Sapient liberation now.
Except how often do you hear about radical feminists who aren’t TERFs anywhere in mainstream discourse? For much of the population, TERFs are the only “radical feminists” they hear about. (I reject the idea that a belief that biology is destiny as compatible with feminism in any case.). It’s not so much people in this community I worry about getting the wrong idea, it’s everywhere else.
As a trans-inclusive radical feminist sick of radical feminism being tainted by their bullshit, I strongly disagree. Let them pick a new name showing how far they’ve strayed from the feminist ideal that biology shouldn’t determine destiny.
So, is there any reason there’s debate about this other than bitterness and misogyny? Sounds like no serious scientific body accepts this as a thing, and it has the potential to enable child abuse.
Rotating leadership in a military-ish context in deep space sounds like the material conditions for the creation of factions and potential mutiny. If getting rid of every hierarchy, even ones you freely volunteer for, is the only way a future counts as positive, there’s no point in writing sci fi. Ordinary citizens in the Federation aren’t in a military hierarchy, and it’s post-scarcity, so people aren’t facing economic coercion to join Starfleet. Not conforming perfectly to your personal idea of utopia isn’t a blind spot, though Trek has many of those, as well.
Auth-left calls it decadence, alt-right calls it degeneracy. Authoritarians hate any deviance from their norms.
If you link to suicide hotlines, mention which ones can send cops (under the guise of EMS) to your door without your consent. (For instance, I’d never suggest 988 because of this.) That way, users know you know what’s up and that they can trust the group’s info. And given cops’ record of shooting mentally ill people in crisis, it’s pretty important.
They’re rich, but it also makes them stand out, gets them extra headlines.
Yeah. Not being legally required to abandon principles in favor of short-term profits for shareholders is tight.
“Data” is a mighty broad category to be “driving” anything.
I dunno, if my bro’s plants grow more, there won’t be room in his place for him. 😉
Basic rights for people who aren’t white dudes were mostly imposed by court order. That’s the reality. We have laws, it’s just that those laws were written at a time when personhood didn’t really apply to anyone who wasn’t a white man. And if no one who you consider a full person is capable of being pregnant, you’re not going to think to put in a right to abortion explicitly, even if it’s a basic requirement for equal citizenship for the female sex, because women (and trans people) aren’t really people…and so on.
Edit: I realize this is mostly due to the weird semi-religious fervor Americans have for our Constitution and government system.
TL; DR: We’re running Modern Democracy 1.0 with a Frankenstein covering of patches, while other countries just upgrade whenever they need you.
Also, there’s not a large, well-funded far-left movement in the US fighting to radicalize people.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
Child sexual abuse
It might be easier for people suffering from other mental illnesses if addiction were in a different category, but addiction isn’t something you choose. You may choose to try a substance, but no serious scientist holds addicts morally responsible for their addiction in the way we hold murderers or Nazis responsible for their actions.
An example of how things are already hard enough for us: https://www.propublica.org/article/they-needed-mental-health-treatment-mississippi-threw-them-in-jail
They can open a pdf, or their Legislative Assistants can. That stuff is performative, making sure we don’t expect them to regulate huge corporations because they’re so incompetent. This is the stuff they’re interested in regulating, so they do.
Vouchers will happen under our current system no matter what we do. Protecting some LGBTQ+ kids will make no difference to that, but it will make a difference to the kids.
Transness, like fatness and pregnancy, is a body-difference-based status that’s socially vulnerable enough to need protections, but the easiest legal basis for protection is on the same path as pathologization. Not arguing with you, more musing under what circumstances it is worth it to accept the pathologization-for-protection deal.
As someone who has spent decades living with severe mental illness, I think your stance will both kill innocent people and ruin the lives of many that survive. It was hard enough dealing with the stigma (even in medical settings) before the culture decided that becoming a mass shooter had to mean you had a mental illness. Now that we’ve decided every bigot with a gun and a vendetta is “mentally ill,” things are even worse. And now you want to make our lives even harder by lumping Nazis in with us? Tribalist hate shouldn’t be in the same category as depression; they are fundamentally different phenomena. I don’t think you have any concept of the harm this would do to people who are already vulnerable. Besides, if you think Nazism is a mental illness, are you arguing that most of Germany simultaneously developed the same murderous mental illness for a decade or so in the 20th century? Really?
The left doesn’t have the money to prop up a decent counterpropaganda apparatus.