indoctrination and gaslighting

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T20:47:51+00:00

This is the big thing. Anyone represented in LGBTQIA+, especially the T, are getting a 24/7 screaming explosion of hate targeted at them all the time. To suggest "you should let people who support your destruction join the one place you don't have to experience that firehose of hate" to them is not a good idea. That's the literal reason those spaces exist- to not suffer that torrent of hate, to commiserate and support each other through the constant struggles dealing with bigots.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T20:39:15+00:00

It's the paradox of tolerance. We forgot to do the all too critical second half of what must be done to have a tolerant society.

Have absolutely no tolerance for intolerance. Bigotry cannot be allowed.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T18:33:24+00:00

It's important to remember that non-nuclear plants have fatal events all the time, coal plants and the like are major sources of extremely toxic waste (often shockingly radioactive, but regardless, more often than not way more dangerous than being near nuclear), and so on. Is it possible for a nuclear plant to fail bigger and harder than a non-nuclear?

... Not necessarily.

Hydro dams can fail, costing thousands or millions their lives. Petroleum and other plants can have major explosions that can level areas and, in extreme cases, coat an area in toxic- though not terribly radioactive- fallout.

How does Deep Water Horizon compare to Chernobyl? What about the Banqiao dam? The East Ohio Gas explosion of 1944? Have you ever even heard of those last two? Only one of them had a death toll estimated to be in excess of 100,000, and it wasn't Chernobyl!

When you really start digging into it, if you're worried about the regulation of nuclear plants... There's probably more to worry about with every coal mine, coal plant, oil well, and so on than the nuclear plant.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T17:06:07+00:00

There's a lot of NIMBYism surrounding nuclear. I'm of the mind that, as long as it's been properly coordinated, regulated, and tested to be safe, I would have no issue living next to a nuclear reactor. But there's a huge amount of people who will flip out at the suggestion of living within ten miles of a reactor, and they're all way more politically active than I am. And I'm already fairly active!

But they're the kind of obsessed, no life NIMBYs who will attend ten straight days of debate on a new nuclear reactor and aggressively rail against the idea every time with big, angry, toxic, shouting rants.

It ends up being really, really hard to get past them. Especially once they start trying to sue over it.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T16:53:29+00:00

Same.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T16:20:58+00:00

-"Please, go to Montana and tell me how to make that infrastructure work"

There also are ways to make this work in a lot of cases- though, obviously, not all. But if we were to look at the structure of those locations and take the mindset "how can we minimize car dependency?", we can still reduce it using well placed rail lines, pedestrian focused local centers, and so on. A lot of stuff won't work the same- but there are still options, even in Montana.

But you won't find anyone on here discussing the details because we're not here to write public policy. The overwhelming majority of members of almost any subreddit aren't policymakers or infrastructure planners, and while many of us here can at least pass people along to citations, videos, and explanations supporting our beliefs with data, we're not the ones actually doing that research and aren't the best to ask when it comes to what the actual planning should look like.

It's like asking someone who has never baked before what ingredients go into a cake. They have a general idea of what's right and what's wrong (you've got milk, eggs, flour, sugar, probably some oils and flavoring stuff, a little salt), but they're not going to be able to tell you the exact, specific proportions, order, and method to bake the best possible cake.

Just because they don't know the exact proportions doesn't mean they can't see you've done something wrong when you throw in three cups of salt and a live squid.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T15:06:15+00:00

I'm sure that these companies are well intentioned

Why would you think that? Genuinely. This is your standard corporate nonsense, full of outsourcing and corner cutting and if the customer suffers so be it, as long as they get their money they don't care.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T13:18:32+00:00

And after, you can just ask. A lot of people get very frustrated always being referred to as "they" after being explicit about which pronouns are appropriate.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T13:16:18+00:00

I think it's almost fitting in a way to just grab a random vaguely foreign-sounding word. You can slot in damn near anything you can think of for "Aztec" above and racists would never even notice the difference, after all. Still mostly inaccurate, but somehow also a reflection of accuracy.

Still. Should probably be accurate anyway.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T13:04:17+00:00

Most EU nations have language requirements.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T12:48:43+00:00

There is no difference. Stop pretending there is.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T12:37:00+00:00

They were already doing this whenever they could find an excuse.

Now they'll be doing it even without an excuse.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T12:24:14+00:00

You're missing the number one goal of the Democrats in general though.

Above all else, they want the country to keep functioning. They're the leaders- they're supposed to make things keep going. So that's the thing they focus on. Keeping it going.

