Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Jimmy Higgins]

The seller is under duress. But the buyer wouldn't know that. Legalization and regulation could help remediate this concern, but not solve it. Also, what in the fuck does your hobby horse have to do with the targeted murder of Charlie Kirk?

And why are we to assume the seller is under duress?

The seller is under duress.

Why do you think that a sex worker is under duress, but the people working in an auto parts factory or a slaughter house aren't?

What was the question?
Derec: If two people mutually agree to exchange sexual services for money, how is that "exploitation and commodification" any more than any other service profession?
Jimmy Higgins: The seller is under duress.

I.E. just because two parties have an agreement doesn't mean the agreement is above board. I also didn't claim all sex workers are under duress. A question was asked, I provided a reasonable answer for a situation that is undoubtably not uncommon enough in the sex worker industry. Regarding other workers under duress, chances are there is violation in union or worker rights or sexual harassment. Or if one is discussing general life issues, a woman could, in theory, be allowed to use her body as an ATM, but a woman should be allowed to have other options if they'd rather not but are desperate for money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He says, in the very same five-sentence long post in which he also calls someone a "cockroach"...

That's just what her name means.

An aptonym if I ever saw one!
She is a hateful person. Once she tweeted this:

Yes, and you aren't using that term as such, you are doing it to belittle yet another woman... behind her back. So manly!

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[crazyfingers]

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

 

[Derec]

Laws can be challenged too. It being a law would have made no difference.

Yes, laws can be declared unconstitutional. But afaik, if Roe had been codified in federal law, the reasoning behind Dobbs would not have been sufficient. So laws do offer additional protection.

 

[Arctish]

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Some people really like sexism and think we should have more of it.

Some people think they are entitled to brutalize others who disagree with them about something.

And some people think they should control the sex lives and gender expressions of people around them because their god gets upset when people have free will and personalities.

 

[blastula]

The text is false. He doesn't "openly" call for lynching. He says "men" should have "took care of it," whatever that means. It's still inciteful though.

 

[thebeave]

He said "take care of it", not "dealt with". Anyway, its kind of a stretch to assume that CK meant "lynching" to be synonymous with "take care of it". "Take care of it" can just be a man stepping up and telling Lia (an intact male) to "get the fuck out of the women's locker room, NOW". She's putting words in his mouth by claiming he was talking about lynching. Also, CK was also referring to just this one event involving Riley Gaines and a transgender individual (Lia Thomas), and not "calling for violence against us" (i.e. all transgenders) or "openly calling for the lynching of transgender individuals".

That tweet is a giant clusterfuck.

 

[bilby]

"Take care of it" can just be a man stepping up and telling Lia (an intact male) to "get the fuck out of the women's locker room, NOW".

Well, only if that man who steps up first steps into the women's locker room, which seems unlikely to happen if he is opposed to an intact male being there.

 

[blastula]

It's clear he's talking about using violence. So cringey with the whinges about low testosterone and "men acting like women."

 

[Arctish]

The text is false. He doesn't "openly" call for lynching. He says "men" should have "took care of it," whatever that means. It's still inciteful though.

Those of us who were old enough to follow the news when the Stonewall uprising occurred know exactly how men "took care of" transfolks before Gay Rights were recognized.

It did not require more testosterone than males nowadays produce. All it required was prejudice and the willingness to be an asshole. Brutality was an important part of it but that could be outsourced to cops and vigilantes if the asshole didn't want to get his hands dirty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He said "take care of it", not "dealt with". Anyway, its kind of a stretch to assume that CK meant "lynching" to be synonymous with "take care of it". "Take care of it" can just be a man stepping up and telling Lia (an intact male) to "get the fuck out of the women's locker room, NOW". She's putting words in his mouth by claiming he was talking about lynching. Also, CK was also referring to just this one event involving Riley Gaines and a transgender individual (Lia Thomas), and not "calling for violence against us" (i.e. all transgenders) or "openly calling for the lynching of transgender individuals".

That tweet is a giant clusterfuck.

Yes, but also no. Take care of it like in the 50s and 60s, which didn't mean to exclude from locker rooms. It meant forced conversion therapy. Old school medically backed torture of sorts.

As a note the Twitter post is from 2023.

 

[Gospel]

He's only going after non-citizens so far. That has to be normalized before he goes after Americans.

If by ‘Americans’ you mean white, sure. But if you mean Black & Latinos who ‘look’ like undocumented immigrants, it’s already normalized. Citizens are being picked up by ICE on suspicion alone, and the right shrugs it off with, ‘Well, once they prove citizenship, they’re let go. That sounds normalized already IMO.

• Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez Wrongfully detained by ICE in Florida for nearly 48 hours despite his citizenship claim. PBS
• Leonardo Garcia Venegas Born in Florida (U.S. citizen), he was detained during a workplace raid in Alabama. His REAL ID was dismissed as “fake” by officials, even after he claimed citizenship. The Guardian
• Peter Sean Brown (ongoing case from past detention) A federal court recently ruled in his favor over a 2018 incident where he was misidentified and held by ICE. American Civil Liberties Union+2Florida Phoenix+2

But of course you wouldn't imagine this is already happening because it's not happening to white people. And honestly, it makes sense you wouldn’t notice, because white people aren’t ICE’s targets.

