2,729 karma · joined July 10, 2016
email: dillon _____ 4degre.es
The only reason it's up for discussion is because it's being used as hate attack against queer communities and those standing up against censoring of teachers, students, and banning of books on lgbtq topics and gender.
The response of the proponents, which sadly seems politically effective, is to label anyone who objects to these laws groomers.
Implying/whistling that queer people exist because they were groomed, e.g. sexual predator turned them gay.
It is aimed at queer people.
* And ironically those of us who are standing up against, you guessed it.... free speech. *
It's hateful and a disingenuous political argument to use that cast that term on anyone who objects to DeSantis' banning of discussions of LGBTQ topics. Which is why we are discussing this.
Not knowing that is triggering is gross.
If you have certain distasteful beliefs, at least have the respect not to say it in public.
It's the same as racial epithets.
But FB is forced to be worse too so maybe they'll gain some.
Shows how relatively static we are in class, location (often driven by class), and geographic connections (family). Not a lot of movement on the whole
Yeah I just went to read comments (of course more crazy replies) after posting in the ACLU thread.
I was shocked again at the crap people on this forum are writing in that thread too.
Maybe you're right I shouldn't be shocked anymore. I've always known, but ben lucky enough not to have to experience very much, of the hate.
But it just feels so much worse. Not just on queer ness but on anything not white-male christian.
Or at least it's more vocal. Like why do these people feel the need to write this stream of crap on hacker news....
I can't decide which or both of these: - Emboldened by leaders & media to allow them to speak out already held beliefs (the silent majority except that's a euphemism). - This craziness has actually shifted, been created, and or amplified. Not just on LGBTQ issues. look at the ACLU thread (re lots of white males talking about overt discrimination because of diversity inclusion training and even more crazy q stuff like fbi false flagged jan 6 wth).
I think it's both.
On this topic for instance I very much doubt people knew let alone cared about trans girls playing on their high school sports team before we made progress to the point there were out trans high school girls and then it became a political punching bag. And now as a result some states and politicians are emboldened to pass dangerous laws that will cost even more lives.
Still give it out right away. Just put a checkbox on the form. And then follow up with the details on forgiveness later.
If a company jumps the gun, they think things look black, but in a month it turns around and they are fine allow them to return it or keep it at a low (but not crazy low) interest rate.
For foreignness prove the loss/necessity.
So can go after egregious abusers. Because it wasn't abuse if you took it and didn't need it. So long as used for payroll, rent, etc. Because why wouldn't you take free money. We did.
I think that's part of why we are seeing such insane comments on here.
But tough. I wouldn't slow down progress just to placate or somehow reduce hate.
Someone is bi because of 'woke' politics? And because they desperately want to be victims?!?!?!
What, did the math textbook on CRT in 2nd grade turn them gay!?!
How can this shit exist on a forum like this. Insane.
I have zero confidence in the future of this country. how are we going to fight climate change or a number of other things when 40% of the country and a couple southern GOP Governors are spending all their efforts digging deeper into this drivel and actively legislating these viewpoints.
just insane to me that this kind of absolute crap has such widespread support. especially on a forum of hackers, highly educated, "smart" people
It's because people are more supported and more able to come out.
More people aren't gay. More people are able to live their truth publicly.
* and based on your comment I will leap that you aren't a part of this community. The ugly truth is it is still very hard to come out for way too many. And dangerous. Look at the attacks on trans kids and talking about gender in schools.
HN has been surprisingly me lately in the viewpoints people are willing to say out loud on a public forum. or at least minimally a few vocal commenters.
IDK if it's just feeling empowered not to hide anymore or perhaps progress we've made is creating stronger 'protective' reactions. It's scary though.
In large part thanks to representation in shows and movies.
The us is rapidly diversifying too in terms of race, yet still even more under represented in media.
Glaad says only ~10% queer characters on broadcast, and was a decline from previous study.
Specifically comparing streaming netflix had 155 queer characters and HBO max 71. You do the math on the massive amount of original content on netflix compared to hbomax.
The world doesn't look like HN's demo.
[1] https://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files/GLAAD%20202122%20W...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/arts/television/tv-lgbtq-...
It's half way there in some states through vague language, using legal system to intimidate, ban by bureaucracy, and religious hospitals who won't even abort when there is an ectopic pregnancy.
This source is an opinion piece, but worth reading imho. The author includes state's legal language on when life of mother exception can be used.
A lot of them are vague or require an immediate emergency. Though to be fair some she includes aren't super persuasive to her argument imho.
When you empower every nut job in the state to sue it intimidates MDs to not use that very judgement.
Medicine isn't black and white and even if it was the government or citizens empowered by the govt should not get to arbitrate in the middle. Every miscarriage becomes suspect. Was her life really in danger? Etc
Basically, I'm no longer shocked at the kind of stuff that is now being said out loud or publicly fought for.
From healthcare, attacking elections, attacks on queer people etc.
I think we will increasingly see a group of states continue this trajectory and push this country to the brink. And the Supreme Court continue to enable all of this dangerous behavior.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/28/the-new-ab...
Also in my experience airlines will go out of there way to help and rebook. Sometimes it is the next day though which sucks but isn't totally apples to oranges ;)
if this ruling's argument is: ( unenumerated && !fit with history/traditions 200 years ago ) == states can ban
then every other 'right' we have like gay marriage, contraception, porn, anal sex, basically anything not written in the constitution that a bunch of white people 200 years ago didn't do regularly, could be made illegal state by state.
