Give me dramacoin. I need stimulus due to outage.
generated some minor sneed.
- TheGreatBussyLord: Agenda post
- TheGreatBussyLord: Agenda post
- jackie_carpevasion_alt: Encouraging Suicide
I'm donating 0.001 cent for every trans sneedpost. I should be broke within the hour.
new bait, pls upvote and donate me crypto
Ideasguy thread, post what you want me to do. Not gonna club this, they're not worth the effort.
Remember to do your civic duty and post more rightoid sneed/cope.
Some tidbits of wisdom from Madam Eilish:
"It's rare for anyone to value the opinions of a teenage girl."
"I'm not going to say I'm cool, because I don't really feel that. I just don't care at all, and I guess that's what people think is cool."
"Slip it in her drink, and in the blink of an eye I can make a white girl look chink"
"In real life, I'm a really smiley person. I smile when I talk and I laugh."
Shout out to akumuyume (weeaboo) for my third award
“So a family - a mom, a dad, a brother, a sister, a baby, and grandma’s there for fun - they walk into a talent agent’s office and they tell the agent, ‘We’ve got a great act for you, it’s gonna knock your socks off.’ and the agent goes ‘We don’t do family acts, they’re too cute.’ And the dad says ‘oh but this is cute in a way you’ve never seen before, you’re gonna like it. I promise.’ and the agent says, ‘Alright you’ve got two minutes, let’s see what you got.’
So, rather than trying to argue against siblings having sex, let me argue that for many / most sibling relationships, having sex involves a conflict of interest, and that conflict of interest (or the "appearance" of a conflict of interest) is the unethical part.
The unethical part isn't from the sex itself; rather, the ethical conflict comes from the fact that sibling relationships involve some manner of inequitable power dynamic -- one that neither person has full control over. This exists because of the fact that they were raised (to an extent) in the same household (unless they were separated at birth and reunited after adulthood, which -- okay, if that happens, then this prong of the conflict of interest argument is void, but it's so remotely unlikely to happen). The point there is that, because they were raised in the same household, the ability to positively and objectively know that both parties are in fact properly consenting, and that no coercion is occurring, becomes a problem. Even the slightest allegation destroys that presumption -- whereas, with unrelated-by-family sex partners, there is a presumption that an allegation of coercion be substantiated.
The second prong of the Conflict of Interest argument is that, under common law, children are presumed to be equally interested in inheriting the estates of their parents / guardians. Behaviours and practices that can manipulate one or more of those parties in the inheritance towards taking actions in claiming or administering their interest in the estate, are inherently unethical. Sexual favours (including sexual relations) are considered by the legal profession and by ethics to be so powerful and capable of being used to produce emotional manipulations and coercion, that the act of engaging in sexual relations with someone that a party has an ethical relationship with, is considered to be a Conflict of Interest, opening the relationship to accusations of power inequities, and is ethically improper.
The subreddit where you received the downvotes has three "moderators" which I have tracked in my database and which are tracked in another, independent tracking database as being transmisic, and the sidebar lists at least one rule which is transgender-exclusionary in terms of prohibiting gender-neutral clinical language.
While the alignment of the moderators and the formulation of the rules of a subreddit do not 1-to-1 correspond to the sentiments of the audience, they have a large effect on the makeup of the audience.
But, also - you should be aware that at the current time, there are no fewer than three independent operations by anti-transgender hate groups, using various methods, to isolate and harass transgender people on reddit, including when those people participate on subreddits which have moderator teams which will ignore the harassment or which secretly encourage the harassment.
These efforts target specific individuals as well as searching Reddit in real-time for specific phrases that signify a user account's identification as transgender.
It's possible that because your comments in that subreddit contained information about your gender or sexual identity, that one or more of these efforts "surfaced" your participation as a target of opportunity, and was targeted by people who do not participate in that subreddit.
Sorry this is happening to you; Hope that helps understand what happened.
Normally we require archived evidence of a phenomenon of hatred from our submitters; with this post, we are waiving that requirement as we are invited to witness for ourselves just how successfully Reddit, Inc.’s institutional legacy of platforming and amplifying racial hatred and defamation has persisted despite Sitewide Rule 1 against Promoting Hatred Based on Identity or Vulnerability.
That Sitewide Rule makes a promise that subreddits which promote hatred will be banned; This experiment — which we can all replicate, and expand on — demonstrates Reddit, Inc.’s failure to keep that promise.
There are no volunteer moderators in charge of Reddit’s search engine, no way for Reddit admins to avoid responsibility here.
Quick note about law enforcement relevance of hate speech and violent speech on Reddit
In this hearing before Congress one of the witnesses (Mr. Brad Wiegmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice) testified about the distinction between hate speech, violent speech, and free speech online, for the purposes of law enforcement investigation ... saying that law enforcement cannot collect evidence / information about an incident or collection of incidents based solely on the use of hate speech in that/those incident(s), BUT if that hate speech is connected with ANY indication of violence, that provides sufficient basis under precedent / guidelines / civil rights to initiate an investigation and collect evidence / information about the incident(s).
That testimony is viewable here:
Our transcript of Mr. Wiegmann's response to Rep. Raskin's questioning (not an official transcript):
WEIGMANN: Thank you for that question. We have, uh, if your question is, "What are the rules that we have around online activity and how we investigate that" - is that - ?
WEIGMANN: Yeah, so, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we cannot collect information solely on the basis of hate speech or first-amendment protected activity, so if someone is online, saying they hate a particular religious group or ethnic group, that in and of itself is not enough to initiate investigative activity, but if it's coupled with any kind of indications of violence, that would be something we could investigate. We have a whole set of detailed rules, both in the attorney general guidelines that were developed in the 1970's, in response to the abuses of the '60's and 70's that were identified in the Church committee report, and then the FBI has an extensive manual (which I've actually brought with me today, it's called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide ...) set of rules that we have for the different phases of an investigation, when you can initiate an investigation, and it talks about the First Amendment constraints, it talks about Freedom of Association, it talks about Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the FBI has lawyers which are actively involved in all investigations, but in particular in domestic terrorism investigations, to ensure that we're walking that line. It's a reasonable set of rules, I don't want to overemphasise, we can, I think, we can still investigate the activities as we see fit, it's just that you need more than speech alone in order to investigate.
So we encourage anyone who witnesses violent hate speech, or any aiding, abetting, commanding, counselling, induction or procurement of violence via items on Reddit or via any other online social media (especially in connection to hate speech) to report such incidents to the FBI: https://fbi.gov/tips
"What do you call that?" The agent asked.
Bardfinn cracks his knuckles.
The year is 2021. For reference, Freaky Friday released in 2003.
The journ*list did a better job on the title than I ever would.
Nah I'm just kidding it doesn't show anything. Have a good rest of your day.