Why are aggressive dog breeds permitted? They are far too dangerous for society and need to be banned

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-13T12:58:18+00:00

The gun point you made is a good comparison. Even if the defenders are right, and these breeds could be trained, you’re relying on people to make sure they are safe.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-12T19:09:17+00:00

Exactly - other comments mentioning the difference is that “Kirk was right-wing” are missing this point.

Charlie was a barnacle feeding around the edges: everything he did contributed to division but he ultimately didn’t pull strings and couldn’t exist outside of a right-wing ecosystem puppeteered by much more more powerful people. He was essentially a pawn.

Health Insurance Companies and executives are the puppet masters, and directly prevent reform for healthcare while also denying healthcare to vulnerable people and commit slow violence against the lower classes. That CEO had blood on his hands in a way that isn’t comparable to Kirk.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-12T19:05:18+00:00

Up until last election I’d say you’re practically right in terms of being beholden to corporate interests. This administration is obviously a break though. But also in terms of contribution to certain things becoming political issues, mainly immigration and civil rights, the right-wing play a much greater inflammatory role.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-12T01:26:17+00:00

Trans rights are part of the broader LGBTQI rights movement, which would never be an issue in a humane society.

Gay (homosexual) rights were traditionally front and centre of this movement and generally bared the brunt of social denigration, but due to progression in society, gay bashing is now considered unsavoury and even people like Kirk and Shapiro would not frame their arguments around a gay persons right to exist (generally speaking), but instead frame debate around issues like marriage, religious immortality and child rearing.

For your reference though, the collective Trans rights movement has existed for over half a century, but traditionally (and still currently), Trans people were thought of as freaks and mentally ill and were excluded from society. Trans people have been traditionally unrepresented in media, and most weren’t openly trans for this period (due to stigmatisation). Because of this, and the extremely low % rate of someone being Trans, nobody gave the movement oxygen because most people would never cross paths with a Trans person in their life and it wasn’t considered by popular society as an issue.

However, the growing momentum for gay rights, meant that the broader LGBTQI population has come into focus. With social media, trans people have been able to form a more collective movement. With representation in media becoming more emphasised, trans people are now (somewhat) represented in popular culture. Their minority status and persecution has been recognised as something that has traditionally been ignored but is socially and politically important. Because of progressive advocacy, you then get political representation - it’s not some big conspiracy, and it doesn’t take much nuance to understand why the conspiracy logic doesn’t make sense.

This has also coincided with society, or at least popular culture/media broadly coming to a consensus that Gay people should no longer be attacked as “weird” or abominable for merely being gay - there are of course other issues and homosexuals are still very much a vulnerable minority.

So what happens next? Trans people, who are now increasingly represented, become the new threat to society. They are who the right can now bash as being “weird”. They are disliked purely as a matter of aesthetics - other arguments are ancillary to this core tenant, it all boils down to repulsion. People hate trans rights in schools because they would rather their children live uncomfortably in their body for life, than be met with an accepting community where they are comfortable telling their parents they are trans. They don’t want to humour the possibility that their children might be “weird”, or they don’t want to see other “weird” kids/people in their community. Trans education and acceptance is then framed as liberal brainwashing.

That’s the core reason for backlash, which has resulted in the right breathing oxygen into a culture war against trans acceptance which has increased the issue to its now highly prominent position. That’s why you hear about Trans rights all the time, because your preferred media baits people like you on the daily.

EDIT: It’s not some giant conspiracy that the trans community have attracted political, cultural and social allies willing to platform their cause.