OR
This is a sham justification to further their religious beliefs and the ruling should simply write that a fetus has some type of special rights that supersede.
At least that ruling would be honest about their obvious bias and plain intent.
What if this leak did not come from within? What about the possibility of a certain country with a history of hacking institutions and using that information to create division at key moments? Seems like an obvious play. I have no evidence of this and the simple answer is more likely. Was my initial thought though;
Because working in politics myself, this doesn't seem optimal for either side imho.
How could one know about the history and beliefs of these justices, hear their questioning, see who has pushed them onto the bench, read their speeches, hell seen that their significant other believes in q crazy, and yet somehow think they'll change their mind or find some reasonable compromise.
You are correct in the danger of this blast radius.
This is TERRIFYING to me.
I'm skeptical here that this leak any differences though in that:
How can they make this ruling otherwise?
What changes could they make that don't set a scary and dangerous precedent?
without just flat out telling their truth that this is a religious decision and giving fetus' rights greater than actual living humans.
Their argument rests on their narrow view of "deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions."
If that is the logic, as you say, what is left to protect states from outlawing gay marriage, contraception, anal sex, and SOOOO much more.
What moderation could be added to this draft on this fundamental issue?
It's disgusting to me that they argue they are making some ethical stand to overturn 'egregious' decision equating this to Plessy, using this historical traditions argument.
We all know what the constitution actually did say and even worse the practices of the time.
What does history and traditions even mean too. It's obvious to me and not even slightly veiled. Hint it probably doesn't include indigenous history or the history of any non-white, wealthy, christian males in power, nor any traditions created or changed within the last 50 years.
Because if the standard is the status quo of 200 years ago, they will either let a few extreme states say no to basically every right we have lived for the last 100+ years OR they will just be hypocritically veiling their true reasoning.
Luckily I found a hotel literally last couple rooms and very very expensive for what it was.
I couldn't get airbnb to do shit besides give a refund for the airbnb reservation and I think maybe I got 250 or 500 or something negligible.
They 'try' to find an alternative on the platform but wouldn't pay for my hotel (s now need 2 rooms). And since there are no airbnbs available... let alone in the city and similar.
I have never stayed airbnb again only hotels.
if they allow hosts to pull that crap they should pay for alternate hotel lodging.
I'm a gay male and use Grindr
*some people may identify with some of those, some overlap, some without calling their gender either. It's a large spectrum.
National parks, lots of state parks, city mountain parks which are public and do allow camping have very limited permit access, rules, exclusions etc. Some lands which ostensibly should be dispersed camping allowed you can't even access bc you'd have to travel through private land.
But your comment misses the entire crux of the article imho.
It's not that camping is anti-homeless, it's that there has historically been - and still is - a societal judgement and double standard based on ethnicity, class, and housed status.
It's about a double standard of the Govt forcing native Americans to give up their 'barbarous campfire life' while the rich were encouraged to have the same experience for the benefit of their health.
Same happens today just not as extreme.
Just to illustrate, i get this isn't the same as pitching a tent in front of someone's house.
But society says it's not ok for the homeless to stay in their RVs on public streets but it is ok for people to stay the night in 150k sprinter vans.
Not exaggerating, there are both happening in large numbers here in Denver. The difference is one can afford to move their place of rest around the other can't.
I might try and take a photo at the Movement Baker gym there are 2 homeless RVs on the road and almost always at least 3 sprinters, usually one with doors totally open someone just chilling there living their day. Shower & internet inside. For the rich climbing dirt bag only though.
Looking at the scwhab 2020 pdf i could find quickly they added ~4.6mm new brokerage accounts between 19 and 20. Wonder what the recent stats are.
Article says robinhood lost 1.8mm if i'm reading correct.
Fits my use. I did a small amount on robinhood when i first came out. Now have that small pot for active trading (compared to people here i'm sure) in schwab.
I am also considering moving the larger savings i have in wealthfront to schwab. But i'm afraid of my impulsivity. About 10% of my savings are in a schwab account i actively trade on. Down like 20% over the last 360 days lol. Despite 1% fee my IRA is like doubled - though a much longer timeframe. I did put my 2021 tax IRA into new account on schwab. 80% medium risk ETFs. and just bought ttt and some bull levered etfs. lol. too impulsive.
If schwab had a setting to automate or place holds so I couldn't sell for ___ in my IRA I would move it all. Maybe i'll open a second account different login so it doesn't show up on the app/website.
I get tons of Testosterone replacement therapy ads. And also 'adhd' ads.
These are real MDs, but they will give scripts to almost anyone. Many online only.
I'm not judging people who want to use. People will use drugs legal or not and it is far better to get real stuff from real MDs.
But advertising it? The whole point is to create / increase demand. This is not passively allowing safer use.
These ads are misleading; TRT ads of young super fit people or getting people hooked on stims for no reason.
How would people feel if there were FB ads targeting people who listen to EDM with dope or E ads? We are also inundated with alcohol already.
All drugs aren't comparable or similar danger profiles, but just shows how prejudice and assumptions from a prohibition system are imho hypocritical. using a more extreme thought experiment can highlight this.