darq

Japan has been in the year 2000 for the past 50 years.

… capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

Because conservatives do not actually care about reducing the number of abortions that happen. If they cared about that, they would be all-in on affordable access to contraceptives and comprehensive sex education. Which they also, as a movement, oppose.

Conservatives do not care about reducing the number of abortions. They care about punishing the women who get them.

Yeah buddy that’s what getting a loan is. Except in reality, you get them from the bank.

I mean. This is true. But there are two ways of using this statement.

1. Ignoring the plight of minorities, not fighting for their rights, and insisting they put their suffering aside because “no war but class war”.
2. Uniting in support of people with minoritised identities, forming stronger alliances, and refusing to infight because “no war but class war”.

I hope you mean the second one.

Hardly surprising. Watching the same grocery items increase in price 3 times in 6 months, sometimes to over 150% of the original price, it was clear people were going to be in trouble.

Pair that with skyrocketing rents, especially in the landlord’s paradise that is London. And the fact that even getting into a rental often requires a lot of money upfront. The cracks are widening.

A lot of people were barely holding it together before. It’s only going to get worse unless drastic changes are made.

I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to

I was the top comment. So no.

as well as the original point of the article

Which is why I was talking about reduction in cases where elimination isn’t feasible.

Bloody hell man.

Very all-or-nothing response.

Of course. But if we want to reduce CO2 emissions then buses will still need electrification - and therefore require PFAS.

Okay. But again. My comment was that if elimination isn’t possible, reduction should be pursued.

So saying “we still require this” is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles.

Nowhere has anyone even hinted that replacing all private vehicles is the goal.

Once again. Reduction is the goal.

So saying “we can’t replace all” is completely irrelevant.

Or at least, it cannot replace them all quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. By the time the necessary infrastructure was built, it would be too late.

Buses require almost exactly the same infrastructure as private cars.

Basically, we are at a late enough stage of CO2 emission that the only realistic hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change requires mass production and adoption of EVs.

No. What the hell. Why would that be true?

Public transport is a better option for basically every major population centre. And for those centres, we should not be encouraging private vehicle ownership, but rather replacing that as much as possible with public transport. Hell, even if that public transport is on-demand low-occupancy shuttles and ride sharing, that’s still better.

Electric private vehicles are better than internal combustion, but they are still awful.

Orders of magnitude less than mass private vehicle usage.

My comment was about how if elimination of these materials is impossible, then we should figure out how best to reduce their usage in an acceptable manner.

Jumping straight to black-and-white “So you’d send us back to the dark ages?!?!?!” type of response is kinda wild.

These are critical chemistries that enable modern day life

Then maybe we need to examine “modern day life” with a more critical eye. Some sacrifices may need to be made, because they are worth being made.

There are also measures that lie between “ban” and “use freely”. If we cannot eliminate the use of these chemicals in chipmaking, then we need to reconsider the disposability of these chips, or we can even consider if less effective processes result in less damaging chemical use, and accept a bit of regression as a trade-off.

And society does, very much judge outsider demographics on the worst actions of individuals.

Yes that’s the point I’m making, sweetheart. That we don’t judge most people by the actions of individuals but for minorities, it’s fair game.

Unless you are saying that it is right for people to do that?

Not all trans are like this…

Then why even bring it up?

We don’t judge demographics by the actions of individuals. If we did, both cis men and cis women would be banned from every aspect of society.

But for trans women, it seems to be fair game to dig for crimes and then make this sort of two-faced statement where you are definitely saying that we should view trans women with suspicion, but won’t come out and just be transphobic openly.

No. It isn’t on the table. This is another in the long line of scenarios that only exist in TERF imaginations.

She shot her shot. No regrets.

… in the wake of recent claims that some justices have fallen short of required ethical standards.

The single most indirect, passive, and euphemistic way to say that conservative justices have been caught accepting extravagant gifts from people who have stakes in their rulings, while failing to declare that conflict of interest.

I don’t know what the point of your comment is.

Trans and non-binary people are becoming more accepted as normal over time. The people screaming about pronouns don’t actually care about pronouns, they oppose that gradually growing acceptance.

If you are allowing a company that Elon Musk of all people is involved in to operate on your head, maybe the damage has already been done.

I’m all for transhumanism, and I sincerely hope that the people who are hopeful for Neuralink to be therapeutic for their condition find some relief. But nobody should trust anything Elon Musk touches with their brain.

Most people just use LGBTQ+. Give or take the Q and the +.

I do find mocking the acronym to be rather overdone considering it seems to be a non-issue within the community.

And I mean… LGBTQ+ folks can bicker about pointless stuff. Have you seen flag discourse? Bi lesbian discourse? The fact that we don’t argue about the acronym makes the cishets’ obsession with it kinda funny actually.

I’m aware of the history of the article. The original article was significantly worse, as my comment stated.

But even above that, the article still should not have seen the light of day. It was based on a terrible premise to start with. A similar article would not have been written about other marginalised groups, and if it had it would have rightly been lambasted as absurdly bigoted. The BBC does not write articles like “do people of X race commit crimes?!”

And the fact that the BBC found Lily Cade to be a worthy contributor, even after they were informed of her history of sexual assault, raises so many red flags.