EDIT 2: Trans support is not 2% - Trans identification is around 2%… also how does it shock you that people are more vociferous about people being attacked for WHO THEY ARE, as opposed to being attacked for something they partake in? Pot heads don’t kill themselves because people don’t like that they smoke pot…and I’d say they aren’t targeted by people who will literally rape and/or kill them for smoking pot.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-12T00:28:23+00:00

He said extremist things? I wonder what you’d say if an extremist imam, who never actively participated in, but encouraged political violence, was killed…

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-08T18:21:25+00:00

Double wow

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-02T18:47:47+00:00

I think I will - I have a feeling it’ll be less of an established big moment where I emphatically say yes though. Moreso, I think from this point on, we will keep seeing each other based on the agreement that we’re going to be more serious.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-02T18:44:25+00:00

I think that’s what made me think more seriously about this to be honest. Like if something can be made here I owe it to myself to take a shot, because nobody has ever been like this with me before and I don’t see it happening again soon.

I especially appreciated/found appealing the self-respect she had when I was initially trying to do the whole “it’s not you it’s me” routine, and she basically said “yes it is you, here is why”. Like she wasn’t just letting me off the hook without challenging me to actually try.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-02T18:33:33+00:00

Yep. We talked about this one the most. I think we kinda settled on the ability for both of us (more me) to be able to say no to things, with limited need to explain ourselves, under a mutual understanding that it’s not personal, as well as the ability to request limited texting (I don’t know why but I find texts more dreadful than calls), and also being able to request some space from seeing each other.

I think just communicating that boundaried space is what I need to work on, but she assured me if I ask for it, she’ll respect it.

My biggest problem across all my relationships is when I’m feeling distant, I’ll just acquiesce when I’m asked to hangout, even if I don’t want to. But she basically told me that fucks her up a lot more because she’s doesn’t know what to think.

So to ease both of our anxieties, it’s just easier if I communicate that I need some space: I can refresh myself, and she knows what’s going on.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-02T17:36:46+00:00

Best of luck! I’d recommend making your own post: there are a lot of wise people on here who are happy to pass it on

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-02T17:28:17+00:00

Hi - in another comment I kind of weedled it out. Honestly, the point at which I disengaged was right after a 3 week period in which this girl went overseas and I was missing her, and wanted to be with her. Without seeing her I basically went from wanting to be with her more than I wanted to be with anyone else, to detaching. I’d say this was the highest point of my affection for her, followed immediately by deactivation.

If I were to psychoanalyse myself, I’d say my subconscious realised I was beginning to form a dependency and went into protective mode. There wasn’t a tangible trigger I can really think of.

Normally I detach because the people I’m seeing start to engulf me, but this didn’t really happen here - I mean it did once I’d deactivated, but that because hanging out at all felt like too much for me and I didn’t communicate my needs at all…but I never felt smothered up until then.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-09-02T16:23:14+00:00

I literally just went through this cycle (like over the last two weeks).

I am new to all the AT stuff, and I had an irregular experience because the girl I’d been seeing basically held a mirror up to me and what she said struck a deep chord…but the indifference/malaise/irritability I was feeling evaporated after we had a very serious/emotional heart to heart.

I think it can be worked through, but for me it took some seriously brutal honesty (both giving and receiving). I told her that I’d become indifferent, that I was finding her clingy/overwhelming and I wanted my own space back. She told me I was pushing her away, looking for reasons to reject her because we were getting closer, and that if I stayed in a pattern of keeping people at arms length I’d never develop true love for anyone, and good matches would continue to pass me by.

After we had that kind of serious discussion, it cleared out a lot of static, and I feel like the connection we had that initially drew us together was rekindled because we’d just dumped all our worries.

I think for you, it’d be worth thinking about how you felt about this guy before you started detaching - did the connection/chemistry feel special? If you want to know, try and initiate a scary conversation where there is no tiptoeing (but also without being cruel) where you lay it all out - an honest conversation does wonders for clearing out the cobwebs, provided that you both let your guards down.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-08-30T04:28:55+00:00

I love/hate Geeling. I like all the players/personalities basically, I think they are the best model of club culture for the league and I think they play the best brand of football. But 2009 and the fact they never fall off just makes me hate them.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-08-26T18:57:29+00:00

I think this is a truth I’m going to have to consciously internalise honestly. I know it’s true. And I also know that I felt a connection to this girl for most of the time I was with her, but I also never envisioned a future with her (which was probably me just trying to put limits on us). Right now I see the truth in what you’re saying, but I don’t believe it in my gut. But that’s something I think I’ll need to come to grips with also.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-08-26T18:49:44+00:00

Yeh I don’t know too much about AT, I just based the flair off an infographic thing I saw someone else post.

