GarbageShoot [he/him]

The one is not the other

I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that “I’m trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin’ sucks,” your internal response would be “This person is trans, but doesn’t understand why they are trans.” [Or that it is likely that they don’t understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]

Is that a more fair representation of your view?

(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)

deleted by creator

We’re talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are “likely not trans”, that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren’t. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were “80% sure” that someone wasn’t trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren’t.

All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can’t access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the “Excuse you”.

You can’t tell in the movie but in the script, all his lines and stage directions are written in greentext.

This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.

That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.

They absolutely are, and many people would be excited to answer questions you have (including me, depending on the question). You just need to be careful not to come across as combative, because they’ll meet you in kind and it’ll be a dogpile.

c/askchapo , depending on the question

Don’t you know that Stalin owned the whole Soviet Union?!?

I don’t see what the Zionist entity has to do with this, it’s not like they claim to be communist (though that would be a funny bit). I was talking about your reference to “dictator states” since Cuba surely is one of them, being communist.

I wish you wouldn’t believe what those very plutocrats you disavow tell you about Cuba.

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-83-the-unchecked-conservative-ideology-of-us-medias-fact-check-verticals

I can do it too. MBFC is a hack website that equivocates between centrism and lack of bias. See this arbitrarily picked page for an example. See that graphic, the very first thing beneath the title? It’s giving the game away right there, with a left-right spectrum where the center is “least biased”. What about a centrist bias? Doesn’t exist, and the closer you get to centrist, the less “biased” you are.

Trump doesn’t have even a double-digit number of loyalists in the Senate and proportionately probably about the same in the House. This is a relevant detail because his enablers in Congress are overwhelmingly party loyalists who will drop him like a sack of potatoes the moment it becomes more expedient to. The reason that matters is that it was mainly the Republican Party that got all those Congresspeople elected, not Trump, even in the races where Trump endorsed them, so the relative locus of power is the Republican Party (and really it’s the donor class, but we don’t need to get into that).

All this to say that AP’s simplistic and unsubstantiated flattening of Venezuelan politics to “There’s one guy in charge of everything, his lockstep minions, and the brave rightists fighting them” is below you to believe.

He has shat the bed for his country

US sanctions fucked over the country, so unless you think “being disliked by the US” is a grave sin, this isn’t an accurate framing

I believe this is the “whataboutism” that liberals love to cry about so much (more properly, you’re deflecting to a completely different topic)

Maduro isn’t a socialist, Chavists aren’t socialists and he’s openly a Chavist (i.e. a follower in the tradition of Hugo Chavez, who was a great progressive but not really a socialist).

I don’t give a shit what the Carter Center has to say about any of America’s enemies, and they provide no means to evaluate the substance of the claim by “experts from the UN” (which is different from a report by the UN or an official committee of the UN).

And, again, Maduro did not appoint the judges; he doesn’t even have the power to.

Maybe most pertinently: Do you not remember last election cycle, when all the neoliberal news outlets were joined together in their outrage over the NED and friends saying Maduro stole the election, only for that claim to “just turn out” to be pulled from thin air? Do we need to do this every six years when a US-backed reactionary loses?

Quoting something that AP says without substantiation is not actually a good citation. It’s not like Maduro appointed the judges.

None of its supposed assets make up for the corporate overlords who run it and promote or permit all sorts of terrible things

Granted

There would be an immense toll, but it would mean the destruction of the US, Israel, NATO, and neoliberalism generally, which I think means there is also room for optimism. If I may gesture towards Mark Twain, there are two Reigns of Terror here, and though we have reason to fear the latter one, it will not last as long or kill as many as the former one that it puts an end to. If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway