• 3 Posts
  • 344 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • Yeah well, it’s not their job to keep fascists out if power. It’s OUR job. Us, the voters.

    Voting works. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to stop us from doing it. And once we have Rank Choice we’ll be able to move beyond the “an actual fascist/not an actual fascist” dichotomy. But until then, for fucks sake, vote “not an actual fascist” even if you don’t like the person you’re voting for. I don’t care how terrible they are, if they’re not an actual fascist then you vote for them. THAT’S how you keep fascists out of power.


  • This is why I’m giving up on changing the DNC and refocusing my efforts on changing the voting system from First Past The Post to Rank Choice.

    But we also need the fascists out of power, and kept out of power.

    These two things have to be achieved in parallel. That’s why I vote Democrat, but only until I have Rank Choice at which point the Democrats will become my second pick (and then eventually third pick, and hopefully someday not one of my picks at all)













  • If you’re the person being arrested, your options are to surrender or fight and hope they only beat you within an inch of your life without actually killing you (with the understanding that the chances of them killing you are increasing every day). Unless you manager to use legal force against them in which case you are 100% dead.

    Community defense is when OTHER people come to rescue you, typically using nonviolent methods to harass and inhibit the agents until they give up and leave. Of course, the chances that agents will just kill them are increasing every day, too. Either way, once you’ve been targeted you’ll likely need to go into hiding, and engaging legal council is probably a good idea even if you’re a citizen.

    I don’t think this is pessimistic or nihilistic. I feel like it’s a pretty accurate assessment of the likely possibilities. I’m open to hearing other interpretations, though.






  • Ah, I think I see where the confusion is.

    The “positive” or “negative” identification is in relation to what the person claims. So if a person claims to be a woman, we can use science to determine either “yes this person is definitely a woman” or “maybe this person is a woman.” What we can’t do is say “no this person definitely isn’t a woman” because it’s possible there is some factor we haven’t identified or discovered yet which would validate their identity.

    Edit to add: actually, I can think of ONE test to prove that somebody who says they’re a woman but isn’t: gender transition to the gender they claim to identify as. Cisgender people usually get severe gender dysphoria if they attempt gender transition. I would consider that proof positive that they aren’t the gender they claim to be. However, subjecting somebody to such an experiment without fully informing them if the risks and/or against their will is massively unethical which, imo, disqualifies it for the purposes of this conversation. But technically it’s an option.


  • That’s probably because I wasn’t writing a rebuttal per se, but a clarification. The distinction is important because, although he’s incorrect to say that we have no means of identifying if somebody is a women besides them honestly self identifying, we also don’t know if we have found all the different means by which a person may legitimately be considered a women. We can positively ID a person as a certain gender, but we can’t negatively ID them as not a certain gender.

    So I guess the direct answer to the question about if we can identify a woman outside of a person self identifying is “sometimes”. Certainly, allowing people to self identify is easier than forcing them to take a bunch of tests and MRI scans only to get results ranging from a “yes” to “maybe”