Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don't see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.
If someone asks me if I'm anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don't actually expect I'm personally participating or countering it in any way.
Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It's better to be specific.
Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.
Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. "I've never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity". Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.
you somehow ignored the entire point of his statement, then turned his statement around and basically stated the same thing then attacked him with it
anyway lol at anyone that would be concerned with the low bar of ‘don’t support genocide’ as a purity test
You're all making generalities out of assumptions here...
There's no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests
Their purity test: You must not deny genocide.
What you heard their purity test was: They must accept that any and all genocides that I think exist are real and a big problem.
Again, you fucking morons are inferring things that aren't there just to try and be witty, while utterly missing the point...
Congratulations on failing your reading comprehension test.
You've got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.
The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.
Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn't how it works, that isn't how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn't lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.
If they turn it in to a white genocide problem, then you already have your answer: They don't care about minorities.
What does minorities have to do with this?
Armenian's were a majority. The Fur people of Darfur are a majority in their region. Palestinians are a majority.
Genocide is a method often used in converting a majority to a minority.
I agree with your endpoint that those people don't care, but I think if you told someone like that that they don't care about minorities I think you would be confirming their thoughts not convincing them away from it.
No shit. Nowhere did I say you'd convince a bigot with these arguments, especially bigots as committed to the bit as Israelis...
BTW, if you think Palestinians are a majority in relation to Israel and the other nations involved in that conflict, ESPECIALLY in power, then you are only exemplifying your lack of understanding of how the real world works.
That actually has a really simple answer, the right age is the one that the person and their doctors/medical professionals consider age appropriate for that individual. It isn't up to society to restrict that decision. That is before the fact that medical professionals with direct experience with the person will have the best opinions on the topic.
This is also true for every single medical decision. Also true for every decision that doesn't directly harm someone else.
I can't imagine thinking any medical procedure has a simple answer, especially anything that permanently alters you.
Medical professionals are people, sometimes they make the right choice, sometimes the wrong choice. There are people who shop for the wrong answer, and also people who get the wrong answer and live in suffering. It is important to question things and have a discourse.
If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon... I don't think I could just jump on board with that call.
Comparing having your ears removed to transitioning is kind of concerning. This parallel makes it seem like you believe being trans is a disability.
Trans people also do not just one day go and have life-altering surgery. It is a long and arduous process with ups and downs, if you prevented your 16 year old from beginning that process the likelihood is that you will end up with a very resentful and distant adult child in the future.
I'm not convinced you understand what transitioning means. You can start transitioning without any medical intervention, and pretty much every trans person does socially transition before medical treatment because there's really no alternative. When a younger person starts medical treatment, it will consist of puberty blockers. That's it. Fully reversible, no known long-term side-effects, been used for 50 years for cis kids with precocious puberty. Suggesting that's in any way equivalent to someone permanently deafening themselves is pretty disgusting, it's typical terf bullshit and you should really think twice about whatever led you to that opinion.
The simple answer is that it is nobody's business but the patient and the medical professionals.
A surgeon would not remove someone's hearing for misophonia. They took an oath to do no harm and the vast, vast majority of medical professionals take that seriously on a personal level before getting into licensing and other requirements to practice.
The reasonable debate is at what age is that allowed. I do not think that has an easy answer other than legal age of majority for the country you are a citizen of. I think that the problem is there are harder answers than that worth seriously considering.
This is like saying there needs to be a minimum age for ADHD medications or birth control. Doctors are not giving minors sex changes all willy nilly and the procedures that they do provide like hormone suppression are proven safe, effective, and reversible.
Why does the general public or politicians need to pick an age for medical care that doesn't involve them and doesn't harm anyone?
Because I don't think a 2 year old should be given Adderall without a parent knowing?
I personally am pretty open minded about these things, I was able to get birth control with my partner when I was 15 without her Catholic parents knowing. That was very important, but I recognize that if we were 10 it maybe becomes a different conversation involving parents.
You might say a parent could be included but you also have cases of divorced parents where one parent is for and another is against and there is a question of if the childs opinions are theirs or their parents. What age should the child be able to make the call? 15? 10? 5?
What a totally reasonable and not completely fictional scenario that shows you are discussing in good faith.
Saying it is simple is a clear sign that this is a purity test.
Framing 'medical decisions should be left to patients and medical professionals' as a purity test is pretty ridiculous. That is like saying 'people shouldn't abuse children' is a purity test.