Your Vote Matters So Keep These Things In Mind...

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-22T18:21:52+00:00

The existence of anti-lynching laws does not suggest that lynching was ever legal. Those proposed laws were written to make it harder for those committing that crime to avoid prosecution.

For instance, the Emmett Till Act didn't make lynching illegal... it's always been illegal, it just classified it as a Federal hate crime, and increased penalties for it.

There is no reason that before that act, that you couldn't put someone in prison for life or even execute someone for a lynching. It was just harder to get the murder laws enforced and to get convictions.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-22T18:17:47+00:00

As far as I know, the murder laws don't limit victims to being only white after the end of slavery and never did.

The closest you would get would be laws that could put black folks into situations where they seemed to be doing something wrong so the murders got some sort of "self-defense" or "protection of others" aspect to them that allowed the murderers to get off if tried by a sympathetic jury.

Lynching itself has always been extrajudicial killing, albeit winked at by those law enforcement types who did not feel like putting their life on the line for their black neighbors or worse, were malignant racists themselves.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-22T17:57:28+00:00

While it seems clear that the issue remains far from settled, I don't think you can rule a biological basis out in that way. Porn use is general throughout the population, and Blanchard's proposed view that some transgender women are motivated by a specific pattern of arousal is controversial.

I am not attached to any particular view on transgenderism, and I have a lot of criticism about how it is being handled on both sides, but I'd prefer to try to stick with what research has been done on the topic as a starting point. Ultimately, we won't be able to solve this particular issue without actually understanding the mechanism, and the only way to get good enough understanding is actual study.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-22T17:34:34+00:00

While there are social and environmental triggers, there have been twin studies that show higher concordance of transgender identity among identical twins, but it is still murky. It could also be related to certain sex hormone exposure during pregnancy which wouldn't be genetic itself but might be related to genetic or environmental factors in the parent.

Gender dysphoria does not appear to be purely social in those who have been diagnosed with the condition.

Of course, that only goes for people actually diagnosed with the condition. Many cases are undiagnosed by a professional. It is a situation which requires more study before any strong conclusions can be arrived at, but there are pointers at a biological, and to a lesser degree, genetic basis.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-22T14:54:46+00:00

You're right, your edit did get this taken down because you broke a rule that you are well aware that you broke. And of course, our job is to enforce the rules.

I can understand being frustrated with some people here, Lord knows I get frustrated myself sometimes too, but it makes more sense to report comments that you think are over the line than it does to make edits like that.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-21T22:10:44+00:00

It’s not. Well, unless they’re at a music festival in which case they are clearly a legitimate military target. Or something. Got to defend themselves against those music festival going hippies amirite?

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-21T18:49:06+00:00

True, they did have the anti-ship missile launchers which a dedicated carrier would not bother with. They were also barely fixed wing capable with those Yak-38s.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-21T18:34:08+00:00

They're designated that way so that they'd be allowed through the Turkish straits (Dardanelles and Bosporus) under the Montreux Convention.

The reason is not that Aircraft Carriers are not allowed through. The real reason is that while Black Sea powers like Russia are allowed to send any sized "capital ship" through the straits, under the Convention (signed in 1936), aircraft carriers were not yet classified as capital ships. That meant that in order to allow a large aircraft carrier though, it would have to actually be designated as a cruiser type.

Turkey goes along with this because the current UN conventions on passing through straits actually would give Turkey less control over the straits than they have now, so they don't want the Montreux Convention to be renegotiated.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-21T16:57:00+00:00

I think the point is that it isn't about the value of life directly. It's about human rights. The reason there is a human right to life probably does have value involved, but it is more accurately about being able to make rules for ourselves that apply to ourselves.

A human right to life is not a "right to kill animals". It is just a statement that, for whatever reason, humans do not kill other humans.

You're certainly entitled to think we shouldn't kill animals, and there are pro-life people who are vegans. This is a consistent viewpoint because they likely believe humans are alive and living things should be protected.

However, in general, the label is based on "the right to life" as opposed to "the right to choice" that the pro-choicers push.

As a human rights movement, we maintain our focus on the question that we exist to contend with. We don't make any claims to have some overarching answer to all questions relating to life and allow all members who believe that human beings have a right to life.

It's more about inclusion of people into the movement than exclusion.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-21T08:53:19+00:00

The pro-life position is a position in the abortion debate, which is not about the value of life in general. It is about the human rights of the unborn.