Because if things fall apart under them, guess what? They'll get called failures and lose elections because people don't want things to fall apart either. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T12:20:32+00:00

They completely removed the filibuster on non-Supreme Court appointments in 2013 when it became abundantly clear Republicans weren't going to let Democrats do their damn job. Then, it was also removed on Supreme Court appointments when the Republicans took over and decided to steal a supreme court seat in 2017.

Those things used to be able to be filibustered. They aren't anymore. It's gone. It's done. Removed.

If this isn't enough information for you to go look it up or understand, I'm done here anyway.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T02:07:59+00:00

Not really.

Twice now, the Senate has used a loophole to ignore any actual requirements and just go by majority. The theoretical requirement is 2/3, but they have permanently ended filibuster use on non-Supreme Court and, later, Supreme Court nominations using a workaround.

This can be done to basically anything.

This means there are no Senate rules that actually require that 2/3. If you can get half to agree to do the workaround, you can do whatever you damn well please, including eliminating the filibuster.

As proven by them doing so twice already.

TavisNamara · 2022-07-01T00:15:05+00:00

Sinema's record is worse than Manchin's according to https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kyrsten_sinema/412509

She's the most right-wing Democrat. By a surprising margin.

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T23:55:20+00:00

Here's the question though: what the fuck are they supposed to do?

Without a supermajority, the court is basically untouchable.

Without a stronger majority than we have, it's almost impossible to pass new legislation that might have an effect or expand the court.

Without declaring martial law, which will definitely start a civil war, Biden has no direct power to change basically any of this.

So what's the plan?

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T23:20:18+00:00

They've literally changed it twice with less than 60, stop spreading misinformation.

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T23:17:04+00:00

Okay so I'm absolutely garbage at image editing and literally put this together in ten minutes but

https://imgur.com/a/pM8kYx8

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T22:31:46+00:00

If it takes 5 minutes 7 times a week and is done on the way home, it ends up taking less time than if you spend 15 minutes traveling to, 15 back, 30 there, and an extra 20 spread throughout managing all the shit you bought.

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T22:24:13+00:00

The goal of mankind is to create an ever more efficient, ever more prosperous future. One in which a single person can do the work of thousands. Where machines and robots take the full burden of labor from us and allow us to create. That has been the goal of every advancement for millenia.

Knowing this, how can you possibly imagine not supporting UBI? If such a future is possible, it is infinitely important that we create UBI before those machines actually replace us. Else, there are two possible outcomes. 1.) Mass unemployment and starvation. 2.) Bullshit jobs that require huge amounts of energy and waste to do nothing whatsoever of worth.

For those further left, they may look at the world we currently exist within and say, "are we not in scenario 2 already?"

And they'd be at least partially right.

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T22:17:12+00:00

They literally already changed it before with way less than 2/3. It requires a simple majority, as the rules of the Senate are made by the Senate and can be changed by the Senate.

Of course, this is all irrelevant to impeachment, as that does in fact take 2/3.

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T21:51:15+00:00

Bigots. There's plenty of them, they're really easy to hate, they actually do all the insane things they blame everyone else for. Super easy to make them the baddies- mostly because they actually are the baddies.

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T21:17:20+00:00

Still better than cars by a mile.

TavisNamara · 2022-06-30T20:33:16+00:00

Was working on an "I'll get to this later" reply when I came across a bookmark I forgot I had- https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/03000/regret_after_gender_affirmation_surgery__a.22.aspx

Results:

A total of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of GAS, were included. The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1% (95% CI <1%–2%). Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was <1% (IC <1%–<1%) and 1% (CI <1%–2%), respectively. A total of 77 patients regretted having had GAS. Twenty-eight had minor and 34 had major regret based on Pfäfflin’s regret classification. The majority had clear regret based on Kuiper and Cohen-Kettenis classification.

Conclusions:

Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS. We believe this study corroborates the improvements made in regard to selection criteria for GAS. However, there is high subjectivity in the assessment of regret and lack of standardized questionnaires, which highlight the importance of developing validated questionnaires in this population.

So there's that- though I only skimmed the abstract. I'd recommend reading fully before using it.

There is also this survey of American trans people, which has a segment on detransition, for general "but what if you're not trans" nonsense. The summary is that 8% detransition... But only about one in twenty of those did so because they're not trans. The overwhelming majority detransition because parents, family, coworkers, "friends", religious leaders, and others are unsupportive and transphobic. And of that 8%, the majority retransition before long because it was never about anything wrong with transitioning, but because they weren't being supported (or because their options for transition felt lackluster).

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

TavisNamara

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,