Genetically modified cat girls exist right now??? Where???

I believe nuanced discourse is very important - especially when it comes to children and their safety.

With that said I can’t help but think this author despite (seemingly) in support of trans people - has written a fair few articles that go against trans inclusion and none for. Again that’s fair and everyone is entitled to their opinion (even when written with the authority of a national paper)

What I find strange however, is the inherit contradictions of the authors overall position.

Let’s take the OP article for example - it argues that blockers and hormones should not be prescribed to children unless there’s a lengthy process to determine if that’s the best course of action - which may or may not be valid. However, in another article the same author also argues “Every spot taken by someone with a male athletic advantage is an opportunity closed to a female rival.” and again platforming “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete” - which on their own seem sensible but when you put both positions together the argument becomes “kids shouldn’t transition and adults that have gone through agab puberty shouldn’t play competitive sports therefore trans people just shouldn’t be in sports period” - which I feel is a much harder position to defend on it’s own (something something motte and bailey)

I guess I’m saying that yes we should have nuanced discourse but maybe your best messengers for this discourse shouldn’t also be saying “In this climate, who would challenge someone with a beard exposing their penis in a women’s changing room?”

US for all it’s shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran

As I said: “that’s an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…”

I’m just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it’s own weight.

Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.

Obviously I’m not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I’m saying that by manufacturing consent for the “war on terror” the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what’s happening in Ukraine)

So I’m arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.

And if you’re claiming that “Everyone’s in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes.” but “Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists” is “hardly a war” - then you’re either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you’re saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.

I feel we may not be understanding each other so I’ll present my argument and you present yours?

My point is: The G7’s hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.

Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.

Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that’s currently happening.

Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we’re commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what’s happening?

As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I’d much rather them be aligned with us but I can’t blame them when they’ve been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.

Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.

Now you may think it’s too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you’re calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…

Idk this has similar energy to “If conservatives hate foreigners and progressives see through the bullshit PR - why shouldn’t Shein just continue using child slaves?”

I appreciate you explaining your point - I guess I was just trying to say that smokers generally don’t smoke just to spite/give others cancer - and that it’s usually a coping strategy - and sure that’s not always the case and there are rich and well off smokers as well

I guess I just wanted to note that most smokers don’t choose to smoke but do it because they’re addicted - not just to the nicotine but also to the feeling of control to immediately calm yourself down (I’m not saying its a healthy or sustainable coping mechanism but an understandable one)

weird you ask for people to have empathy for poor and struggling people but then hate on smokers when those people are almost always smokers themselves - genuinely you’ll be hard pressed to find a struggling person that doesn’t smoke

maybe there’s something more to knowingly poising oneself for the fleeting feeling of control and comfort that doesn’t have anything to do with “people who choose hurting others for their own convenience”?

Is Varg a TIRF (trans inclusive radical fascist)??

Removed by mod

I hadn’t noticed how pro-cop some feddit.org users are but a cursory glance at people taking police reporting at face value and then openly defending cops punching people in the face with “it’s out of context” reasoning is just surreal.

It reeks to me of living in a bubble your whole life and never having experienced police repression - so your only response is “it can’t be the police, they’ve never done anything against me, it must be the protestors that are wrong”

Usually I’m one that hates leftist infighting but defacto trying to suppress a genocide because the “law says so” is rather weak. Still I totally understand wanting to protect yourself from repression but surely if you cared about both justice and your well being you would just hand over the community to someone else? Unless of course you actually agree with the “law”…

so you combat leftist infighting with more leftist infighting? curious…

honestly most (if not all?) tankie instances are defederated so I don’t understand what posts like this are trying to achieve apart from digging up off-instance drama for personal vindication

Ugh - why does renewable energy have to be such a politicized issue - the article begins by stating that the president absolutely denied it was due to renewables - only to spend the rest of the article exploring how to handle renewable overproduction so it doesn’t cause grid instability

like can we not tackle infrastructural problems without them turning into a shit flinging contest - people are afraid to say that renewables have any downsides because the fossil fuel industry spends so much on propaganda to politicize energy production - like we’re supposed to argue that unless renewables are flawless there’s no point in even trying

how did we go from reasonable discussions on how to most effectively solve problems (ie climate change) to making sure you don’t rustle oil barron’s jimmies so they don’t oust you out of government?

I’m just hoping people start waking up to how ridiculous this narrative is…

“Oh you want clean air and a stable environment for you children? Have you considered changing nothing and hoping it works out?”

(ps nuclear is cool but wouldn’t have solved the issue of overproduction)

idk i think our incentive should be to cure diseases with public funding and make people healthy instead of for profit but what do i know

Is this better science for you?

Empirical data.

It is.

“Meat and dairy products have especially large water footprints due to the amount of water-intensive feed required to raise the animals”

You mean the ban defined by the International* (Norwegian) Holocaust Remembrance Alliance? The IHRA that defended Norway’s commemoration of the nazi Knut Hamsun? The same IHRA that defines antisemitism as “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”?

Though I’m guessing you mean specifically “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

Which I thought I made pretty clear with the parallel between apartheid South Africa and apartheid Israel - just as I believe the colonial state of the US has no right to exist - so I believe that the colonial state of Israel has no right to exist either.

So when I hear people chant “From the river to the sea” - I (and solidarity scholars) don’t see that as a call to violence against Jewish people - but as a reclamation of a slogan originally conjured up by Zionists for the equal rights of everyone in the Levant independent of their religion.