[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

If only that were true. I can't speak for the world as a whole, but things are pretty bad in the US. As a whole, LGBTQ+, especially trans folks, are at the highest risk of being victimized in the last 50 years. Just a few months ago, about 15 miles away from where I live, a trans kid was lured by right wing extremists and murdered. They used Grindr to catfish him in a planned, coordinated action. They are on trial for it right now.

I used that example to iterate how problems do exist in our personal communities. Anecdotes are not proof of larger societal trends, but the societal trends show it is a societal problem, too.

Yes, the number in the article I linked is not large by itself, but it is important to remember they are nearly all people who were fully out and were not afraid to tell people it. Most trans people are either somewhat or entirely closeted for safety.

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Bro holy shit go outside. You need some fresh air man

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Do yOuR owN ReSeARcH!!

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

I'm not making the claim myself, just explaining it is a bit different than engaging in what we colloquially understand to be conspiratorial thinking. I would argue it falls under that category in the most broad, objective sense, but I would also argue that the common belief about conspiratorial thinking is that it is when someone believes demonstrably false information.

The difference is that most conspiratorial thinking is believing something despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary while this situation is believing something despite a lack of conclusive, objective evidence (that being no official statement from Musk or investigation into him about this). There is a lack of overwhelming evidence in support of Musk.

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

The 14th amendment doesn't require someone to be convicted

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

What the fuck are you even talking about, have you read it literally at all

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

It's sexist if you don't look further into the claims, instead just relying on your immediate assumptions about them being false.

If you immediately assume women are lying about experiencing sexism, and you don't look into it further at all, and your reasoning is based solely on them being women as opposed to men, then yeah I'd say that's pretty sexist. I'm not sure how someone could think otherwise.

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Other types of sexism include disbelief when a woman explains their experiences and baselessly denying evidence they present to support their claims.

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Lol as if regressives give a shit about precedent

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

You realize that article uses the same source right? It explicitly states it early on.

[-] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Oh please, go fuck yourself lmfao. The UK does not have free speech like the US. Hate speech is a crime. They are proposing including unfounded anti-lgbtq+ rhetoric under the definition of hate speech.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

HandBreadedTools

joined 9 months ago