Why is the assumption by these people that there is a sexual component required in the explanation? Age appropriate explanations are easy.

“Know how some families have one mommy and one daddy? Some families have two mommies or two daddies instead.”

If the kids ask about the actual mechanics of procreation they are old enough to hear something like:

“Some couples adopt or they find someone to have a baby with who helps them make a family.”

Was there any need to mention surrogacy or donors? No. Kids don’t need to oversexualize queer people. Adults don’t need to over sexualize queer people! When people are sheltered from our existence until they are in their early teens they tend to think of gay couples as explicitly just sexual relationships rather than romantic or family building ones that are as dynamic as straight relationships because they were introduced to them as a sexual mechanics first kind of way. It’s dehumanizing.

The “right” shy of outright fascists are neoliberals. The term was coined in the eighties and describes a system that like Liberalism classic works primarily off of an idea of a protected class of citizen (as opposed to lesser protected classes of non-citizen) with a series of fundemental “rights” to basic protected freedoms from government interference and choice of “style of life” based around a personal property centric system.

Where Neo-liberalism differs is it detests the welfare state, seeks widespread government deregulation as they see it as an economic deficit, practice widespread government austerity in public programs and seeks to privatize swaths of government services to create new market sectors.

Neo doesn’t mean new in a “of the minute” kind of way. The people who came up with the distinction between liberal branches were describing the likes of Ronald Regan and Margret Thatcher.

On the topic of echo chambers - At what point did we decide that a bunch of people over a wide geographical area with similar interests and a common code of standards/preferences of civility… Is a bad thing?

It’s kind of how social clubs exist irl.

Eh, I have seen enough of what happens to places that favour so called “freedom of speech” or no moderation over valuing comfort of vulnerable users. There’s plenty of places that exist that have “freedom of speech”. Rather than making this place just like those places why not just go to a pre-existing one or start your own?

Trans people just need to be loved and accepted like everyone else but unfortunately a lot of people really suck.

Point of order. Trans people do not just need to be loved and accepted. Sometimes when this discussion point comes up it’s under the context that if everyone was playing ball with pronouns and being nice then medical transition would be unnecessary. That is not the case.

While it’s true that one of the effects of medical transition means that strangers are more likely to read and not misgender you - being trans the feedback system isn’t dependent on outside observers. What a lot of people seem to think is that gender as understood by cis people, as a largely performative construct, is by and large not how trans people interact with gender.

I personally wish we would stop looking at trans healthcare from the sour perspective of needing to justify itself being a worthy endeavor or not strictly on the basis of suicide rates as though if something is not provably strictly lifesaving in every case it isn’t worthy.

So here’s where the whole “but kids shouldn’t make these decisions” arguement kind of falls apart… You are assuming it’s the kids making the decisions.

The reality here is there is a bar that trans kids need to pass to be eligible which requires the signoff of a whole panel of adults based on the observed behaviour, self descriptive process and recorded outcomes of thousands of trans people in the past creating a rubric that professionals draw on. Being trans and the way gender is processed by trans people is actually more different from being cis than a lot of cis people are aware and the presentations of transness are actually pretty consistent. The regret rate is astronomically low - kind of to the point where it is actually unusual because of the level of care taken to predict and assess potential harm.

To get puberty blockers you need first a child who wants them, then all guardians of the child to agree it is worth pursuing. Then you require the endorsement of a psychiatrist with years of consultation and a social worker to make sure the home situation is above board and nobody is being coerced. Then you need a pediatrician to sign off on the standing health of the paitent, and endocrinologist to assess the safety of pursuing blockers…

It’s not a one time thing either, you have to have routine check ins once things start and if any of these adults remove their endorsement of the paitent then it doesn’t matter what the kid wants. It’s not happening.

If anything medical starts going wrong long term health remains priority.

So can we please not pretend it’s dumb children showing up to a tattoo parlor? It’s a panel of professionals working off predictions based off of a nigh century of diagnostic data in conjunction with parents making informed decisions on behalf of their incredibly dedicated child- because these kids need to self advocate like fucking crazy at all points of the process… Which in itself tends to disqualify kids who don’t absolutely need this because it’s a job and a half.

