Broadly speaking, you probably agree with the large majority of the views commonly attributed to whichever group you identify with - what are the exceptions? Something that if you mention without a caveat immediately makes people jump to conclusions or even attack you?
I’m a Democrat who values the 2nd amendment and doesn’t think we should just ban guns in the U.S. Stronger regulations and safety measures? Sure, absolutely. But I do think people should have the right to own and use firearms for recreation, hunting, personal protection, etc.
I agree up to the point where the amendment is pointed at as disallowing reasonable regulation. If that’s the case, end 2A. But my goal is regulation, not abolishment. If 2A folks (mainly the Supreme Court here) can accept regulation existing in parallel with 2A, then I’m happy.
I’m mainly thinking about preventing school shootings and domestic violence and murder, so restrictions of some sort on mental health / violent history.
I believe privately owned cars and on-street parking should be banned in cities, except for very few regulated exceptions, and replaced with municipal car sharing.
Isolationism. I completely reject the idea that my country’s (the US) military interventionism is in any way driven by benevolence, or makes life better either for Americans (outside of war profiteers) or for the people of the country we’re fucking with.
This is really controversial on here, for some reason. The fact that I want to leave other countries alone and focus on investing in schools and hospitals and public transit instead of bombs and tanks (I don’t even really care if it’s being spent domestically or abroad, so long as it’s being spent on good things instead of bad things) causes a bunch of people to call me a “tankie” and say that I’m just as bad as a fascist. All because I say shit like, that I don’t want to start shit with North Korea. I don’t even give a shit about North Korea. Like, I just watched how Afghanistan played out and went, “You know, we probably shouldn’t do shit like that again,” and supposedly left-leaning people really, really hate me for it. It’s genuinely bizarre. I even got attacked once for defending Biden pulling out of Afghanistan! People just love sticking our nose in other countries’ business, for reasons I can’t even begin to understand.
We Americans used to at least try not to look for “foreign monsters abroad”. I was raised on that sort of old fashioned idea. Do you ever feel like an impossible person from a land that never existed?
I remember growing up in the 90’s and it being fairly common to think that there were no real enemies out in the world, that all the conflicts were over. “The end of history,” gets mocked a lot, but the idea of putting conflict behind us and working together towards a common cause of advancing together is something I really miss.
But if that period of relative peace had continued, then people would’ve started asking questions about why we’re still dumping more money into our military than the next 9 countries combined when the USSR no longer exists (to quote Terminator 2, “They’re our friends now”) and China such a big trading partner that nobody would dream of rocking the boat. And if people started asking those questions, it’d be real bad news for the war profiteers who make bank off that spending. And so it all went out the window, starting with the “war on terror,” and now the government’s trying to make us see everybody as a threat.
And so we can’t have nice things, like healthcare, we all have to tighten our belts so that we can make more tanks. I remember when that was seen as right-wing.
It still is a right wing position, but the trouble is not right or left specifically, it’s that the empire is overextended with its military obligations, the dollar has been badly debased, the US pays more in debt than its GDP, and despite all our spending, the US couldn’t possibly meet all of its military obligations if more than one big thing happened at a time. The dollar is still the world reserve currency, but only because there’s not yet a credible replacement.
The sad fact is that instead of minding our business, America wanted to be an empire - and empires have a pretty standard lifecycle. I don’t think it’s a question of if, but when, it goes the way of Spain and GB.
I’m a Christian who doesn’t celebrate Christmas. You can imagine how that goes over with the family. But it’s definitely a super pagan celebration. 🤷
Having children is borderline unethical given the capitalist hellscape they will be born into, the relatively high likelihood that they will not be able to live to old age due to risk of large parts of the planet becoming uninhabitable with climate change, and considering that reduced birth rates is the most ethical path to a lower population on the planet, which, though technically not a strict requirement of a greener future, certainly makes it a lot easier.
No shade for any kids living today or parents who choose to have them despite the above. I understand why people do it and I don’t blame anyone for it. But it is worth pointing out that current birth rates in most countries are not sustainable, and the seemingly constant fearmongering about falling birthrates in places where it’s low needs to go away. Yes, it’s bad for the economy if the new generation is smaller than their parents. That’s a problem with the system and its design (one of many), and not at all a rationale for having kids.
That Lemmy can be just as bigoted, hostile, and close-minded as the sites it set out to replace; it drives out views which aren’t in line with the gestalt majority. This thread, then, mostly gets answers which are on the mildest end because those who actually hold opinions out of step with the majority know damn well not to speak up, or, well… be immediately othered.
Turns out that people are assholes regardless of platform
I think trans athletes should be able to compete only in their assigned gender at birth category, if the sport is gender-segregated.
Transgender ladies who are on oestrogen and testosterone blockers aren’t any stronger or faster than cis ladies.
Gender-affirming care massively reduces the difference, but transwomen are still likely to be faster than AFAB women:
Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster. Prior to gender affirming hormones, transmen performed 43% fewer push-ups and ran 1.5 miles 15% slower than their male counterparts. After 1 year of taking masculinising hormones, there was no longer a difference in push-ups or run times, and the number of sit-ups performed in 1 min by transmen exceeded the average performance of their male counterparts.
