You mean that some of those that burn crosses are the same that work forces? 🤯

Did he take the literal nazis’ dicks he’s been sucking out of his mouth before he said that?

Who stopped them, motherfucker?

I’m going to wager a wild guess: Jews and Israelis who oppose apartheid and genocide (IJV etc) and are facing harassment for it are not going to be considered as victims of harassment and discrimination. Only “good” Jews who are pro Israel will count, none of the “bad” ones. And nobody is going to even think of the word “antisemitism” when it comes to them being called JINOs.

Sure, but you’re not factoring in the cost of time spent learning how and the time spent preparing. I can afford that time, not everyone can. Again: the issue is systemic, not about personal smarts or purity. Ask the simple question: what is the cultural default and what do you have to go out of your way to get. What is easy for regular people? For example: in India, even the language used is indicative: veg vs non-veg. Veg is well supported with cultural practices, abundant and easily and conveniently accessible yummy veg food. In North America, it’s literally the opposite.

That’s why I like the cycling analogy. The Dutch are not better people, they just have infrastructure that encourages cycling. The easy, the default.

Ever heard of Universalism? There is a whole church of them. They hang out with the Unitarians.

Good. But until it becomes as cheap and easy for a family of 4 to eat vegan as cheaply, completely and easily as it is to not, let’s not make finger wagging the political strategy for change. Nobody wants that.

I like the bikelane analogy, actually.

It shows clearly that (a) yes you do need activism (like Critical Mass) and a few crazy ones that will bike regardless of the adverse conditions, (b) political will to shift towards bikelanes, (c ) wider adoption but also sustained activism to build better bikelanes (not painted gutters on the side of stroads, but protected lanes, connected with transit).

We definitely do not lack (a), but (c ) FOLLOWS (b). If you want to go from “just the crazies” to “everyone and their 5 year old”, systemic change needs to be backed by very concrete top-down action.

Without very meaningful (b), telling people to change their eating habits while stuff is otherwise the same is like telling people to take their kids to school on bikes next to crazy SUV traffic: it’s not happening.

Which is why I think it’s better to start with some kind of populist attack on the excesses of the super rich. How many beef burgers was Katy Perry’s publicity stunt in low orbit?

I don’t like these kinds of articles because they always have an undertone of making it a matter of personal consumer choice as opposed to systemic change.

I missed a comma before “algorithms” it seems.

The kind of “extreme authoritarianism” you’re pearl clutching about is literally the age ratings system that was in place in the late 90s. Get a grip.

This is totally a diffusion of social media issue. Twenty years ago, the media that kids had available for consumption was age rated. We had agreed as a society that certain things should not be visible to children until they grow up. It was possible to do because it was centralized (TV, movies, radio, print) and it was accountable to regulatory bodies and the rest of society. If a TV channel showed something as shitty as Tate style propaganda, there was institutional pushback, there were letters to the editor, there was someone specific to be targeted for accountability.

With social media being dominated by US style “freedom of speech” algorithms and US style acceptance of the impossibility (or even undesirability) of regulation and with completely unaccountable megacorps running them while giving very minimal if non-existent attention to who is watching what, we have a complete lack of age rating. We have given up on the idea of protecting childhood it seems.

Coupled with every fucking other issue being brought up in this thread, from COVID, to economic issues, to cultural misogyny, there is a perfect storm…

Ever seen a movie called V for Vendetta?

The word “means” is also used for logical entailment, in which case it’s not symmetric. The dog’s coat is wet which means it’s raining. And of course, a man is a featherless biped, but not every featherless biped is a man.

But the way, we are not arguing about the same thing. You think I’m defending the stupid ruling. I’m not, I’m just saying that language is not algebra.

In fact to paraphrase Nish Kumar, if we’re going about precisely characterizing things, a more interesting precise characterization than the meaning of the word woman is the characterization of the people who obsess about it as transphobic idiots.

LMDE because it’s Mint and a recent Debian stable.

I don’t think anything in the ruling hinged on the semantics if the world “means”. That said, there is nothing ambiguous in saying that a logical relation is not symmetric. Symmetry, like reflexivity, transitivity etc, are well defined in algebra.

Rapist doesn’t understand that “No means no”.

The American mind cannot comprehend this.

Only if you assume that the word “means” defines a symmetric relation.

deleted by creator