This is designed as ironclad ethical assisted decision-making as can be made and people are being tricked into thinking that somehow this process is not as rigorously checked for flaws or deals with consent of minors differently than any other form of pediatric medicine. Why is that?

Really not looking forward to a repeat of the time of the Hogwarts Legacy game. Online Trans spaces were being brigaded with every reveiw or JKR tweet and comment sections filled unchallenged with tacit endorsements after the trans voices fell silent because we were all just hoping the abuse would stop. That the HP targeted adds and their companion transphobic political adds riding on the wake of the high on queer creators would dry up. The media, the platforms the people coming into places proclaiming they are gunna buy multiple copies of the game to show us what is what. The suicidal ideation of our most vulnerable friends as they deal with feelings of being targeted and feelings of being unwanted or ignored by the world…

Most people not caring might not be “valid” but it will feel like the truth again.

Women who are like that usually change their mind after a couple of years buckled into the yoke. There’s currently a whole group of women stuck in golden handcuffs in the trad wife influencer community who are miserable in their relationships but making too much ad money to consider stopping.

I dunno about that. This status quo was created because America came out of WWII smelling like roses. All of Europe was rebuilding and so American prosperity of the time was basically like being the one only slightly scorched house on a bombed block. It’s been long enough that the countries in question aren’t in need of leaning on the one stable currency.

This could be the push needed to equalize the world stage and break off of old habits. Like take Canada for example. Food self sufficiency in Canada was always a concern. That’s why there was a tarriff on US Dairy, because Canada wanted to retain domestic self sufficiency in one of it’s food production spheres. That issue persisted through other sectors but there wasn’t a strong political motive to make that shift. The government wasn’t called to protect and incentivize strong domestic production to a great extent because the US generally has a better growing year in the south. To not have food security however is a weakness in Canadian’s self determination if things go bad. Now that things have gone bad structure will be put in place and protected meaning a semi-permanent loss of market for American interests.

What Trump has proven is American volitillity in it’s government structure and voting block and nobody will want to tie a shoddy investment around their ankles. In fact some might take it as the opportunity to cut loose a problematic ally.

It really isn’t that simple. The north didn’t have as much strict segregation but in a way it was because they didn’t have to. Economic pressure reinforced by subversive hiring practices, prejudice in housing and hostile attitudes kept black communities tight knit and localized which meant you didn’t have to have specific “Colored schools” because they were created by these forces squeezing folks together into controllable blocks of population.

In the South the fall of segregation had a number of nasty fallouts which harmed black communities as well. When they merged the systems there was a historicly significant loss of black teachers. People got up in arms over really stupid questions like “What if my menstruating daughter had a black male teacher” and that prejudice ensured that a lot of the teachers who understood the challenges of being black in America were no longer in a position to help students.

This meant that effectively in the North segregated schooling continued to be a thing in practice but not in name while in the South it wiped out infrastructure that was helping black students succeed. It was handled incredibly poorly and was not unambiguously good but it did change a lot of the legal categorizations and is considered a win.

Technically that was a calculated movement of it’s time. They wanted a black character in a role that spoke to an easy childhood concept of authority to imply that power dynamically having black people in a dominant respected role in social spaces is a normal thing one doesn’t need to get upset over. Hence the whole friendly cop thing.

They were aware through the gay black actor they had in the role that police was something minority communities had issues with but the hope at the time was that more diversity in the force would be a solve. It’s naive from a modern standpoint but they did try.

It was sad that they purposefully kept the gay part of the actor’s identity under wraps. They knew they were asking him to do something harmful by keeping his private life strictly secret but the actor agreed that he was doing something he deemed worth the sacrifice.

It’s not nessisarily skewing the narrative, it’s just not providing context. Terrorist acts have a narrow definition in Canadian law. This guy could be a spree killer motivated by racism but unless that killing is for premeditated ideological, religious or political reasons to coerce a specific result or change of policy from the population / Government it doesn’t fall under the definition.

No manifesto or claim of reasoning or connections found to groups that claim responsibility - no terrorist designation.

