🚨🚨🚨 🚔 📣

👮📄🗣️ 🔒🔐🔗 🚪💥

🚓 🚨🚨🚨

1973 Chilean coup d’état

I assume you mean 1973.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/50CTJnPn0RC2tXg18zfcXxy/the-scots-who-stopped-air-strikes-by-a-violent-chilean-dictator

By flying a plane into the capitol you mean using military planes to fire rockets at the La Moneda Palace.

Trump led an insurrection against the US and was allowed to be president again despite not being eligible to do so.

Grifters excepting cash when it is handed to them is not surprising. The grifter working for the Trump administration is not surprising.

If that’s how people want to spend their days, that’s on them. But they won’t be invited to the next wizard war.

So that’s what happened to them.

What’s important is that the gorilla has to wait at least 15 minutes or 150 rounds of combat for the ketamine to kick in. edit: typo

https://www.talktofrank.com/drug/ketamine

How long it takes to work

15 - 20 mins on average.

CW

TIL CW is content warning.

https://www.eurogamer.net/nintendo-and-accessories-manufacturer-genki-settles-switch-2-trademark-infringement-lawsuit

Genki is now also prohibited from using approximations such as ‘Glitch’, ‘Glitch 2’, ‘Genki Direct’ and ‘Genki Indirect’ when promoting its own products, with these of course being very close to Nintendo’s own Switch and Nintendo Direct-related branding.

The accessories manufacturer is also no longer able to use colour schemes in any of its products or packaging which are “confusingly or substantially” similar to Nintendo’s. The court document states: “Namely, red and white, red and blue, green and pink, blue and yellow, purple and orange, pink and yellow, and purple and green.”

Wow, the idea that a court would allow a company to have powers over something that should be in the public domain like color is bizarre.

Also, I’m glad I asked, because I thought pulling a Nintendo might have been a reference to a sex thing and I couldn’t find it on Urban Dictionary.

What do you mean by pulling a Nintendo?

▪️🚿👩‍🚒🚒

I am a Jew. Free Palestine!

That’s basically the strategy, to make a long list of keywords. Any sentence structure is purely for the convenience of the prompter to be able to read and edit their own prompt. I found these AI generated videos the other day and they had a giant list of the keywords used in the video description.

Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group.

The fascists are trying to kill people. In response your argument proposes what is best described as a kind of Stockholm syndrome. But instead of a empathy for captors your argument would have victims have empathy for their murderers. Like some kind of extreme form of rape culture. It’s disgusting in my opinion.

Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?

Those tolerant people are feeling empathy for each other regardless of their group. They are even expressing empathy for Charlie Kirk’s children. So they are following the social contract where as the fascists are not.

Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here.

Those who break the peace treaty are not protected by it. The fascists broke the peace treaty so the fascists are not protected by it.

They feel empathy for the intolerant

The users in this thread are still tolerant of each other, regardless of group. So the empathy they feel towards each other is for tolerant people of different groups.

, and dislike the emphatic.

Fascists want to kill out groups. Fascists are practicing parochial empathy if even that. Your argument seems to have no grasp of what empathy is or how to practice it in a healthy or useful way so it is not compelling. edit: typo

You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?

Tolerant people in groups whether that is by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups. So people practicing tolerance as a peace treaty are still practicing empathy not parochial empathy.

Do you see the problem with using a straw man to argue? Refuting your argument is trivial.

That’s what most here are doing.

Considering this acts in accordance with self-preservation this is a rational and useful decision to have made.

Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal?

Charlie Kirk and the other fascists he was a mouth piece for have already broken the social contract with their fascist takeover of the United States. This fascists administration goal is to around up minority groups into death camps and a pollute the planet as much as possible with coal powered ‘freedom cities’. The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.

The intolerant group has already decided those being tolerant are fair game before this. The fascists already wanted to kill people. We knew this before the election. They were completely open with what they wanted to do. Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups to defend themselves against intolerant fascists. This is a clear cut example of real empathy.

You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.

No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.

The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.

Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.

Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.

This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.

For anyone who is not a collector this a ‘you problem’. It’s a well written and informative article so I wanted to share it. Enjoy!

That assumes a person isn’t a Hispanic day laborer at a hospital during an ICE raid. ICE seems to be focusing on places of work for their targets, but with the current pause on the federal judge’s ruling, ICE can violate the fourth amendment anywhere.

