please rephrase, i genuinely dont know what you mean.

I think people don't end up seeing the harm that their view causes because they feel that so long as they're not doing anything "violent" as it has been defined here, then what are people upset about?

i dont follow the logic:

1. we all agree physical violence is bad
2. we come to agree the verbal abuse is bad too, husbands face previously unseen levels of scrutiny for how they speak to their wives for instance
3. ok now we can call that violence too since u agree its bad too

what purpose does 3 pose? we already see progress at 2. 3 does literally nothing except seek to call a husband who's an asshole "violent" instead of just "asshole".



most of the time that someone changes their mind its because they see the harm, not because the harm got a fancy label. you think some westboro baptist church member's beliefs hinge on the idea they're not "violent"?

labelling changes nothing, except the respect or lack thereof for the label itself.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 28 2023 12:20pm

I dont see how that differs from what I just said



I'm trying to figure out the specific ways people could be targeted and oppressed by the new bill. Apart from what I mentioned I don't really see any risk of someone being oppressed, and even in the situation I mentioned I don’t think it's likely to be prosecuted, but if it was I would support the bill being changed to account for that problem.

This is a weird level of autism for you. We both know language is emotionally loaded and not based on utilitarian rules of use.

Shotguns and pistols are not so-called assault weapons. Did you go out of your way to misconstrue my post?



We have a problem with sensationalism. CNN birthed the 24/7 news cycle that makes these monsters famous. We would do well to let them die anonymous, ignominious deaths. Make their efforts at achieving fame futile. Like is noted here:

So what are you thoughts on the publics perception of mental health? Do you think it is harmful to use mental conditions as insults?

I wasn't using it as an insult. It's the kind of autistic argument I would make before I realized I was the problem for wanting everything to cater to me

I don't think they'll change their mind unless they see it as harmful themselves, "violence" aside; I agree. What I'm saying though is that people 1) Do not think they're causing any harm, and 2) Do not see the extent of the harm that is being done. One can formulate all kinds of strategic ways to decimate a person, community, or country without doing anything directly physical.

To poison the water system of a town you dislike is incredibly violent. It is also incredibly violent if you, as part of your role at the county water board, willfully allow the discovery of poisoned water to persist without recourse or notification because you are happy to see the affected town get sick and die. There's no physical activity in the second example, and it is a form of violence by inaction imo.



Time will tell, to be sure. I don't think it unreasonable that trans people have this concern or thought though.

Ah, silly of me to think calling someone autistic is insulting I guess, my bad.