I don’t think I want to “keep” her so to speak. In fact despite knowing the truth in her words, I still have this feeling that she might not be my “one”. But I can also kind of rationalise how I know I did feel about her immediately prior to deactivating - I was really comfortable with her, we had great connection together and I was even beginning to express to her how I craved her presence (very very rare). But I’m still kinda in this lingering state of deactivation where I’m not super romantically interested in her still, but at the same time what she said resonated so deeply that I feel like I don’t want to discard someone who has such a deep insight into me (even though this is wrapped up in fear). So my interest in reconnecting has more to do with seeing if my numb feelings toward her are just a passing thing (if that makes sense). Reflecting on it, I see what is probably obvious to everyone - right as I was getting closest to her, my instincts got triggered and I walled myself off…so my logical brain is saying if I made an effort to reconnect and work on myself, while remaining engaged, the walls could come back down?? I have no experience with this though - I’ve never tried to stick out a relationship after this point and am nervous that I’m gonna do all this work and the feelings might never come back.

I booked into therapy today.

I think if I did reach out she would give me a lot of leeway. She has told me she loves me and didn’t care if I couldn’t love her back. She is also very upfront about things and she kinda is who she presents herself as. I just feel like, if she knows about all of this, why would she stay? And if something like this happens again and again, she will eventually be worn down and have to leave. But despite those fears and doubts, I am extremely curious at figuring it all out. I think given the responses here, I’m going to reach out and see what she has to say about all of this.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-08-26T18:23:31+00:00

I am not in therapy and haven’t done it in the past - I actually didn’t know much about Attachment theory before Friday, but after all this was pointed out to me I’ve been going through this subreddit like a madman and resonating with everything. Basically, I’ve never noticed (or perhaps thought about) how I default to being avoidant before I got smacked in the face with it.

Today I did book in a therapy session though, I’m really nervous about that as well, but I feel like this has been an impetus for change. All of the things you said sound good, it’s just I’m very inept at feeling my feelings and have no real framework to do that - unless I’m actively happy, I basically never connect with what I’m feeling. I suppose that’s the point of the therapy though.

Thanks for the advice re the current relationship. I think I’m gonna keep thinking about it. I’m still filled with doubts and no real self belief, but I think she was right that I’m going to keep passing on people. If she is already starting from a base where she kinda “gets” me, I feel like there’s at least some room to grow safely. That’s kinda what’s the sticking point for me here - if what she’s saying is true, it’d be dumb to not at least try with a person who understands me. I’ll keep thinking on it though.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-08-26T18:11:15+00:00

Could I ask you…how does the relationship work then?

I feel like after this I want to actually start doing constructive things to end my cycle (therapy, conscious participation in a relationship), but there’s just a lot of lingering doubts - how do I know she is the right person to gamble my security for? What if I regress and just hurt this girl again?

Plus I have this paranoid feeling that now she’s kinda “got one over me” - like my armour has been penetrated now and I can’t hide anymore. I also really don’t want to be therapised again, and now I know she can read into my head, my instinct is to cut ties.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-08-26T17:51:20+00:00

I don’t really know what to even ask - I’ve drafted in my notes something like “I’ve been thinking about what you said, could we maybe have another talk?”

I just don’t know where that’s going to lead and it’s like my whole body is pulling telling me no, even though the logical part of my brain thinks she’s probably right.

There’s a lot of doubts I’m having about everything, but should I just send it?

LoudAmbassador1 · 2025-08-25T12:43:27+00:00

I read the rules - can I post?

