erin (she/her)

Is this true? I thought with things like danger to oneself or others they’re mandated reporters.

Would love to. I’m too poor.

Look it up. It’s not my job to educate you. Facing danger in real life is a real problem, having every conservative politician focusing on banning your healthcare and reducing your rights is a real problem. I have to believe you’re an empathy lacking troll or a bigot, and likely both. Discrimination is a "real problem,’ and even if pedophilia was the number one political issue in our country, extrajudicial violence isn’t going to solve it. And I block bigots, because I’m not going to debate someone who acts in bad faith and says something like

there are people with real problems at the moment

Insane thing to say.

Right. My lived experience doesn’t matter, nor the statistics. I’m not seeking attention, I, like the majority of people reading this, am alarmed. I’m seeing people I care about and the community around me hurt every day, and you think “gender rules my life.” Not a person worth listening to. When was the last time you got harassed in public for something intrinsic to yourself? For my trans wife, it was today. If you seriously think that trans people aren’t currently at the front of the culture war, you’re deaf, ignorant, or lying. Watch literally any pundit speak, any newscast, or any political debate around the country. Then tell me trans people shouldn’t be concerned about violent rhetoric aimed at people they’re increasingly being lumped in with. Bigot or stupid, I won’t debate you on the reality plain around me daily.

Likely, or are likely to mistakenly target a trans person who happens to be around while they’re hunting the person they cat fished. The people who are okay with extrajudicial violence are mostly conservatives. What’s to say the people willing to go to such lengths to hurt someone wouldn’t take the opportunity when they see someone they believe is a groomer and pedophile simply for being trans? It’s easy to expand the definition, and we’ve seen it happen in the past. It’s happening right now in rhetoric. Violence against trans people is already statistically high.

If someone shows up with the intent to fuck a minor, absolutely, but I guarantee those aren’t the only targets vigilantism catches.

Except sometimes “pedophile” actually means “trans person just living.” The right claims all trans people are groomers.

If true, this would in fact be a huge step toward quantum computing at scale, which would revolutionize computing. However, they’ve claimed this before, and have offered no evidence yet of their supposed discovery.

Both parties can be immoral, except in this particular case it’s very clear that western backed fascist regime is the only immoral party.

Right this conversation isn’t worth having lol

I’m not trying to argue that it’s okay. I’m not a military expert or analyst. However, people that are those things don’t make this argument and so I’m not willing to unless I’m provided evidence of a viable alternative. A better example might be the Ba’athist defense of Iraq during the unjustified 2003 invasion (not that the Ba’athist regime wasn’t a nightmare for the Iraqi people, it just wasn’t the US’s place to involve themselves on false pretenses). Iraqi cities are being invaded, they simply don’t have the military infrastructure to have their forces entirely separate from civilian targets, and so civilians end up getting hurt by airstrikes and artillery because of their proximity to military targets. Of course, party extremists also used extreme violence to prevent civilian retreat, but I’ve seen no evidence of this in Ukraine. Convention is all well and good until said conventions would require surrendering territory to avoid conflict in civilian areas. Governments will take any action they deem necessary to survive a conflict. Both parties in a conflict can be immoral.

The human shield argument has never really passed the smell test for me, especially when used as condemnation against Palestinians. It’s very difficult to defend against the invasion of a civilian area without occupying said civilian area. Existing military infrastructure typically doesn’t exist at the scale a frontline needs in invaded territory. Strikes targeted specifically against civilians are obviously unacceptable and immoral regardless of perpetrator.

Regardless of the truth of that statement, do you contradict the many, many Russian drone and missile attacks against Ukrainian civilian targets? I’m curious if the condemnation for violence against non-combatants goes both ways.

This doesn’t pass the smell test, as someone that has followed the Greens for years. If you thought his actions were “tone policing” then I’m immediately questioning your actions, since all I’ve seen is a standup guy and educator. I’m happy to be corrected with a link, but I’m not seeing what you’re talking about.

I think the point of the title isn’t that the killing rings alarms, it’s that the response indicates building class tension.

Genuinely, I cannot tell what your point is. In some alternate universe, are we just rolling the rocks downhill? Don’t you think we’d already be doing that? This seems like a great use case to replace diesel trucks with ones that recharge themselves using potential energy from ore. This absolutely is a galaxy brain moment, in that it’s a very smart idea.

Only millions of people that were simply born in the wrong place. Only a world superpower potentially turning into an autocratic regime in support of other tyrants.

But sure, other than the existential threat of the largest exporter of culture and most powerful military on earth in a country that has a history of imperialism and warmongering falling under the control of an autocratic regime of fascists, sure. Nothing of value.

It’s not racist to point out the systemic biases present in systems. Private schools have overwhelmingly white students from affluent families. It isn’t right, but it isn’t racist to point it out.

I think the other comment covered it but I believe this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes photography such an amazing artform. People study and practice, for a long time, to take photos like this. This isn’t a cell phone pointed in the general direction of a subject with conveniently optimal lighting for its tiny lens, though that could produce a good picture, this takes a great deal more experience, preparation, and creativity to frame and capture the subject in a certain way with extraordinary timing to get a dynamic, emotion-filled result.

I missed the original comment and this discussion now makes no sense. Why would you edit the content of your comment when you don’t care about the points or the outrage?

Removed by mod