But what season you’re born in also influences your strength and fitness:
There were significant main effects of birth-month for cardiorespiratory fitness (F=4.54, p<0.001), strength (F=6.81, p<0.001) and power (F=3.67, p<0.001). Children born in November were fitter and more powerful than those born at other times, particularly the summer months (April, May and June). October-born children were stronger than those born in all months except September and November. This relationship was evident despite controlling for decimal age and despite no significant inter-month differences in anthropometric characteristics.
So maybe it’s not fair for all those poor summer babies to compete against unfairly blessed autumn athletes?
Yeah, I got into a discussion on this topic and my suggestion is that sports split on other categories, not just gender. Boxing already does weight classes, which is good, more sports should do that. Can’t we have sports for people under 5’8"? I’m sure there’s lots of shortkings who’d love to compete seriously in a league where there height wasnt an detriment.
This approach seemed to offend both sides of the trans sports debate.
I don’t think that those are the same position.
Let’s update our understanding and use other more meaningful categories that better reflect people’s lived experiences is a good idea. Let’s confine our understanding and hold people in rigid categories that often do not match their lived experiences is not.
John Oliver also has a good segment on this topic, if you’re interested.
Also, one could listen to someone such as Erin in the morning to understand the context of the anti-trans sports campaign.
Some of what Erin describes here is that much of the current anti-trans efforts are being funded and pushed by many of the same religious fundamentalist groups that previously pushed “defense of marriage” campaigns and and legislation against gay people.
The market research that these groups have used since losing that debate have shown them that religious arguments against inclusion are generally unpopular. So now they’ve made a very deliberate, and rather successful, effort to repackage their agenda through the sports topic instead.
I’m a militant ethical vegan. I basically don’t talk about it unless directly asked, because it’s probably a fight otherwise.
That women are vastly more interested in sex than men. To the point that it becomes a core pillar of identity.
What do guys discuss on guys night? Cars, video games, work, local politics, their kids, sports and poker.
What do women discuss on girls’ night? Men, penis sizes, relationships, sexual behavior/conquest.
I think women are very interested in sex, and pre-modern times the stereotype was that women were the horny gender.
But I think what you’re describing is more about gendered social norms in conversation. The fact that (some) groups of men don’t talk about sex that openly is because sexual prowess is tied up with social status and most men wouldn’t feel comfortable discussing sexual problems, failing to satisfy their partners, not really enjoying sex or anything like that for fear it makes them less of a man. And because of that, guys talking about how much sex they’re having, or how they tried this new thing and their lady went wild for it, kinda come across like they’re bragging.
I think violence should be the last resort, not the first, when speaking of revolution.
You don’t dialogue with cancer. There’s a cadre in society whose only purpose is to perpetrate the establishment. We either use violence now or starve later, there is no other choice, apart from suicide.
My sincerest wish is that you’re correct. And to see it come true, of course.
I think that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, as it causes mental distress if not alleviated with transition, but that it’s not shameful to have it any more than it’s shameful to have autism, conversion therapy has been scientifically proven not to work, and just as people with diabetes manage their condition with insulin, transition is the best way to manage it so people with it can live happy lives.
As a trans person yes, absolutely the anguish we feel for not being comfortable in our bodies is 100% mental illness. And people get upset because we see mental illness as a bad thing, a personal failure, instead of a condition to be treated.
Doctors have decided that transitioning, while it doesn’t fix the problem of people not being born as their preferred gender, is much healthier treatment for the individual and society so that we can try to live happier lives where we get to feel as comfortable as cis people naturally feel.
gender dysphoria is a mental illness
I think that’s the general consensus.
I seem to constantly interact with people decrying the ‘transmedicalist perspective’
I don’t hate AI. It’s fine. I don’t love it either, but it’s neat and often useful.
You’re fine with companies stealing other people’s work?
As far as I know, the jury is still out on whether that is infringing (not stealing). Based on my understanding, AI is transformative and would fall under fair use. That being said, claiming fair use and then selling the output is problematic to me.
Every single model should be open weights and uncensored. I wouldn’t have any issue with companies adding value or supplying the compute to run the model.
Just gonna vent a little, don’t mind me. I don’t hate AI. I hate how it’s being used. In a vacuum, AI is fine. But we don’t live in a vacuum, we live in a capitalist hellscape where everyone saw how AI was going to be abused even before corporations started jumping on every chance they got to do so. Now we’re stuck in the timeline where the public consensus is that using AI for any reason at all is seen as fundamentally unethical. People are zealously anti-AI and the nail is only getting pounded in further with new reasons to hate it appearing every other day. And it didn’t have to be this way. Photography didn’t try to pass itself off as painting, it had time to develop into its own art form. But AI didn’t. Out the gate, it was being used deceptively, and continuously became worse. People want to abolish AI as a whole, but it isn’t the problem. The problems run way deeper. Our world is a sinking boat and AI is showing us where all the leaks are. Lack of education, lack of access to mental health professionals, those in power using every chance they get to screw over the working class by cutting every corner. Any new technology in any form that can be used to exploit people, WILL be used to exploit people. The hate on AI may be justified but it’s too generalized and unfocused to bring about any meaningful change. There needs to be regulation, but I fear that any laws that are passed will only benefit the rich and horrible.
Im a liberal who loves guns and offensive comedy.
I hate being drunk as well as being around others who are drunk. So yeah, I’m real fun at parties.
Men aren’t the enemy of feminism and equality. It doesn’t matter what any man has done to you, being a bigot doesn’t fix it.
There are real problems in the world that benefit from attention. And most people prefer to waste their energy being mad at made up shit designed to make them hate their neighbors.