A terrorist attack has a narrow definition in Canadian law where it is specifically part of a premeditated ideological, religious or political attempt to influence government policy or to intimidate a section of the public to a specific end. Basically if this guy didn’t have a manifesto or ever stated his reason within this rubric and was not part of a group that has specific aims then it follows under a regular old spree killer homicide unless it was racially motivated in which case it is also a hate crime.

Whether one uses cars or guns is not a factor in determining what counts as a terrorist act. The reporting on this has not been great ar clearing up this point.

There’s a very specific rubric for what counts as a terrorist attack in Canada. Probably the level of calculation and premeditation involved was a factor and that he’s not a part of an ideologically organized group that is trying to influence behaviour of a government or political body.

A spontaneous hate crime made against a population is technically not a terrorist attack by Canadian definition. To count you have to have done it for a narrow slice of very specific reasons.

But there are a lot of things that exist that aren’t exactly friendly. People often hinge their belief or disbelief in any divinity singularly on the bible. They consider proof of God existing is based on whether all the claims made in an old book are true - not that it is a fallible piece. It either has to be all true or all false which is not how any scientific text more than a decade out of date has proven.

Not saying that means anyone should start praying. The God as listed in the Bible given their behaviour does not seem either omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent but those ideals have shaped a lot of the discussion about whether something classifies as a “true” God or not. A lot of thought and debate goes towards squaring that circle. Sometimes the easiest answer is that lies exist. The presense of other gods are noted in the bible. Maybe that one was just a super powered Narcissist.

Technically that would be a defense if the god in question was actually as powerful as they say they are or that they are nessisarily good. There is always a possibility that Gods exist but are not on the hook to tell the truth and their goals do not align with humans.

A lying god telling the kids they have magic powers well beyond them and proving it like an uncle playing a dumb trick on the three year olds at a family reunion is a possibility. Maybe God exists and is just kind of an ass?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

“Toxic” has a wide range of uses outside just toxic masculinity or just describing men. One of the side effects of a very therapized society is wider recognizing that some people in your life are dragging you down because their behaviour is unhealthy for all parties. Before the reaction groomed mostly into women but men to a lesser degree was to shut up, take the abuse, take the hit to the psyche, self doctor yourself using coping mechanisms that don’t address the problem directly and endure because the pressure was on being a dutiful, selfless sibling, child, partner, parent, friend etc.

Describing people as “toxic”, while like any tool can be used wrongly or hurtfully gives people a tool to shake themselves out of that cycle. When used properly it empowers people to take their own status and wellbeing seriously when they are being taken for granted, abused or bullied so that they can source the problem and engage with people in a way that wins them their agency back. When we talk about “Toxic men” isn’t effectively any different than talking about “toxic siblings” or “toxic friends” or “toxic parents” or “toxic narcissists” The only ways it differs is in the behaviour dynamics of the group in question. These people are all uniquely “toxic” but in each of those cases you probably gain a different picture of what that toxicity looks like. Those are not individuals, they are groups within our cultures the reclassification of which is systemic. What needs to be emphasized is that in all cases nobody should be forced into a relationship of any kind, friend, family or romantic. There is a society wide push for true emancipation of the individual free to establish and demolish social ties based on the merit of the tie.

In some ways this loneliness epidemic we’re experiencing may in part be due to this renegotiation of relationships in a bid to make things better overall. One could argue the development of an expectation for too perfect boundaries is maybe a contributing factor but overall the attitude across the board is “enough is enough” and that isn’t nessisarily a bad thing. If people are not forced into connections at a systemic level they can apply consent and engineer for everyone the understanding that people either must act at the very least decently if not kindly and with respect if they want deep connection.

So much of the discussion around the subject of toxic masculinity devolves into either the idea the people critiquing the behaviour are being mean towards and victimizing men but all discussions of toxic behaviours are not about victimizing the perpetrators, it’s about advocating for better conditions for the targets.

Bit of a funny insult calling someone a bulk cardboard box for shipping (ie Gaylord).

If a large cardboard box is a Gaylord does that mean regular boxes are gay peasantry?