party they don’t want. That system is eventually sure to collapse into a two-party system.
Wild how he doesn’t even mention the possibility of voting for a third party.
Why would he? The US voting system makes third party candidates an impossibility. It’s not a viable option.
So they didn’t rule if the “no hats” rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.
And I find that very structure harmful. Because by formulating the question asked of the court in a specific way, then limiting the answers it can give to only that question, you can force these kinds of discriminatory judgements while pretending that that wasn’t the point.
The court should be able to say, as part of the ruling, that while exemptions should not be given on religious grounds, justification for rules that are considered to infringe on religious freedoms may be asked for.
We can easily give a reason why discrimination should not be allowed while serving the public, and similarly why antlers cannot be worn in a workshop.
The “no hats” rule in this case wasn’t a “no hats” rule, but a “no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody” rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.
Which is ridiculous because a hypothetical religion could use pants as a symbol of their faith and suddenly pants are banned.
If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.
No. It’s not another matter. It’s the entire matter. That’s my point.
I know what I described is your second option. But I’m deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.
The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.
Do you vote for Republicans?