Hi-Rez and Politics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 дек 2024
- This would all be a lot easier if we didn't have first past the post.
LINKS
[1] x.com/schisam/...
[2] • JK Rowling's New Friends
[3] • Kellie-Jay & the Neo-N...
[4] • President Trump’s Plan...
[5] www.hhs.gov/pr...
[6] opa.hhs.gov/si...
[7] www.parl.ca/Do...
[8] www.ontario.ca...
[9] yukon.ca/en/ne...
[10] cdn.who.int/me...
[12] en.wikipedia.o...
[13] en.wikipedia.o...
[14] en.wikipedia.o...
[15] www.thecanadia...
[16] www.columbiaps...
[17] www.aclu.org/n...
Good links not used in the video:
WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health
www.wpath.org
www.wpath.org/...
"Every major U.S. medical and mental health organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, plus global health organizations including the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, and the World Medical Association, and the World Health organization support access to age-appropriate, individualized gender-affirming care for youth and adults"
International Journal of Transgender Health
www.tandfonlin...
SOCIALS
/ thefishnit
/ thefishnit
/ fishnit
/ discord
There is something so great about using a feminine voice to read Stew's tweet
Ok, even though your joke made me legitimately laugh out loud: he didn't actually raise his fist until _after_ The Secret Service confirmed that the sniper was sent back to spawn.
Based
cooked
real
I'm a noob with understanding politics. That being said, what I'd like to believe is that politics doesn't apply generally, and rather people will have their own political opinion for every situation. That means that for example, you could be mildly conservative (mildly right wing) with 'Nerf or Nothing (TM)' laws but be happily open to (farther left wing) welcoming immigrants into your country.
I'm impartial to LGBTQ+ (i.e. as long as the people in said community are happy, then I'm fine with that and I'm happy for them. e.g. My ex girlfriend is pansexual and she decided to get back together with a girl she had a fling with in college, and I'm happy for her. We still watch RWBY and play Ace Attorney together (: ). That being said, I want to learn more about both viewpoints of Transgenderism to get a better understanding of how both sides affect a child's upbringing. Because kids develop their largest sense of the world in their first few conscious years, it feels like it would be healthy to let them grow up without persuasion or demands; If a person grows up and decides to be transgender or cisgender that's their choice to make. I understand that there are situations where abuse or neglect can cause people to transition (my f -> nb transgender sibling, myself, my cisgender brother and my cisgender sister suffered different levels of abuse and neglect), so stabilizing the current socioeconomic situation, understanding and communicating ways to separate religion from a child's choices, and trying to understand connections between past and present nonconforming (i.e. not based on socioeconomic, religious, etc. situations) toxic families would help future generations grow to be healthier and stronger.
To give a perspective for my (biased) opinions, in terms of US politics I'd like to say I lean towards bipartisan egalitarianism.
I'm curious where you picked up the term "Transgenderism"; I've never witnessed an actual trans person use it unironically, and I have rarely seen others use the word in good faith. Furthermore, the only "persuasion or demands" people have been making with regards to children's gender is those that would insist said child must conform to cisgender norms. What's more, I'm unfamiliar with any actual evidence that would support claims that abuse or neglect cause people to transition, whereas many people have been abused and/or neglected BECAUSE they were transgender.
If your goal is to "separate religion from a child's choices", I would strongly advise against voting for republican candidates seeing as many of them have campaigned on their religion and many have gone great lengths in attempt to force Christianity into public schooling (Louisiana is presently pushing to require display of "the ten commandments" in every classroom, for example). Instead consider voting for democrats (seeing as our system of government is hostile, mathematically speaking, towards third parties, there's not really other options in most cases), and donating to organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Similarly, if you truly believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices with regards to sexual orientation, gender identity, or their own bodies, then voting republican is an actively terrible decision.
True.
Honestly the whole statement stewart made, or the current state of american centrism in general, can be dismantled with Karl Poppers "paradox of intolerance". That in tolerating all groups "equally", including the ones intolerant to the existence of other groups, you inevitably will present intolerance for one of the groups you "tolerate".
You cant be on good terms with both sides when one side wishes to destroy the other in a general sense.
For this reason i believe that current "centrists" are just conservatives, who hold sympathies for intolerant ideals but cant stand 10 toes enough on them to openly claim that they do so. Mainly so that they can still benefit off of both sides (in this context of a ceo, it would be for their money). Without having the consequence of losing money from people on either side.
Im glad that you are calling stewart out on this tbh. Cause it needs to be said, and it needs to be heard by alot of people. Not just for this hi rez scenario, but just in general imo.
Truly based.
(Also sorry if this text is unorganized, or if i just accidentally paraphrased what you said in the vid already. I have a hard time organizing my thoughts enough to write coherently most times. Mainly due to autism. But im passionate about this message in general, so i felt compelled to still try.)
Well-argued for a ten-minute piece.
I disagree on philosophical grounds (I am a moral sceptic, so I am fundamentally unable to agree with the argument presented or really engage with it seriously from my own perspective), but it was clear, concise, and without much on the way of argumentative flaw.
I think you'll find it convinces few people, sadly (those who do not already agree with you have several counterarguments they could raise), but that's not really the fault of your argument, so I hope I'm incorrect on that account.
Here's hoping your fears both for America and Canada are unfounded.
Correct
banger
good video i think
I see shaun cited so I already know you cooked