In a way, you could say that. It’s also a societal one. Its a whole lot of problems rolled up into one, really.

Body dismorphia is only a mental illness in the sense that it causes a lot of emotional distress. Not in the sense that it is a delusion or the person is crazy, or anything.

I’m sure I am speaking to the choir here, but body dismorphia is the mental illness here, and transgenderism is the cure.

Pre-transition transgender people are mentally ill, due to the emotional pain that comes from being trapped in a body that they don’t feel represents themselves. The cure for that illness is, of course, transitioning into the gender that makes them feel like themselves. So, a fully transitioned transgender person is no longer mentally ill, at least from body dismorphia.

Therefore, people who are against things like puberty blockers and HRT are literally trying to keep mentally ill people from getting better. I am okay with body dismorphia being referred to as a mental illness, in accordance with medical science. The fact that it is a mental illness shows the cruelness of the people fighting against the literal cure for it.

However, I am sure Facebook is going to just let anyone refer to perfectly happy and fully-transition transgendered people as mentally ill, which is most definitely not true, and shouldn’t be allowed.

Obligatory Fuck Zuck.

It’s not that the union head should be neutral. The head of a union should be openly and unapologetically pro-union. Going on a podcast and agreeing with someone who is right-wing extremely anti-union, is a very bad and traitorous look for the head of the union.

Its not illegal, though. I can go out into public right now and say it with no repercussions. If it was illegal, how would anyone possibly inform other people of actual fires and bombs?

The thing that is illegal is causing a panic in a large group of people. Has nothing to do with the words used.

I just feel that the nuance is important. Any combination of words could get you in trouble if it happens to cause a riot.

It was also illegal in 1970 when this strike took place. So, it could still happen.

This is a common misconception. It’s not illegal to say anything like “bomb” or “fire” in a public place, at all.

What you could get charged with in those situations is something like, “inciting a riot”, or “disorderly conduct”. These depend on how people around you react to your words or actions, but doesn’t depend on the actual words used.

Systematic (and alleged automated) denials of claims are highly immoral, unethical and possibly illegal thing to do.

Immoral? Yes. Illegal? Obviously not, considering the amount of people who have died due to these exact kind of denials.

It’s not illegal because the same people making money off of denying claims and killing people are using this vast wealth to lobby and propagandize against any step towards universal health care.

I just think this doesn’t solve the root problem and just adds one more death without fixing it.

I think you are probably right, but I think it at least sends a message to the people who can fix it. I don’t think it’s going to make the root problem worse, either.

He was a human.

A sociopathic one. An arrogant one(I can’t imagine ever walking around without security if I got rich off of deciding who gets to live and die, but then again I’m not evil or stupid enough to do any of that).

He was human, but that doesn’t mean he should have gotten a free pass to be evil. The “justice” system was obviously never going to deal any justice for the millions of families who lost a beloved one to this mans’ sociopathic decisions.

Sometimes when you do evil things, you win evil prizes.

To play devil’s advocate, none of those vanguard parties were ever allowed to exist peacefully. They were always attacked, from the inside and out, by capitalist and fascistic powers. It’s kind of hard to get rid of the state when it is needed to defend from other nations and groups looking to destroy it.

I’m not saying that a Vanguard party would necessarily ever voluntarily give up it’s powers and disintegrate into pure communism without a large part of the world struggling against it, but it would be more likely to.

That is just pure speculation, though, because we live in a world that has shown that it will struggle against communism until the end. The Vanguard Party idea is flawed, because it fails to account for this indefinitely long struggle, and fails time and time again to offer a valid exit strategy into the next stage of Socialism/Communism.

Yes, alcohol is technically a depressant, but I guarantee that the majority of people who sign that form don’t know that.

It also says, “or any other controlled substance”, implying that the list is made up of controlled substances, which alcohol is not.

I think a good lawyer could argue that alcohol doesn’t count here, but no lawyer could ever argue that marijuana doesn’t count, as it is specifically listed.

I think there is a lot of historical evidence that dismisses your claims. Polyamory, and/or communal parenting, has existed in many forms amongst many different indigenous peoples, and it is still practiced today. There was a time in our past where children being raised by many different parents was the ‘norm’, and an argument could be made that it is a more natural form of child rearing than our ‘norm’ of monogamous parent couples.

There is no evidence of people that practice communal or group parenting having issues with violence or jealousy, that is just your assumption. There is evidence that these kind of situations could be advantageous. The child has more people to pay attention to them and can feel a better sense of community. They are also being socialized better and are being shown a wider variety of perspectives, etc.

I would definitely suggest you look into it for yourself, if you are curious why your assumption is wrong.

Marklar yea, marklar.

Centrist liberals are the “left” you are referring to, here. The average Lemmy user skews a bit to the left of that. If you go far enough to the actual left you get your guns back, as long as you are a prole, anyways.

Look into groups like the SRA if you want to see what I mean.

Fair point, the OP is a bit over the top. I agree, It’s not all religions.

I can point to multiple denominations of religious people that literally say that being gay or trans is forbidden, yet I can not find one Atheistic group that does the same. To act like religion doesn’t do it’s part in perpetuating this kind of hate is foolish.

I’m not saying all religion is bad or worthless or anything, just that it definitely contributes to this problem. I’m also not saying that all religions are the same, its mostly just the Abrahamic ones that seem to perpetuate the hate more than others.

They exist, but let’s not act like religion isn’t playing a huge role in the perpetuation of trans hate. If a person says that they dislike trans people, 9/10 times they are going to be religious. A lot of other cases will stem from a person coming from a religious family, or culture, if they aren’t religious themselves.

It’s not a requirement to hate gay and trans people to be an atheist, but it is a requirement to at least act like you do to be a member of many different religious denominations.

Neutral onlooker and cis male here.

I think it’s the “boo-hoo poor me I’m a man” sentiment that I initially felt reading that, even as a man.

I felt the same way. Ok, yea we have the disadvantage of being seen as the bigger threat by other males? Because we typically are? Because of some of the many advantages we have as men?

It feels weird to even call this a disadvantage, because it comes from having a bunch of advantages, if that makes any sense. We wouldn’t have a disadvantage here if we didn’t have natural advantages, in the first place.

Besides, this particular situation didn’t have as much to do with his gender disadvantage as his racial disadvantage, anyways. It was all exacerbated by the disadvantage of the cop having no discernible brain cells.

It was. If you go through the OP thread, one of the responses is a picture of the dialog window that this user clicked through saying, “these changes will be IRREVERSIBLE”.

The OP was just playing with a new kind of fire (VSCodes Git/source control panel) that they didn’t understand, and they got burned.

We all gotta get burnt at least once, but it normally turns us into better devs in the end. I would bet money that this person uses source control now, as long as they are still coding.

It’s really weird to make a blanket statement like that because different people have very different salaries and expenses. Especially in reference to the US where these things heavily depend on the state a person resides in.

deleted by creator