force @ force @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

744

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why should it be illegal to have a relationship with someone you're only related to by law?

Logically only the same reason you couldn't have a relationship with first cousins. Inbreeding isn't exactly a problem for first cousins, they're genetically different enough for it to not have much of an affect until multiple generations of it (plus same-sex people, sterile people, people who just won't have kids), so the only plausible argument for it is "marriages between family members are more likely to be from grooming/manipulation/abuse". Which I don't think is flawless reasoning to make it illegal, same thing could be said about many other perfectly legal types of relationships. But it is a reason.

HDDs are your best option for long-term storage. Every storage mechanism fails eventually but HDDs are convenient, last long, and have excellent data recovery.

I would like you to explain how "dumbass pirvileged rich person breaks rules/law despite obvious warnings that they clearly understood and fucking dies because of it" is eugenics

we have a word for this, it's called "smartass"

I would say there is some reason to vote in the UK because even if shitty politicians are guaranteed to win, not having an overwhelming majority of the vote still means the parties need to at least put up a façade/not go all in on shitty beliefs, because there's still the threat that people won't vote for them if they go too far.

But the UK seems to have even less of a dichotomy between the 2 major parties than the US, so it's pretty fucked... the labour party is supposed to be the "leftist"/populist party, but they're pretty much indistinguishable from the tories most of the time if not all of the time it feels like. So I completely get why the British would feel completely and utterly hopeless even compared to Americans

you think trump winning means genocide is gone?

That's very far from "banned". That's the point. Plenty of things are very disfavored legally, but it's far-fetched to call them banned. Communism is one of them. There's a whole list of openly socialist&/communist mayors in the US on Wikipedia, even. I can openly be extremely communist and the government won't do anything about it. I can even attend a communist protest and that's as legal as any other protest.

I could see "nearly banned" as a valid exaggeration though. And I definitely agree that the system is stacked against leftists in general, especially anyone identified as a "communist" or "socialist", and hope for getting rid of the alt-right's grasp on our country before most of us are destroyed by global warming is exponentially decreasing as time progresses. So I would totally say it'd make little difference in our fate if it were banned.

A majority of the countries that voted with China on that attempt were/are extremely tied to China and heavily economically reliant on China, and upsetting China enough means a potential economic crisis.

(UNCTAD & World Bank)

(note that Venezuela actually imported more from China than the US in 2020 according to some sources)

It only makes sense for them to not vote against China, no matter their actual crimes, it would be biting the hand that feeds them. It's a similar reason as to why almost no country officially recognizes Taiwan as its own country separate from PRC, despite continuing relations with Taiwan and even importing a lot from them.

Of course, EU/NATO/NATO-ish countries don't exactly care as much because their thoughts on China have long been established, China economically relies on them to a large extent, and they don't have as much to lose if China hypothetically did get a bit angry at them. The richer ones also have very low risk of actual "consequences" when criticizing the US so they tend to do it quite a lot, but here they seem to be in agreement.

That's literally an argument against anything that exists at all. That's kind of how laws work, linguistics is complicated so everyone's interpretation is different, and many people in power intentionally misinterperet laws. But as it stands, communist parties are not banned. What you speak of is a big "what if", and currently you saying communism as a whole is banned is simply wrong, even as an oversimplification.

It is a big stretch to turn "Parties other than the two largest ones in the country have considerable cultural, legal, and logistical obstacles to being able to participate in high-level American politics, and an unenforced law from 70 years ago banned one specific communist party before most of the provisions being repealed by congress and the law being overturned in state courts as unconstitutional" into "Communism is banned in the United States". There is no legal way to criminally prosecute someone on the basis of them being a communist, or belonging to any specific communist party at all, in the modern day.

I'm not trying to be condescending or anything btw.

Who makes that distinction?

... literally anyone who thinks about it? The US Communist Party is one party, there are plenty of other parties that identify as communist. You don't have to be called "The Communist Party" to be communist.

Socialist Alternative

Revolutionary Communist Party

Workers World Party

New Afrikan Black Panther Party

Party for Socialism and Liberation

Communist parties aren't popular at all, but they're far from banned. There are multiple such parties.

"Communist Party" and "Communism" are not equivalent concepts

What if they decide, only those who were born with a vagina at birth, are women and we want only those to be part of our organization?

I mean it'd be like barring someone for having only one kidney, or barring people who have an extra toe, or barring people who are a certain skin color. It's a seemingly random thought pattern and generally makes you a dick. Discrimination based on organs/body parts is wrong. What if they decide that having a big nose makes you not a woman? What if they decide having big ears or short legs or being too tall makes you not a woman? Better yet, what if a trans woman gets a uterus transplant and now has a uterus? Is that when they change the rules to still somehow exclude trans women? Because that's what usually happens.

Trans women still face the discrimination that women face, many of the same problems that many women face, and identify as women, so they shouldn't be excluded from a safe space for their group on the basis of one of their organs not being typical. When you get to the point of going out of your way to remove trans women who have already been accepted into the community, established themselves in the community, and fit in with the community, where other members of the community interacted with them like they would any other woman and viewed and accepted them as women, you're not concerned about "women", you're concerned about your own personal insecurities and taking it out on others. That's the point where you're just trying to pick the specific criteria that excludes the group that you don't like.

Plus many cis women have no uterus, some weren't even born with a uterus, so you're excluding a large portion of the people you're claiming to provide a safe space for.

I define female as one who has a uterus....

And that's where you and literally anyone with any medical knowledge whatsoever disagree. There are plenty of people who are assigned as girls at birth who have no uterus – sex characteristics are far too complex for just a binary "boy/girl" label, and it's not as simple as "no uterus = boy, uterus = girl". sometimes, a baby can be labelled as any gender and it's up to the parent to decide which. What a "woman" is is pretty arbitrary and the only accurate classification is entirely dependent on what the person identifies as.

And that's just not even considering the fact that hysterectomies exist, meaning a lot of generically cis women also don't have uteruses.

"If I found out a woman I dated was trans i'd probably kill her"

What the fuck is wrong with you? People like you need to be put in a mental asylum. You are not fit to be in society and your mental instability is a threat to the public. Your kind are the type that shoot up a mall when your crush rejects you.

With my very poor Russian, I'm pretty sure he says "ja jebu dolbojob" mockingly in Russian (meaning "I'm a fucking dumbass"), then I think the next might be "tupa mov vaflja, ce pizda" ("this cunt is as dumb as a waffle") in Ukrainian, but I don't know.

Edit: Upon re-listening I think it actually says "tupa mavpa bljad', ce pizda" ("stupid fucking monkey, this cunt"). I like what I misheard more though :)

not exactly but for all practical purposes might as well be

You both have a point and have a not point at the same time. LGBT is benefitted by more visibility, because it being denormalized harms people who are gay/trans/etc. In the 90s, gay marriage was illegal, participating in gay culture outside of specific establishments means risking confrontation with cops, and someone's kid being gay was every parent's worst nightmare (it still is for some people nowadays unfortunately). More visibility and pushing for more rights and the same integration into society that the "in-group" has naturally means that people who are higher in the hierarchy will throw a tantrum and start committing hate crimes and attacking the group and using them as a scapegoat. But making others angry is necessary if you want a disprivileged group to have the same accessibility and rights as the ruling group.

... what? You seem to be unaware of what a diphthong is. "ou" is a digraph, which in words like "flavour" tend to "represent" a monophthong (or a syllabic rhotic in GenAm). You clearly do not know enough about the linguistics you're trying to argue about.

Very similar looking words. My mistake.

Solder is pronounced using /l/ in varieties like British English and often in Southern American English