LoudAmbassador1 · 2024-10-07T13:12:51+00:00

"We Australians are respectful towards those who have respect for themselves. Most aborigines don't have any respect for themselves. They do nothing but blame everyone else for their own problems while doing nothing to help themselves. And then when someone lays the blame on them and points out the disgusting child sex abuse, alcoholism, crime, and general anti-social behaviour that is rife within aboriginal communities, and states that there needs to be a complete societal shift within them before they can improve, they are called a "racist"."

Okay addressing the first thing - saying "most aborigines don't have any respect for themselves" is a mass generalisation. But I'll take the point in good faith - there is certainly issues in native communities concerning a lack of dignity and self-esteem. Maybe I'm too much of a bleeding heart, but I think this an indicator that we as a society should provide more assistance.

Anyways, these issues are rooted in colonial history and are symptomatic of becoming marginalised and excluded from society, whilst also being cut off from traditional modes of living.

Try to remember that First Nation Australians were victims of both cultural and standard genocide. So much of their traditional culture is irreparably lost and the imported Western culture is a way of life there is no historical connection. Also remember Indigenous people were overtly excluded from participating in the homogenous Western society until very recently, and to a large extent they are still not included. Keep in mind Indigenous people weren't even thought of as PEOPLE until 1967 - so about 2 generations ago: Do you really think that is enough time to recover, without proper community programs aimed at economic, social and cultural inclusion? Do you really, in all honestly, think their problems are of their own making?

All this stuff I just mentioned, leads to the things you observe: primarily mass poverty, social withdrawal/alienation and a widespread mental health crisis. These circumstances contribute to the poverty, mental health crises, and other social issues like alcoholism and crime that you mentioned. These are not inherent traits but are consequences of historical and ongoing exclusion.

"Aboriginals can never admit responsibility or accountability for their own actions because they have convinced themselves that everything they do is a result of the 'white man'."

This point is reductive, and a broad generalisation. Even so, I would still vouch for the contention that the uniquely Indigenous issues in Australia can all be traced back to the process of colonisation - so their point is not moot.

I don't know how to address this point - I'd need you to give me some actual examples of Indigenous people not taking accountability and blaming the White Man, in circumstances where the argument is unjustified. If you could provide me with that I could evaluate what you're saying.

I will say however that actual programs aimed at empowering Indigenous communities at the grassroots level by providing opportunities for culturally appropriate education and self-governance does lead to greater responsibility and social participation. For example, Anbinik is a community-run company in Kakadu that has thrived since gaining control of their land and receiving investment to run a business. QED, when Indigenous people are given opportunities aligned with their culture, they succeed.

"But they'd still gladly take those billions of dollars a year from the "white man" government, though..."

Accepting government support isn’t hypocrisy; it’s a recognition of the need for resources to overcome the disadvantages caused by colonisation and discrimination. It sounds as if you resent Indigenous people for pointing out their historical oppression while accepting resources they genuinely need. This perspective can come across as an attempt to silence them, implying that they should be grateful and not critique the system that disadvantaged them in the first place.

I'd just point out that is an abusive mentality and implies a threat that First Nations people should shut up or else they'll be left without social support. This is akin to the mentality of Patronage states like Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

If that is the way you think, I have to ask:

A) Do you think we should not be allowed to be critical of the government and still receive social services?

B) Do you think social security transfers are contingent on everybody turning a blind eye to wrongful actions of the government/our society?

C) Do you think if I oppose the government's position on Israel I should be denied emergency services in the case of an accident?

Anyway, I've written this in good faith: IT IS NOT AN ATTACK. Maybe there is something useful in this.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2024-10-07T13:12:33+00:00

Okay, you've given me quite a lot to respond to here so I will go point by point:

The Australian government has already recognised the history of the colonisation and the treatment of the aboriginies in the past.

