Bongo_Stryker @ Bongo_Stryker @lemmy.ca

Posts

5

Comments

245

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't understand how this is not the top answer in the thread. In my opinion this is almost the best possible answer.

Two things I have issue with: "have a relatively free market" should be "have a well-regulated market." Obviously "well regulated" is open to interpretation, but there should be some agreement that the 2008 financial crisis was the result of insufficient market regulation.

"Be judged on their merit and the moral choices they make, not based on their biological characteristics."

Sadly, this is a very untypical view. It's clear that some of the most strict and punative conservative viewpoints are based on biological characteristics. Like, a lot. So much that it prompted Op's question: where do intersex people fit into the strict conservative biological based rules on who can go where and do what?

Side stepping the real question shows that conservatives don't really want to talk about, or know about intersex people, or anyone who isn't the straight white heteronormative christian default. Its clear that most conservatives attitude about people who don't fit that profile is that they should know their place, keep quiet and not be uppity.

Ok, but there like it used to be was better than there is now, and if here could be like there used to be now it would be better than there is now and its my opinion that if here now was like there then it would be slightly better than here is now and I don't think thats too much to wish for.

Isn't it interesting how Republican legislators can introduce bills for every damn thing except the fundamental issue they are so invested in ringing alarm bells over.

It's been almost 4 years of hand wringing over the border and I can only remember 2 bills put forward. The first was ridiculously unworkable and the second -while not perfect- was at least the strongest suggestion in years and had provisions that republicans were asking for. But oh no, Trump didn't want the situation fixed, so everybody turned against the bill saying it was terrible, it was written by RINO hacks, worst bill ever written, etc.

The fact is republicans don't want a secure border, because then they wouldn't have the threat of mexican rapists to scare people with. Constantly crying about immigrants and the border is a useful distraction. If republicans really wanted the issue fixed, they would put effort into fixing it. Democrats could be pushed into cooperation but republicans don't want that.

But when the military pisses away billions on equipment that doesn't work, everbody's like "meh, what are ya gonna do?"

This could get traction. More people should do this, regardless of location. If anyone has a problem with illegal immigrants trespassing or littering or whatever, instead of calling local law enforcement or ICE, ppl should sue the president. Get enough lawsuits against the president and something's gotta give.

To be fair, the cops started it.

I feel like there's a jean-paul Sartre quote that applies here

Well it seems there's a plan to take the white house no matter what the election results may be:

https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-new-over-the-top-secret-plan-518?sort=new

It kind of worries me that this could actually happen and people would be like, "Aw shucks, I guess there's nothing we can do."

Thank you for your input friend, but where did I say I thought men fighting women is ok?

What I did say was that I thought for the Olympics, which is ostensibly supposed to be for elete level athletes, it makes no sense to put someone with 5 fights in their career up against someone with 50. That Italian woman was the Jamaican bobsled team of boxing.

I think I understand your point about the testing though. Fun fact: you know who else was all about regulating people based on genetics? Rudolph Hess and the rest of the nazi crew. Hess said that Nazism was "applied biology" and what with all the people talking about biology this and biology that I see those ideas haven't died out.

Ok but also John 7:24. Which is why I say Matthew R. Petrusek seems to be a false Christian. He seems to be confused about what Christ expects of us, and is giving out false ideas about the gospel. I will pray for him.

Woah hold on. I have been informed Angela Carini has 5 fights under her belt. How is somebody with 5 fights in the Olympics? That's why she lost, she had no business being there. This has nothing to do with gender or sex, it was about experience and skill.

I grew up in a very conservative neighborhood in a very conservative town and went to a very conservative religious school. There was no sex-ed but there was a class on hygiene. There was no dancing but there was a "banquet" at which they served rice pilaf and rubbery chicken breast from a steam table.

There was never any mention of gay people, trans, intersex or anything else except that sex was reserved for a man and a woman after they were married.

The only exception to the above is the mention of eunuchs by Jesus in Matt 19:22. But what is a eunuch? I was told it was a person who had their genitals cut off and lived a life of celibacy.

Based on my experience alone, I would say that a common conservative attitude and policy is to ignore, deny and/or never acknowledge anything that's not straight man+woman married for the purpose of having children.

In the case of the boxing woman, it's interesting to think that if you only have two categories and you have to put her into one, some people put her in one category and some the other, but there doesn't seem (to me) to be any clear objective way to tell which is right. This could be an indication that there really are more than 2 genders.

Or it could be that a cisgender woman of color whose body doesn't conform to fascist eugenic purity standards is being targeted because she's a better boxer than the white women and well, racism.

The neurotypical flattening of self expression always was a tyranny, you just normalized it.

I chef kiss this sentence.

No one will ever take this community seriously if you continue to allow ridiculous sources

I feel like the time to worry about this has long passed.

“We are thinking of all the Christians on every continent who have been hurt by the outrageousness and provocation..."

What happened to expecting persecution and praying for the well-being and deliverance of our persecutors?

Saints and martyrs were literally tortured to death and pray "Lord, forgive them, they don't know what they're doing" but someone made fun of a painting and this?

It's hard to imagine Jesus getting all super offended by this. I imagine He might say something like "You don't have to get all furious on my behalf" or He might say "You hypocrite! Look at your own behavior!"

About the Olympics as a whole, it seems like worldlyness to me: vast sums of money spent on spectacle that benefits a relative few people. I think Christians can let the worldly do their thing without engaging and without getting caught up in controversy that distracts us from the Kingdom of Heaven.

Oh hey it's the brownstone institute, an anti-vax propaganda arm of falun gong.

Well that's exactly what someone who does use MKUltra would say.

I'm voting Harris, for all the reasons outlined in this thread, but damn it chaps my hide that this is like the trolley problem where the trolly will go down the 100% evil track unless you pull the lever to go down the %25 less evil track. Everybody in here seems to think we shouldn't want a better track, it's just not practical or possible to do anything better.

Is nobody else here frustrated that the only alternative we have to the orange fascist is a prosecutor that put countless brothers and sister into the racist for-profit prison system for having weed? This is the alternative that progressives are excited about?

I read a line somewhere -I forget where- but it was something to the effect that always voting for the lesser of two evils means getting the second worst possible america. Are y'all so pragmatic that wanting anything other than the second worst america is automatically interpreted as a bot, or a Russian troll, or a stupid college kid in a Che t-shirt that only wants to endlessly critique?

Anyways, she already massively hurt blue collar americans with her border policy

Except that over the last 40 years conservatives have done more to hurt blue collar workers than 4 years of border policy ever could.

Starting in the late 1970s policymakers began dismantling all the policy bulwarks helping to ensure that typical workers’ wages grew with productivity. Excess unemployment was tolerated to keep any chance of inflation in check. Raises in the federal minimum wage became smaller and rarer. Labor law failed to keep pace with growing employer hostility toward unions. Tax rates on top incomes were lowered. And anti-worker deregulatory pushes—from the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries to the retreat of anti-trust policy to the dismantling of financial regulations and more—succeeded again and again. https//wwwepi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

If American workers had rights and protections, immigrants wouldn't be able to drive down the price of labor so badly - but it's not the immigrants that are the problem, it's the fervant belief that the "free market" yields the best results. You see what the invisible hand of the market does, and blame the immigrants. You blame that bad ole Kamala. That's just how the wealthy factory owners want it.

Kamala didn't hurt you, the heritage foundation did.