ICE doesn’t need any ID to look at a person and make a judgement based on physical appearance.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/

In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that the Trump administration, “and now the concurrence” by Kavanaugh, “has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

In Sotomayor’s view, the Trump administration had not shown that it was ultimately likely to prevail on the merits. In particular, she wrote, “a set of facts cannot constitute reasonable suspicion if it ‘describes a very large category of presumably innocent’ people.” “Allowing the seizure,” she said, “of any Latino speaking Spanish at a car wash in Los Angles tramples the constitutional requirement that officers ‘must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’”

The kind of person you are articulating, someone who would vote in favor of trans rights, is fundamentally different than terfs who actively campaign to destroy trans people. This woman we are discussing is a terf and thus a bigot. The fact she is couching her bigotry in a misrepresentation of science should not in anyway be interpreted as a sincere misunderstanding. We are way past that point in 2025.

To you it may seem uncalled for, but this is not the average neoliberal both-sides right-wing talking points instance. If you can’t recognize a person who wants trans people dead when she is pointed out to you then there are other instances where you can give terfs the benefit of the doubt.

I appreciate that you and your friend voted for the interests of trans people in your country. I don’t believe you or your friend are bigots. However the bar is higher than whether or not a person is a bigot here. Here on Blåhaj we always act in the interests of trans people. That means calling terfs bigots. And banning people who insist on having a problem with that. edit: typo

You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.

But this comparison completely fails to encapsulate the disagreement in question between terfs and trans people. The theist argues that god(s) exists in some capacity while the atheist argues that god(s) do(es) not exist in any capacity. The relevant debate between the theist and the atheist only references god(s) not the theist or the atheist.

The relevant debate between terfs and trans people inherently references the trans people. Whether or not trans people get to exist as their gender is the debate.

One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.

The reason transitioning doesn’t change our underlying gender is that we are already our underlying gender whether we transition or not. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Despite not having transitioned physically I am a woman. Before I knew I was a woman I was a woman who thought I was a man. Some people are gender fluid. A gender fluid person’s gender can change at any time. Physically transitioning isn’t the standard we use to determine who is or isn’t trans or what a person’s gender is.

Transitioning is for the benefit of trans people, not how gender is changed. Physically transitioning involves changing sex characteristics. Gender is a social construct. A person’s lived experience is going to be how a person determines their gender before anything involving physically changing sex characteristics is relevant.

I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway.

You don’t need to believe that trans people exist. I, a trans person, am writing to you right now. What about me do these friends of yours respect if not my right to exist as myself? I am a woman. I am going to be a woman whether or not anyone believes it. If they can’t respect me as a woman then they don’t respect me.

I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.

I used the term bigot to refer to a well known kind of bigot, terfs, trans exclusionary radical feminists. But even still, people who disagree that trans people have a right to exist, which I didn’t realized needed to be said, as the gender trans people say they are, are bigots. Their intolerance against trans people is what makes a person a bigot. There is no tolerant way to argue someone shouldn’t exist.

As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights.

BIOLOGY IS NOT BIGOTRY.

This is called a dog whistle. It’s called a dog whistle because much like real dog whistles If you aren’t part of the group it’s designed to be heard by you likely can’t hear it. This idea that biology determines gender isn’t supported by any credible body of scientific research but it’s a commonly used to tactic to justify the arbitrary social norms around gender.

If you are a trans person you’ve had this argument thrown at you before and know it’s an attack line to demonize and undermine you. If you aren’t a trans person it can come off as a seemingly reasonable defense of a woman’s political views that appeals to the gender binary most people grew up with. Much like war on crime or war on drugs can sound like a politician is talking about stopping crime or drug trafficking to a white person but they mean over-policing black people.

What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot.

Being trans means a person’s gender does not match the gender that person was assigned at birth usually based on sex characteristics. So being trans doesn’t change a person’s gender. But it does mean a person may realize later that their gender was not what they thought it was. Also being trans does mean a person is the gender that they say they are regardless of what society says a person’s sex characteristics mean. That last one is the actual relevant discussion.

One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).

Trans people have existed as long as there have been people. Even as concepts of gender changed over time and people decided that this modern gender binary always existed.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/02/10-must-know-facts-about-transgender-history-that-you-didnt-learn-in-school/

If a person doesn’t believe a trans man when he tells that person he is a man that person isn’t being respectful. The same way it would be disrespectful for a person to not believe a cis man when he tells that person he is a man.

Our understanding of gender has evolved. Insisting that the word gender has some inherent meaning as opposed to acknowledging that gender is a social construct is part of the problem. The fact some people cling to the artificial gender binary at the expense of real people is also part of the problem.

The fact you agree is appreciated. So I wrote you this explanation. I recommend reading up on the topic further before commenting on these issues in comment sections of posts in communities on this instance. You gave the terfs the benefit of the doubt which was nice of you.

We, trans people on this instance, are already familiar with terfs and their talking points. We do not get give terfs the benefit of the doubt here. If you would like to continue this or similar discussions consider asking first and giving an opinion second. Otherwise I look forward to your ban. Hope that helps!