lumidingo.bsky.social
1,695 posts
228 followers
1,027 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
You're parroting cop logic. That's the kind of shoot-first reactionary mindset you see cops engaging in. Suddenly a hired rando in a hi-vis vest does it and it's some complicated conflict between open carry laws and bad judgement calls with lethal consequences?
comment in response to
post
What's the conflict? Someone open-carrying is not indicative of an imminent lethal threat to yourself or others. It certainly doesn't warrant opening up on him and negligently murdering a bystander.
comment in response to
post
"Activism has shut down the development of neurobiology diagnostics"
Oh, word. Who did this?
comment in response to
post
If I guessed the majority of those are hatewatches, would I be right?
comment in response to
post
And _in response to that_, I put the question to you, do you think that's actually going to stop transphobes? And you said no, they're irrational, that wouldn't stop them.
Right?
comment in response to
post
Okay, but like, she's one person, and there are _way more transphobes_ not respecting your space in public, and my space in public, and every other trans person's space in public.
There's levels here. l don't think you're prioritising correctly, which likely was ZJ's point.
comment in response to
post
Sorry, I simply think transphobes hunting women in public places is a bigger danger to trans women. Not ashamed of saying that.
comment in response to
post
I don't think any of that is right. For one, it doesn't "give them license to continue being sexual predators". How would that even work? I don't know someone exists until today, and that apparently means I'm "validating her"?
I think you're just being accusatory.
comment in response to
post
"Literary context"?
The context was, ZJ said this was resulting in transphobes hunting trans women in public places. That sounds scary. And then you responded, that's why we have to drive her off tiktok, _for that exact reason_, your words.
That's the context.
comment in response to
post
For one, there's a lot more of them. More of a problem.
comment in response to
post
I'm sure I'll manage continuing to not think about someone who's apparently a sexual predator that I've never heard of and will never meet.
I do worry about transphobes a little more than that, yes. Which is why I thought that was more important.
comment in response to
post
Sure, okay. So, we'll go with that.
How would that make what you said make sense, given you admitted afterwards that it wouldn't actually stop transphobes at all?
comment in response to
post
How would full knowledge of the situation, like you have, make what you said make sense? Even you admitted it wouldn't stop transphobes.
comment in response to
post
You seem like you're on top of it, though.
comment in response to
post
Why? I'm asking you about the thing you said that didn't make sense.
comment in response to
post
Googling doesn't seem to indicate she's a sexual predator. There's a Reddit thread that says all she does is beg for money and eat, and a change dot org petition trying to get her off Tiktok, which I don't think is going to be successful.
comment in response to
post
Actually I'm making a different point and I don't particularly care about whatever the first point is, because I'm not as online as you are, I guess.
comment in response to
post
My point wasn't about that. My point was about you concocting a really bizarre rationalization that was wrong on its face. Like, why would you say that? What's the thought process that led you to go "you're talking about how dangerous it is that transphobes stalk us... here's what would fix that."
comment in response to
post
I'm not going to go and watch some random tiktok to check your credentials, sorry.
comment in response to
post
I am listening. What you're saying just doesn't pass the sniff test. The only reason I said something was that it seemed ridiculous to suggest that irrational transphobes would somehow restrain themselves if, i don't know, we collectively shun someone I've never heard of. That doesn't sound right.
comment in response to
post
So why not just say that in the first place? It seems like a fair point. Why lie about the reason?
comment in response to
post
What's your problem? Like, why are you acting this way?
comment in response to
post
I mean, here you are, saying it's for "that exact reason". That seemed spurious, so I asked you - do you really think that would stop transphobes from hunting us?
And you don't think it would. So were you lying?
bsky.app/profile/ally...
comment in response to
post
If you have to explain a joke, you probably need to work on the joke.
I guess I can't understand why you're being so rude. You've admitted that no, you don't think stopping this woman would actually result in stopping psychotic transphobes hunting trans women in public. So why pretend?
comment in response to
post
I thought jokes were supposed to be funny.
comment in response to
post
You could have googled spurious and learned something you didn't know. Oh well.
comment in response to
post
I haven't defended anything. I think your justifications are spurious.
comment in response to
post
It's a simple question. Do you think that they'll stop hunting trans women?
comment in response to
post
Do you think that will stop them hunting?
comment in response to
post
Calm down, princess.
comment in response to
post
Someone who's not American and doesn't seek to understand Americans or America? The only thing I'm grappling with is why he's so invested in something he doesn't care about and doesn't affect him.
comment in response to
post
He also said "in my country", so I don't think he's got much to contribute, does he?
comment in response to
post
Well, let's apply it here. The victim is known in the community, has participated in protest actions previously, and has been armed at previous events. What aspect of his actions lead you to diagnose him with some variety of mental illness, requiring rounds to be fired in his direction?
comment in response to
post
You made it, Shaun. You made it to middle-age. Congratulations.
comment in response to
post
"You can't look inside a person's head".
You're judging them to be insane, how'd you manage that without looking inside their head, given you say you don't care what reasons people might have?
comment in response to
post
"I don't care"
So stop contributing. You don't care.
comment in response to
post
Automatic weapons have been prohibited from being manufactured for civilian sale since Reagan was in office. Every automatic weapon in circulation predates most millennials. You have to be pretty wealthy to own one, and transferring them means involving the ATF. The government knows who owns them.
comment in response to
post
An AR is not an automatic rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle. The pistol the shooter used was a semi-automatic pistol.
An automatic rifle costs well in excess of 5 figures, probably close to the median annual income nowadays. The man who was shot is almost guaranteed not to own one.
comment in response to
post
Do you think the migrants she promised to deport in order to secure the border are regular people?
comment in response to
post
And this comment suggests such a person must be insane. It's reasonable to conclude Vergil believes people who hold rifles in public are insane, carry them with intent to use and can open fire at any time, which sounds like a mass shooter.
bsky.app/profile/klei...
comment in response to
post
Not really. This sounds like someone describing a mass shooter.
bsky.app/profile/klei...
comment in response to
post
I asked you directly, would this be sufficient reason to murder such a person? You're calling it a straw man question, but it's important, because the implication of what you're saying is that he should have been shot for simply carrying a rifle.
comment in response to
post
Saying that people "intend to use it" and "can open fire at any time", particularly in the context of a man being shot at and a bystander being murdered, would suggest otherwise. In this context you're saying this man intended to use his rifle and could open fire at any time.
comment in response to
post
There's some distance between "no intent to use it" and "only possible intent is to personally cause a mass-casualty event", so this seems like a non-sequitur.
comment in response to
post
Here's two books on the subject, and I presume you'd have the decency to understand that the people involved weren't insane.
comment in response to
post
Again, there are other people out there in that big wide world of ours. I'm not really interested in you reiterating your view. I'm asking you what other people, who don't share your view, what do they say?
comment in response to
post
It's not a straw man. That's your stance. I'm asking you whether that's sufficient for you to be shot at, as well as any poor soul near you.
comment in response to
post
I'm sure you can find a lot of perspectives of people who can tell you, in their own words perhaps, why someone would do that.
Is there a reason why that's something you haven't done?
comment in response to
post
Okay, it's established that's what you believe, that anyone holding one of these weapons can only conceivably be understood to be intending to use it in a mass shooting.
Given that, do you think that holding one of these weapons in public should result in the murder of the person holding it?
comment in response to
post
And strongly committed to having the most lethal military in the world!
And committed to having a Republican in her cabinet!
And won't ban fracking, in order to "reduce our dependence on _foreign_ oil!