post hardcore is more accurate, sure
i enjoy the more recent stuff but havent been blown away by it since beggars. major/minor was good. hurricane is one of my favourite songs they've done tho tbeitbn felt kinda jjst okay to me. but yeah i realllllly loved them between identity crisis and beggars
thrice went from like pop punk to whatever the fuck the alchemy index was to beggars. they're not really changing it up much these days but they were all over the place for a bit
ive never felt like that wrt queer terminology. like we can do both at once.
i feel it applies here. we can remove stigma by moving from homeless to unhoused. and we can also push for better treatment for unhoused people in public spaces, more shelters, and ultimately just like, homes. they dont feel exclusive to me i guess is how i feel
hahahahah i know little bits about biafra's delightful weirdness. i'd rather see a well-meaning bonkers ass joke mayor than a serious one who gets a bunch of people killed on purpose
you didn't come off as a dick. i just think you were wrong. i give everyone the benefit of the doubt too, but people who wear conservative colours remove all doubt when they put on their uniforms. a conservative set of beliefs implies certain actions and behaviours, and literally every single one of them is destructive socially, and most of them are destructive to me personally.
i see a conservative, and i know i'm in danger. whether they say "you know i actually don't have a problem with gay people!!" or not
it categorically does not undermine the seriousness of what's being discussed. it casts aside stigma and hatred lumped onto groups from the outside and allows people in marginalized groups some degree of agency or choice in how they're named which usually results in more accurate terminology that's adaptive and capable of shifting away from terms and meanings applied by unaffected people in media and politics. these changes also create community and organization in marginalized groups
source: being gay and trans
i haven't seen the bit. but there is literally no evidence that seriousness gets undermined. sure, bigots will use shifts in terminology to mock their targets, but bigots were always going to do bigot shit anyway. again, i'd like to believe that carlin would've seen how things progressed into the 2010s and 2020s and painted targets on the powerful instead of the powerless.
speaking as a trans queer person, having seen the rhetoric conservatives use to speak about people like me in both media and politics, having seen how they treat disabled folk (many of my queer friends are disabled), having seen how they treat the poor and unhoused, many of my lgbtq friends being poor and unhoused, having to do sex work that terrifies me bc i can't afford rent on disability rates
yea you can't be conservative in 2023 and support queer rights or advancement. it's literally not possible. you can privately be accepting of queer people in your life. but if you're a conservative, you're grouping up with people who are trying to kill us.
edit: bc i'm dumb and white i didn't include this initially, but conservatives also organizationally support cops lynching Black folk and i'd like to add that, this is another reason i will literally never befriend or fuck or even tolerate a conservative, outside of contexts where my safety is at risk. fuck conservatives. every one of them.
what people call you and how you're referred to affects how you're treated, directly. this is why propaganda works. i'd like to think carlin would understand that fucking around with marginalized groups trying to better their perception and situation is probably not super cool, and that it'd be much more chill to go after the powerful assholes doing the marginalizing. but who knows.
the word homeless has stigma attached thanks to movies, tv, politicians, news. unhoused drops alot of that stigma. removing that stigma is important in the interest of allowing people to feel empathy for those affected rather than fear. i still slip every now and again but the rationale makes sense and i'm trying to do better.
if your opinion is, it's correct to chase homeless people out of the few spaces they have access to, being told you're an anti-social monster who doesn't deserve anything good until you fix your revolting black heart, is getting off super easy.
opinions on how to best reorganize urban settings to promote liveability? i'll be respectful. "opinions" that get displace and kill people? they create complicity in murder and violence and you deserve to be absolutely and firmly cast out of any meaningful discussion.
if you're uncomfortable with unhoused people existing, go do some activism. when enough of you murderous clowns come around and something gets done to house these people, great. we're good. until then, shut the fuck up you monster. there's no middle ground or debate here. your behaviour is disgusting.
cool so elon musk, one of the worst people in the world, going up against the organizations responsible for twitch streamers having to mute audio when licensed songs play in video games they're streaming.
so like 2 of the worst organizations in the world. i hope they both lose.
they're doing it because rich people are scared of unhoused people and want them to disappear or die. no wifi means unhoused people wont hang out around the library means rich people in the area will see fewer unhoused people
it's revolting and it's violent. people die when homeless people get bullied out of spaces and harassed by cops.
i'm like the barest thread away from homelessness. i don't think it's fair to tone police me down when people are expressing disgust about people in a position i'll probably be in when i'm too old to pay my bills with unwanted subsistence sex work. when people are supporting measures designed to make life more hostile for people like that.
people who express disgust about unhoused people, and believe it's okay to throttle their already super limited access to society, are lost causes. that's violent instigation against people who can't defend themselves and these attitudes get. people. killed.
it's weird how even spaces on fedi require that you Politely and Respectfully Debate people who lead with genocidal intent. think about who was impolite or intolerant first. think about whether anything i said was "unprovoked." anyway speaking of tolerance i have none for environments that aren't safe for poor and unhoused folk and it's, all things considered, unsurprising that a model based on reddit ended up being, predominantly, another That.
best of luck and goodbye i guess. you can have the genocide people or you can have their victims but you can't have both.