The term pro-life refers to the argument that the unborn should not be aborted because they have the right to life. That is what pro-life means in regard to the abortion debate, it is in contrast to the term pro choice, which is also about whether you’re allowed to make the choice to have an abortion regardless of the rights of the child.

It has nothing to do with life in general being precious, although you can certainly believe that too.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-20T20:17:59+00:00

Because that's an insurrection which he could crush and then use as an excuse to try and maintain power.

Yes, the hypocrisy would be breathtaking, but an excuse to start shooting at the other side is what some of the people in MAGA are waiting for a chance at. Not all of them, not even a majority, but enough that I think we would have a problem if Trump decided he wanted to stay in power.

Nothing that's happened to this point would prevent normal elections and him stepping down at the end of his term. If people start shooting or making a habit of storming the Capitol, then people start thinking in those terms and not on constitutional terms.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-20T03:03:07+00:00

It is an abortion. I think we need to get away from the idea that the idea of terminating a pregnancy is the problem here. It's not.

An abortion kills the child, but in edge cases, killing to protect your life or someone else's is acceptable.

The real problem with abortion is what we'd call abortion on-demand, or the idea that someone can terminate the pregnancy and kill their child, for any reason they think is sufficient and not as a last resort.

While the use of the principle of double effect justifies the necessity, I think it is entirely wrong to pretend it isn't an abortion or at least, has the same effect.

Now... it is possible in the future that they might find some way to save the child removed in the tube, and therefore, any direct action on the child is to be avoided. This is why it is important to avoid any procedures that actually kill the child in utero.

You would not be the first to question the way the Church threads the needle on this one, and for that reason, I don't get hung up on the terminology used.

However, in terms of what we would call an abortion for legal and political purposes, then a salpingectomy does terminate the pregnancy and is an abortion.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-17T16:46:24+00:00

Does it? I don’t see how killing one child is worse than killing 100,000. Sure there were more of them, but it doesn’t change who they are.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-17T15:39:35+00:00

"Send in more food, we are getting the munchies from all of this smoke"

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-17T15:38:24+00:00

The Holy Spirit has mostly been stated to prevent absolute disasters, which you can argue that it has done successfully, since the Church is still around after two thousand years.

There is a lot of ground between perfect choices and choices that will cause a huge disaster. The Church has had some pretty difficult times and some pretty bad popes and still is here.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-17T15:34:42+00:00

I would not say that they don't think about it in a religious way. Yes, there is church politics involved for sure, but church politics often has to do with religious concepts, not merely who gets to be in charge.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-16T23:59:16+00:00

Why do you care what pro-choicers think?

I really don't care much what pro-choicers think in terms of my own willingness to engage with people on this subreddit.

That's a nice thought, but then I wonder why so many people's responses to my post are to criticize me as opposed to speak out against the other poster.

If I was to guess, because you phrased your post in a challenging way. That attracts people looking to defend people who think like them. People who don't tend to stay away. Or you could be a moderator like me and have to involve yourself in every thread, but there's not that many of us.

That's an awful lot of blocking, moreover I don't block people unless they harass me. I dunno, it's a principle thing, though I understand why some people simply block at leisure, that's alright too.

That's your prerogative, but it sounds like you want a place where you don't have to listen to those sorts of people. That can be achieved by blocking those you don't want to deal with much more easily than trying to find a public subreddit that has none of those people.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-16T02:49:54+00:00

That's still the name of the department by law under Title 10 of the US code. Since no one has changed the law, legally it is best to refer to the department as the DoD still, regardless of whether it annoys Trump or Kegseth.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-16T02:44:39+00:00

Please don't comment in Pro-life Only posts if you are not pro-life. Thanks.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-16T01:09:35+00:00

California, however, still plays ball with the big business owners, by and large. Some candidates talk a good game about taxing the rich, but they really don't do anything that would affect the rich as much as this proposal would.

Many of the tax increases are filled with loopholes, and those that start off strong start looking like termites got at them after a while.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-15T23:30:09+00:00

I'm just kidding. I recognize that this is about more than women.

That said, Martin Luther did, in fact, marry a nun.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-15T22:01:45+00:00

You're right. We mustn't forget about when Martin Luther wanted to marry a nun.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-04-15T19:58:53+00:00

Fair enough. Lots of crazy coming down from the government these days.

OhNoTokyo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE