making electrified transport a reality
Electrified rail remains the most efficient form of transportation and has been available since the late 1800s…
People are just so obsessed with cars that they ignored the safest, most efficient, and environmentally friendly option for over a hundred years.
I guess the future is bound to be filled with dangerous traffic with even heavier cars, and filled with millions of batteries filled with lithium mined by impoverished children.
I worked with a dude when I was in college that used to buy broken TVs on eBay and swap out the guts, return them, and then sell the TVs to people on eBay.
He was banned from a couple Walmarts around town because they caught on to what he was doing, but couldn’t actually prove he was doing fraud because we would also remove and re-solder the internal serial numbers back on the returned tv.
Eh, I think there’s a decent semantic dispute for it. It’s of course dependent on your definition of deity and is mostly an exercise of pedantry. However, with the size of the universe I think there’s a pretty decent chance that there exists an intellectual being that could be interpreted as being god-like to the human perspective.
Now I’m not making claims that this proposed being has ever had anything to do with humans, nor are they responsible for any universal creation. Just that the universe is big enough for the existence of something significantly more advanced than humans. That being said, the size of the universe that allows for the possibility of this proposal also makes it possible existence mostly pedantic.
That was kinda my point about absolute equality. There will always be people with disabilities and therefore absolute equity and absolute meritocracies are mostly utopian philosophical concepts. Plus, if we’re doing idealist delights why bother with anything but luxury space communism?
Yes? I’m even friends with several queer people…shocking as that may be.
I even know a few conservative leaning gay dudes, our gay district has a gaybar specifically for cowboys. Even they don’t hate or discriminate against flamboyant gay men. They might not seek their company or want anything to do with that particular scene, but they are still neighborly.
disclaimed explicitly that I don’t believe that speakers who use the phrase “toxic masculinity” believe that masculinity per se is toxic
And did I accuse you of doing so?
while I was writing, somebody else left a comment that does indeed interpret it that way.
Yes, lemmy has a pretty established history of harboring a lot of misogynistic users which do not reflect the thoughts of everyday normal people.
I don’t think we should be moderating our own behavior to satisfy people acting in bad faith or to the temper of bigots.
Imo an absolute meritocracy would first require a society of absolute equity. Otherwise how would you know if someone is actually more inherently better at something or if they just had more opportunity?
I think meritocracies are a nice idea, but they’ve mostly been supported by societal elites throughout history because they know it’s easy to score when you’re born on third base.
How did I misconstrue your statement?
But let’s not give 'em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, “privilege” and “toxic masculinity” do just that.
Because the well funded rightwing think tanks have already tarred them…
people using “evil homosexuals” don’t need to add the “evil,” because they’re bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use “toxic masculinity” don’t need to add the “toxic,” because they’re bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic.
I use toxic masculinity and I don’t think masculinity is inherently toxic?
And I don’t think a significant amount of people think masculinity by itself is toxic by itself. Otherwise everyone would be force femming their husbands, or hating any trans men choosing to express themselves.
The only people who seem to be interpreting toxic masculinity as an implication of masculinity as a whole are people who seem to think all maledom is under siege.
“Aren’t big fans” is not the same as being bigoted, or discriminating against…
Do think there are some Lincoln Republic gays out their thinking Tommy is going to hell, not because he’s queer, but because he sashays too hard?
That would imply it’s the gay community itself that is not accepting flamboyant gays…
Nuance also exists…
Also it’s not really a competition when only one group is being oppressed.
Or are you claiming men are being oppressed by the system that was created and operated by men?
My whole point is that women are systemically being targeted by a system created by men, specifically because they are women. While men are being negatively affected by a system built by men because of reasons besides their sex.
I’m not claiming men do not experience hardship that is unique to their sex, it’s just not specifically being done to them because of their sex.
Nah. Many, many people who come from inside that peivilege are being naive. To think they’re trying to defend the privilege itself is exactly the problem coming from outside the blinders.
Eh, I would say there are some people who are naive enough to not realize their own privileges. However, that itself is only possible because there are whole media systems coaching the reflective defense of their privilege in the first place.
The “evil homosexuals” comment is trying to elucidate you to that reality for crying out loud, but noooo, you just want to make yourself feel better by pretending your choice of words cannot be perceived the same way…
Lol, I was just remarking on how the modification of words with negative descriptors doesn’t reallyatter when the ideas behind the concept were bigoted to begin with.
Your attitude is part of the problem.
Yes, it’s the actions of people of color who made us this way… I’ve heard that before.
Failure to communicate is a two way street, and you arguing the exact same phrasing is somehow magically not problematic from your side while being problematic from the other is exactly the issue OC’s talking about.
I don’t really see how I am…? My whole point was that if we stopped using terms that bigoted people dislike and made up new ones, the new words would just end up being disliked by bigoted people.
Stop being OK with creating in groups and out groups by such simple terms as “white” or “homosexual”.
First of all… I can’t “other” white people as a whole, I’m not powerful enough to innact systemic racial programs, nor would I want to. The term white privilege is used to describe the systemic advantages white people have enacted over hundreds of years in this country.
Secondly… Nothing I said can be interpreted as attempting to “other” homosexuals? The only time I refreced homosexuals was when I said someone willing to use a sentence that includes “evil homosexuals” wouldn’t be made better by removing the “evil” part. For a hyperbolic example if I said “the evil homosexuals did 9/11” wouldn’t be made better if I just said “the homosexuals did 9/11”.
. If you want to other someone simply living their life, especially over differences they didn’t even ask for, then you’re still part of the problem.
Something tells me you didn’t stray too far away from your conservative upbringing…
I might not have white privilege, but I am still privileged when compared to the rest of the world, and I have no qualms about recognizing that. Anyone living in a rich nation is privileged when compared to the vast majority of the world that suffers in poverty. I didn’t ask for that, but I still recognize it as a problem that we need to address.
Maybe you are feeling a little insecure, and maybe that’s a problem you should think about?
cis straight white males is that they don’t have to deal with racism, sexism, and bigotry over who they are and who they love
How does that racism materially present itself? With racism it’s by decades of economic support and government programs aimed at creating wealth for a certain ethnicity over another. With sex it’s decades of reinforcing gender roles and denying educational opportunities for women. Rules about race mixing were created to deny a dilution of the ethnic collective of political power.
That’s not a zero sum game. We can all have that privilege. That privilege isn’t what causes bigotry.
I would argue that it shouldn’t be a privilege, but a universal right.
But for the most part we’re fighting in large part for equal good treatment. It’s not a zero sum game.
I think you might want to look up the definition of privilege. You can’t be privileged unless someone is being disadvantaged. If you want to get rid of privilege then what you’re saying is you want everyone to be treated the same.
Women
Do you see the discrepancies between the two list? Everything you listed is something that we men either do to ourselves, or is done to us by a political/economic entity that is dominated by other males. The same can’t be said for list for women.
I think you’re running into a little cognitive dissonance. In this scenario, the privilege is what is causing the disadvantage in the first place. You cannot be privileged in a truly equal society, therefore you can’t elevate everyone to a privileged class, you can only equal the playing field.
It’s a zero sum game.
fight over the definition of the word privilege. C’mon, let’s just ditch the word, ferchrissakes! Keep the concept, call it something more relatable!
I think it’s naive to believe whatever terminology you use as an alternative wouldn’t eventually end up with the same stigma.
The people who interpret it as “masculinity is toxic” aren’t doing it because they have a hearing disability, they interpret it that way as a means to justify their own beliefs.
The same goes for your example of “evil homosexuals”. Anyone who is blaming all homosexuals for something does not have to modify them with the term evil for you to know they are being a bigot.
I don’t think it’s people fighting for social justice who get unreasonably attached to words. I think that describes the people who feign an inability to utilize context or reason when they hear them.
I am aware, but in any kind of debate in an open forum you should avoid any position that assumes a preconceived notion. I’m not saying everyone needs to submit a works cited page, but at least giving a brief summary of the events you are using to support your argument helps eliminate any kind of miscommunication.
It applies to both statements. Ideally they would have posted examples of anarchists who sided with leftist and were killed afterwards, and you would have cited examples of anarchist siding with capitalists and then being betrayed.
Tbf there are probably examples of both scenarios, as anarchist by their own nature aren’t exactly a unified political body.
Not when compared to the maintenance and cost of installing the amount of multi lane interstate and highways we currently have in the US.
Electric rail isn’t a solution for every commuter in the US, but it is the solution for most commuters, as 80% of Americans live in urban environments.
Also, the argument that America is too large to have rail isnt very logical when countries like Russia or China depend on it for the vast majority of their logistics.