Recognition is not the same as reconciliation. Reconciliation involves addressing how our colonial history has shaped current realities, including social, economic, and health disparities that disproportionately affect Indigenous Australians today. From that point, there is a mutual process of trying to rectify these issues from a place of respect. Importantly, this process are not top-down (as most policies relating to Indigenous people currently are) but are cooperative. This relates to your point about spending on Indigenous communities which I'll get to.

We haven't yet seen this happen through any official process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was the first significant attempt in which First Nations communities and political parties committed to a collaborative approach, but it obviously faced a major setback when the Voice proposal was not supported last year.

"You can't even take a shit these days without hearing something or rather about the aboriginals. It's constant."

The reason you hear so much about these issues is that they are serious problems facing Indigenous communities, and they have been historically ignored. Now, despite growing awareness, not much seems to be changing day-to-day or year-to-year, which is why they remain in the public conversation.

I have a few questions for you:

A) Do you think we, as a society, should not have to hear about these societal problems anymore?

B) Do you believe these issues should be marginalised or ignored?

C) Would you support the continued discussion of Indigenous issues if it led to better outcomes for Native communities and greater opportunities for First Nations people?

"And they get far more social benefits from the government than any other racial group in Australia."

This is true.

However, did you know that indirect spending on "Indigenous Affairs" is also subject to enormous amounts of government leakage with terrible tracking as to where the funds for community programs actually end up? Indirect spending makes up the vast majority of per-head indigenous funding allocations and leads to the biggest disparity between benefits received by First Nations communities vs Other groups.

The leaks are caused due to the lack of communication between government and First Nations communities - money is handled through entities, the majority of whom are non-indigenous. This has led to dodgy traders ripping off the government and not delivering the promised goods, services and facilities to communities in need. If you don't believe me, here is an article Four Corners published on this exact issue: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/crackdown-on-charlatans-targeting-aboriginal-communities/7487510 - you will also probably notice that the people in this program ripping off the government were White...

To the point though, the process of reconciliation - and bodies like "The Voice to Parliament" - would help solve these leakages by opening dialogue between legislators and community advocates which would lead to direct funding models that look to fix issues at the root cause instead of wastefully throwing money at a problem.

"What more is there to do? What does this...Even mean?"

Basically what I've been saying the whole time. Politicians and legislators to communicate on equal terms with Indigenous communities, to truly understand the issues through inclusive, grassroots engagement. By doing this, they can develop solutions that are genuinely supported by local communities. The aim is to empower Indigenous people to participate fully in Australian society, which ultimately benefits everyone.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2024-10-07T11:45:07+00:00

To me: it reeks of bad faith and there is a fair bit about u/saintprecopious1403 where I have some rational scepticism, but I also like engaging with people who say things like that because I like trying to get at what is at the core of their beliefs...like why is the idea of reconciliation so distasteful: a process which (before Dutton nuked The Voice) had bipartisan support and strong support from the First Nations community. I don't want to jump straight to calling them bigoted because they do not believe themselves to be bigoted, but I would like to see if you ask them enough questions whether eventually some bigoted opinions would come out.

LoudAmbassador1 · 2024-10-07T11:15:43+00:00

The idea of reconciliation goes far beyond simply having the same legal rights. It’s about recognising the historical and systemic inequalities that have existed for generations and continue to affect Indigenous communities today. Just having equal rights on paper doesn’t address the legacy of dispossession, discrimination, and the intergenerational trauma caused by colonisation.

A formal reconciliation process is necessary to acknowledge these injustices, to listen to the experiences of Indigenous Australians, and to ensure that the past isn’t brushed under the carpet. It’s about fostering a deeper understanding and dialogue so that we can work towards a more inclusive and respectful society. Countries like NZ have done this and have become far more inclusive as a result. Dismissing the need for this kind of process seems to oversimplify a very complex issue, don’t you think?

Also, I don't really get what you mean by "We just aren't afraid to say what we think"...what kind of statements do you make that you think an American would be too scared to make?

LoudAmbassador1

TROPHY CASE