The claim that America no longer has systemic racism is the biggest lie some Americans keep telling themselves.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

He's only going after non-citizens so far. That has to be normalized before he goes after Americans.

But of course you wouldn't imagine this is already happening because it's not happening to white people. And honestly, it makes sense you wouldn’t notice, because white people aren’t ICE’s targets.

For now. They totally would go after people just for being disloyal to Trump if they could. And they're already trying to actually make "TDS" a "mental illness" so they can lock up whoever is bad mouthing Trump (as usual I'm sure someone will think this is a ridiculous claim even though they can just Google what's going on).

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Well people get bent about it for two distinct reasons.

One reason is simple idiocy in accepting a byline that the world is simple: that there is sex, and that any behaviors or views or whatever may arise is fixed to a binary of sex that cannot be extracted or viewed separately from the gonads; that there are only two "sexes" and that anything else is "excessive mumbo jumbo".

The second reason is because allowing people to bot have children, socially, creates ladders out of poverty through a lack of economic drag created by having kids, and by making difficulties, the wealthy can restore that economic drag and prevent people from gaining wealth as families and as collectives.

The first reason was engineered for the second reason.

Edit: the second reason may also include the comorbidities between gender non-conformance and autism, which is also notably linked to success in intellectual fields, for those not mired in some profound form.

 

[thebeave]

He said "take care of it", not "dealt with". Anyway, its kind of a stretch to assume that CK meant "lynching" to be synonymous with "take care of it". "Take care of it" can just be a man stepping up and telling Lia (an intact male) to "get the fuck out of the women's locker room, NOW". She's putting words in his mouth by claiming he was talking about lynching. Also, CK was also referring to just this one event involving Riley Gaines and a transgender individual (Lia Thomas), and not "calling for violence against us" (i.e. all transgenders) or "openly calling for the lynching of transgender individuals".

That tweet is a giant clusterfuck.

Yes, but also no. Take care of it like in the 50s and 60s, which didn't mean to exclude from locker rooms. It meant forced conversion therapy. Old school medically backed torture of sorts.

As a note the Twitter post is from 2023.

What are you talking about? The idea of an intact man (whether transitioning or not) not being excluded from the locker room of a women's swim team and changing into a swimsuit in their presence would be ludicrous in the '50's and '60's. It was not even a question back then. And men of the 50's and 60's "taking care of it" would mean getting him out of there, perhaps roughly if necessary. But killing him on the spot? Possible I guess, but very unlikely. It would have been considered a common act of chivalry towards women by men back then. Are you saying the men of the 50's and '60's would have confronted him and said, "Come with us, we're going to force you into some old timey conversion therapy and set you straight". Okaaaaay...

His point about lower testosterone levels being the cause of men not stepping up these days is weak at best. But I do agree that it does seem like there has been a change in the social contract between men and women over the decades, in that men are stepping back, rather than forward when it comes to protecting women and the vulnerable from possible and actual threats. There have been some high profile cases on public transit recently that reflect this.

Yes, I saw that the post was from 2023. I'm not sure why you think that's relevent, but it does make me wonder if perhaps CK's killer saw that (and/or similar tweets) without questioning them and decided he better take CK out before this mass lynching of transgenders takes place across the nation. It does appear he was specifically concerned about CK's perceived hatred towards trans people, given his roommate/lover apparently was a transwoman.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Well people get bent about it for two distinct reasons.

One reason is simple idiocy in accepting a byline that the world is simple: that there is sex, and that any behaviors or views or whatever may arise is fixed to a binary of sex that cannot be extracted or viewed separately from the gonads; that there are only two "sexes" and that anything else is "excessive mumbo jumbo".

The second reason is because allowing people to bot have children, socially, creates ladders out of poverty through a lack of economic drag created by having kids, and by making difficulties, the wealthy can restore that economic drag and prevent people from gaining wealth as families and as collectives.

The first reason was engineered for the second reason.

We crave simplicity and hate change. This is human nature. This helped us survive as a species.

The reason why some people are stuck on two genders is inertia, in some part religious based inertia. Also used to think the planet was flat. Then the Earth was the center of the universe. It took a while for heliocentrism to take hold. Finally, there is also the issue of personal identity. People want to believe we choose who we are. It is actually somewhat unnerving to consider our identities are much less controlled by our conscience than we want to admit.

So there are a number of reasons why people would have an issue of shifting from the much more simplified and baseline concept of gender. Much of this issue is not engineered, it is habit and what people are used to. The alt-right use of it as a political weapon... that is fully engineered to take advantage of people.

 

[TSwizzle]

The reason why some people are stuck on two genders is inertia, in some part religious based inertia.

Nope, it's science and biology.

 

[Elixir]

The reason why some people are stuck on two genders is inertia, in some part religious based inertia.

Nope, it's science and biology.

Naïveté is so cute!!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Dude, it is interesting to learn that you flunked remedial reading.

Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.

Pointing out that Elixir's support for Stare Decisis is dependent out the outcome is too subtle for this crowd.