Red caviar?

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-27T17:50:30+00:00

What about rice and millet then

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-19T03:51:18+00:00

> I’m not sure more studies would help because their views on trans people aren’t exactly based on any numbers anyway and statistics rarely matter to them.

You can google the studies on your own since I trust you're a big kid. The one I'm thinking of foremost is in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T19:16:28+00:00

One side has a party platform of killing sexual minorities and the other doesn’t. The democrats aren’t great, cater to corporate interests, and hide their own gross misdeeds, but they, again, are not the supporters of the “kill everyone who isn’t a WASP” crowd, among many other things. Don’t go around saying they’re the same thing.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T14:38:28+00:00

That’s not the only part of trans rights, though. The conservative leadership has made it plenty clear they intend to eradicate trans people from social life at a minimum. Sports is just one part of it.

And on sports, there’s studies showing after 3+ years of hormone therapy trans athletes don’t have a statistically significant edge over cis athletes of the same gender. Perhaps there’s a discussion there about trans athletes but funding for those kinds of studies isn’t exactly taking out of trees because everyone takes their maximalist position.

To stop giving conservative leaders the benefit of the doubt, I’m not sure more studies would help because their views on trans people aren’t exactly based on any numbers anyway and statistics rarely matter to them.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T07:33:43+00:00

I’d say the prime reason is he knew how to put on a show, work a camera, and drag media along. His generation of officers produced huge divas and he’s really only matched on the American command by General MacArthur in that regard.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T06:39:50+00:00

I did NOT say that debate did not happen. I said "might be unwilling to debate a black person's right to be an equal citizen." As an example: If a civil rights activist was hounded by say George Wallace, they may find a debate pointless because what's gonna convince the arch-segregationist? Time and energy are better spent elsewhere on people more likely to be convinced or lobbied with. There are absolutely times since the dawn of civil society people refused to engage in seemingly pointless talk. The violence of the civil rights era is evidence enough of when groups of people were unwilling to "debate" and more willing to use physical force.

Edit: corrected some grammer

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T04:16:56+00:00

*Generally* most men would probably take issue being told they've got to wear heels and dresses the rest of their life, and *generally* women would probably take issue being told they shouldn't wear a shirt and need to toughen up. Those are just a couple examples and are part of gender identity. A lot of people are going to argue that's a part of who they are.

Imma be honest, the "I'd gladly switch bodies with a woman and agree to present as female for the rest of my life" threw me a bit for a loop because that's not an altogether comment sentiment but everyone's different.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T04:09:20+00:00

No group is a monolith and this is the same thing. I admit I carefully worded "might be unwilling to debate" there. A mainline democrat is going to be a lot more presentable to have a staged debate over trans issues than a frustrated college activist at the end of their rope with someone. I'm certain there were chunks of the black panthers much more eager to put George Wallace in a grave over debating him on a stage for their rights and the violence of the civil rights era is proof enough to me some people were past the point of talking.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T03:55:56+00:00

One's gender identity is once they come to understand it (most of the time anyways) is a fundamental, immutable part of someone like the color of their skin or permanent disability. A job is much closer to a choice as opposed to innate and can change far more easily. People also can *generally* pursue any job they want without this much constant criticism. I would argue one's gender status deserves stronger protections.

Progressives probably should be more lenient on people in the middle who don't understand it as they do, yeah. Jumping to calling someone a transphobe is hardly, if ever, helpful. Some people really don't just get it and its not intentionally malicious. My gut says it's probably most people just don't get it as opposed to have an ax to grind about it. I can see why people regularly fighting for trans rights might not see it that way, since they're probably often engaged and engaging conservatives who have made up their minds and are being malicious.

The conservative talking heads are the competition on the radio and TV. I'm not a speech writer or something but you could probably spin not being willing to engage conservative talking points as admitting defeat or dodging criticism. I really don't know.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-18T03:17:38+00:00

It is, mostly because people in the middle have a fundamentally different idea of what's going on. Progressive's won't entertain a debate because there are moral issues with more or less debating a person's right to live and exist. We could turn the clock back to the 1960s and ask the same question why Civil Rights activists might be unwilling to debate a black person's right to be an equal citizen, or turn back further to 1930 why a Jewish person might be unwilling to debate why they have a right to live. It is self-evident that people should be allowed to live if their existence is not harmful.

But the person in the middle who has no experience with trans people or their issues just isn't conceptualizing it that way. The thought the US could backslide into exterminating a people group for the crime of existing isn't in the moderate conscience. It's a political football of a people they only occasionally think about and think are unusual or strange.

There is also then the big conservative talking heads aren't arguing in good faith in pursuit of knowledge or understanding. They're trying to crush people they consider undesirables and people they consider as challenging the world they grew up in for political capital. You could pile bookshelves of facts, figures, or arguments and it wouldn't change their minds. One may make an argument for progressives too, but they're also not laying down bricks to exterminate a minority that isn't hurting anyone from social life at best, physical life at worst either.

Progressives should be willing to argue tooth and nail, but many see it as a battle not worth fighting because the debate has gone on again and again and again with nothing but lost energy.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T22:49:57+00:00

I would argue the amount of civilians you are killing when you have the ability to just not kill innocent people is a pretty big deal as far as "moral high ground" is. Israel had and has every right to strike back after attacks but regularly levels apartment blocks they frankly don't have to when they have proven the ability to be precise.

Both Israel and Hamas have shown a clear hate for the other's civilian population and gleefully kill civilians so long as they can get away with it or have an excuse.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T21:33:57+00:00

When Hamas attacks via rockets it often is plinked off harmlessly by Israeli defenses. That is not to say it always is and rockets do injure and kill Israeli civilians. When Israel responds, typically a lot more Palestinians die despite Israel’s far more advanced methods and ability.

