knightly the Sneptaur

Depends on what sort of god you are. Most are harmless, but the malicious ones get Nietzche’d.

Why does morality have to be objective to keep you from raping animals?

Then where do they come from, if there’s no objective morality.

They come from people, of course. Here’s a history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence#History

Not true, abortion is becoming rampant because political factions are trying to change a moral fact.

False, abortion rates in the US have been in decline since the 80’s:

Automatic downvote for election clichés.

Hey @1984@lemmy.today, did you forget about me?

Removed by mod

It’s absolutely wild how mad liberals are that undecided folks aren’t excited to vote for genocide.

You’d think they’d take a moment of self-reflection to understand why, but no.

Also, most of those machinists have second jobs because Boeing had been letting their purchasing power slide for so long.

Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm?

Right-wingers, the only people who have ever had a problem with diversity.

Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I’m confused about what you mean, because the only people doing that are the “Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republicans.

And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words.

I get the feeling that you’re going to be angry when I point out that the only people banning words are the ones who want to make it illegal to teach kids that people like me exist.

Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words.

Make up your mind, do you want to actually have open discussions or do you think that avoiding censorship of the “opinions and words” of discriminatory groups is more important than the presence of the groups they discriminate against?

Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.

…

What do you think “teaching” is?

But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?

This is naive.

How are we supposed to teach people to accept variation when they insist that there can be no deviation from the norm?

Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Just a moment ago you were complaining that the language we use to talk about this topic was a problem, now we’re supposedly telling people not to talk about it? Pick a lane!

Right?

I feel like Cassandra lately. What’s with all the weirdos getting mad at being told the truth?

Only 4 years?

I’ve known this was coming since the DNC first shafted Bernie and promoted Trump as an “easy target” for Clinton in 2015.

Politics has gotten predictable enough to be known with certainty over a decade in advance.

Actual leftist here.

The people you’re talling about are liberals, the leftmost kind of right-winger.

We’ve been trying to get them to start treating the Republicans like a threat for decades, and it’s not happening because the Republicans aren’t a threat to the Democrats, just to us.

I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.

But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.

I’m noticing a contradiction here.

Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.

And for those of us who don’t fit those archetypes?

I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion.

Generally, it is considered impolite to talk to strangers about one’s genitals.

Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases.

The medical setting is one of the few contexts where talking about one’s anatomy isn’t considered a faux pas.

And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me.

Do you want the historical explanation of how puritainism affected our culture?

Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.

They’re relevant a lot less often than you’d think.

I’ll take this as a good faith question, and the short answer is that gender is a lot more complicated than that.

Yes there are two archetypal roles involved in sexual reproduction, but even that isn’t so simple. There isn’t just one feature that defines male or female, but a combination of traits including chromosomes, gametes, anatomy, hormones, etc. In the real world, some folks are born with features that don’t all agree with one or another archetype. Intersex people aren’t common, about 1 in 2,000, but their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary. There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.

Gender, likewise, doesn’t follow the one-or-the-other model. Most folks are cisgender, but some folks have a gender that doesn’t agree with what people assume their sex is, or no gender at all, or a gender that doesn’t fit into the man/woman spectrum. It gets complicated quickly because gender is where sex and society intersect. Some cultures have different expectations based on gender, and some even have more than two recognized genders. That’s why we say “gender is a social construct”, because we all get to define for ourselves what it means to be a man, woman, or otherwise. And that’s also how gender is constructed, it’s a social project we all engage in collectively whether we realize it or not. Most just pass along the traditional gender roles that were passed to them, but those can change rather rapidly as society changes, like when clean-shaven faces became “manly” in response to WW1 soldiers having to shave so that their gas masks could maintain a good seal.

Precisely.

Gender isn’t binary, there is no such thing as a male or female nipple. That distinction is something that Humans made up.

This is the right response, here. Everybody knows the existing “left” third parties are all either actively steered by 3-letter agencies or only relevant because the main parties get to sponsor them as spoilers for each other.

I wish I had the kind of confidence to make claims like this with a straight face. Politicians are so weird.

“Improvements for people’s lives” is not the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word “bipartisan”.

If she wants a ceasefire she should probably cease shipping fire to the aggressors.

The fetus was nonviable, it might be tragic but it was not and could never have been a person.