erin

Bus. Tram. Subway. Train. And yes, I do drive if necessary. Walkable does not mean walking is mandatory, and a huge part of the push for a decrease in car only infrastructure is the increase in public transportation. The idea isn't to remove the ability for cars to exist, but to make other forms of transportation accessible and possible, and make reliance on cars a thing of the past. I don't know why you've got it so wrapped up in your head that cars are going to vanish and we will only be walking, as if there aren't dozens of other forms of transportation accessible for those of us with disabilities. The time I've spent living in places with good public transportation is the most independence and self determination I've experienced. I'm not lying, you're just disingenuous, stupid, or misinformed.

What. Effective public transport and less car centric infrastructure is far and away better for those with mobility issues. Walkable areas does not mean the abolishment of cars, it means more effective use of space and transport. Try visiting Austria or the Netherlands. Getting around is far, FAR easier than any city in the US. I have mobility issues, and require a cane to get around if I'm standing for significant periods, and yet the easiest time I had getting around was the time I spent in Vienna after living in different parts of the US for my whole life.

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that the phrase "we the people" is nationalist? If so, I'd disagree. It's the first few words of the preamble to the constitution. It would be strange if the constitution didn't specifically refer to the United States citizens. "We the people" isn't saying "USA first," it's a callback to the ideal that every American citizen should be equal, without kings, as other similar documents defining the government of monarchies would be under some monarch's authority, not "the people." Whether that ideal has been upheld or not is a different conversation entirely, but the phrase itself as a rejection of monarchy and oligarchy is a good message to repeat against Trump and Elon.

How does debate about women's sports (in my opinion, an overblown and distracting issue to cover for more serious anti-trans sentiment and legislation, when it affects a handful of people) and children's medicine (a non-issue, trans children cannot transition and puberty blockers are proven to be safe and effective, frequently used by cis children going through early puberty, and non-damaging long term if a child later decides to resume the natural course of surgery, whereas allowing puberty to continue IS permanently damaging) come into conflict with feminism? What do you even think feminism is? TERF isn't a derogatory term, it's a self-assigned label that has come into hot water more recently for being bigoted. I'm not pretending that debate on those subjects is silly. It's very serious. These subjects are frequently used as excuses to pass further and further restrictions on people living entirely outside the scope of said subjects. What I'm asking you is where feminism comes into play?

Seriously. You can't just state feminism as the opposite side of the debate against trans people. That's insane. Feminists support equality of all genders. Feminists believe trans women are women, and their rights should be protected. Go to any feminist rally, and see how many trans flags are there. You're conflating the belief in gender equality with the belief in "protecting women from trans women." I'm not stifling discussion. I'm questioning the appropriation of progressive ideals to turn progressives against each other, which, whether intentional or not, you're contributing to. It's like saying you see both sides of the issue between immigrants and crime victims.

As a feminist, who participates in local organizations, and reads theory, don't appropriate the ideas of gender equality to oppose those that most need its support.

Other than weirdo, can you specify? I don't think saying feminists and trans people are on the same team is a very controversial statement, at least for non-TERFs.

Your phrasing makes it appear as if trans people and feminists are on opposite sides of an issue, which they aren't. Only a small subset of feminism-appropriating weirdoes call themselves anti-trans feminists.

I thought the point of this was to treat them both the same. If yes, you're not cool for invalidating two people's genders, if no, you're still not cool for invalidating one person's gender. Maybe I'm misreading but I don't see your comment represented in the meme.

The bottom row is absolutely a strawman. I'm not vegan, for the record, but there absolutely isn't a biological need for meat in humans. If that were the case, lifelong veganism wouldn't be possible. Also, no one is wishing starvation on anyone. This meme takes what could have been a good point about letting perfect be the enemy of good and just makes it vegan bashing, of the strawman variety.

That's what I was referring to from the loss of knowledge due to genocide. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

That may be the case, but they made significant progress on rockets, nuclear, and discoveries in physics. Whether or not they were war effective, the scientific progress was there. Fascism isn't incompatible with technological progress, but resistance to higher education and anti-science sentiments are. In the long run, the loss of knowledge due to book burning and genocide may have caught up to them, but we thankfully don't know. The government could have continued to fund and focus on science.

The laser is for drones or missiles. Missiles are used for ships, which outrange battleships by a large margin, hence why they've been phased out of service. One jet can sink a ship hundreds of miles from its carrier.

I don't know if I agree with this statement. If one of the main goals of the fascist state is technological superiority, they'll prioritize it. Nazi Germany was on the cutting edge of science, to the point that the US hired a bunch of their scientists. They made technology a priority at the expense of other sectors. Luckily, being incapable of trade or producing the resources they needed, they didn't outstrip the rest of the world, but the same likely can't be said for the US. I think other factors will get in the way of tech research in the US far more than fascism, like moronic trade wars and disincentives for higher education, which while being enacted by fascists, aren't necessarily fascist tenets, as proven by history.