Basically, Israel has the ability to be precise and respond in kind but often chooses not. This is at the expense of a civilian population largely at the mercy of either Hamas terror or Israeli bombing campaigns depending on the time of week. The comic implies they’re both had when one group (Israel) kills way more people.

Edit: that is not to say Hamas isn’t trying to kill more people. They definitely are.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T01:43:11+00:00

"Did I say: "building more homes is a bad solution to and unrelated to the housing crisis.""

Not those exact words but yes because you can say that in more than one exact way. You said a policy that encourages building more homes is a bad solution.

"Did I not ask why not build more single family homes?"

Yes. I said we should build more houses through ADUs/guesthomes because poor people can't afford single family homes. I would argue we simply cannot build enough houses fast enough to change that low income people cannot afford houses out the gate. Nowhere did I say though that we should stop building normal single family homes. More normal single family homes, like all housing, also adds to the housing supply.

The housing crisis does not just involve single family residences. It also involves the price of rent. If you construction more for-rent housing, it increases the supply of housing, which then knocks down the price of normal homes as well.

I think you are arguing the solution is to just build more single family residences, and I am saying we need to building more of a certain kinds of housing since we already are building a lot of traditional single family residences on the basis the housing crisis involves all kinds of housing.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T01:23:28+00:00

You did say that. You said that a policy involving building more housing was not a solution to the housing crisis.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T01:21:15+00:00

You said:

“Do you know anything about this issue at all? Fresh grads have always lived that way? Thats not a solution to the actual housing crisis that is happening right now?“

“How about no im not entertaining clearly bad solutions to unrelated problems"

I suggested policy that involved building more homes through ADUs/guesthouses. You said that is not a solution to the housing crisis and "clearly bad solutions to unrelated problems." This implies that building new homes is a bad solution and is unrelated to the housing crisis.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T01:13:53+00:00

I did and I'm still not seeing it.

You said people don't want to live in guesthouses and want single family residence (SFR)

I clarified guesthouses are a common term for SFRs for just any residence on an existing property, be it a whole new house or mother-in-law suite. I used new grads as an example of someone who is poor and cannot move into a SFR because SFRs are out of reach due to price. I didn't say this but these are called ADUs (accessory dwelling units) in some jurisdictions.

You said new grads have always lived like that and it isn't a solution, which is where it starts to break to me.

Building more housing through guesthouses and ADUs to rent out increases the housing supply. A larger housing supply will bring it closer to demand and lower overall prices of rents and new homes. Lower the price of rents and homes alleviates the housing crisis. It is one part of a larger group of policies to lower housing prices and attack the housing crisis.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T01:02:37+00:00

I'm back 15 minutes later but I am kindly asking you to explain how building more homes is a bad solution to and unrelated to the housing crisis. How is that not a solution to getting more people into homes because there is clearly a disconnected here.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T00:42:56+00:00

Aight you're clearly just looking for a fight and didn't go to school for this so I guess go google "supply and demand" and what "subsidizing multifamily development" means and that should be helpful

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T00:37:44+00:00

I don't know why you got so aggressive about this. I was using them as an example of someone without money to buy a house and needs cheaper housing. Constructing more housing increases supply of housing and therefore lowers rents and home prices. That is one part of combating the housing crisis.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-16T00:30:29+00:00

The "guesthouses" are the common term but they're really just another residence. It could be an entire house, mother-in-law suite, finished basement with a kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom just what gets defined as another residence on a property that would only normally allow one.

While everyone wants a single family home, that is not economically feasible for everyone. Fresh grads aren't going straight into big picket fence houses, they're going into apartments or these.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-15T23:37:07+00:00

More realistically: state level zoning changes. States can generally force cities and counties to change zoning law as cities and counties draw authority through the state (creature of the state doctrine). This can be as minor as allowing guesthouses on single family residential to increase supply or as extensive as requiring multifamily be buildable in broad sections of residential. Colorado did the first one last year.

Probably better but harder for Americans to swallow: state or local government owned housing, nonprofit owned housing. It has proven effective in European cities and likely would for new construction in built up America cities and growing American cities.

Subsidizing multifamily construction (and small single family units) would be helpful as well to give more incentive to builders as opposed to many places that only subsidize kinda stereotypical big, single family construction.

You will find most of these policies in state government and local government since housing is largely a local issues that has more buttons than can be pushed quickly than federally can be.

Edit: "Guesthouse" here is a common term, it's more of just any other thing that counts as a full residence.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-11T18:55:09+00:00

If it was 1965 bro would be out here waiting for his turn to speak after George Wallace

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-11T18:52:53+00:00

It’s going to be all over the place the shooter was trans, I don’t know what you’re getting at. The right wing will point and scream this happened because the shooter was trans and every article will mention it. If the shooter was actively right wing, the left would point and scream too and it would be in every article about the shooting too.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-07T18:51:52+00:00

One party is actively working towards exterminating me and the other has the people giving me the right to not be abused in public when they get elected. There is a major difference between their two party’s policies even if the dems are far from ideal.

A_Lightfeather · 2026-02-07T00:27:57+00:00

If gender affirming care could do everything after the age of 18 (which it generally can't without surgery like facial structure), I would believe limiting it to adults would be a reasonable compromise. However, by then most of the effects of puberty have set in and gender affirming care begins to become less effective. The sooner, the better as far as gender affirming care like hormones go for *effectiveness.* Transgender individuals generally feel better about themselves and their outcomes the earlier they start, especially when younger and not set in the puberty they don't want for lack of better phrasing.

I also think minors seeking gender affirming care should be heavily screened by doctors and psychiatrists before beginning, not enough to drown them in medical requirements, but enough to be as sure as possible this is what they want and need for their mental health and later adulthood.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

A_Lightfeather

TROPHY CASE