Imagine how much I don’t care about celebrities’ genitalia

The rare double ambiguity: “work on” and “work with” could both have two meanings with opposite effects in the sentence

Very funny, but in what scenario does my proposed solution not work

Yeah, the AI- free Firefox browser is normal firefox with the AI slider set to “off”

Noooo bigmachole got banned? Mods are you aware it’s satire?

I bet you could do like a network analysis of post times to see this effect as it spreads from fox to big figures to influencers to magats

Well, I suppose it protects your session

THEY DID IT AGAIN

What did sniper tf2 know that we don’t?

https://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/1/17/Sniper_taunts17.wav

It counts as the Epstein files whenever the media says it does I guess. I hate this species

That would require thought

if(computerShouldWork){ dont(); }

This is gold

Yeah, MTG is crazy but she hasn’t been bought, which is unfortunately rare

This is why Epic is losing lol

I do, it bothers me lol

Laptop and bag of dice for D&D

True! I’m glad for this thread. (And, to be clear, I’m not arguing against protections for femicide-- just arguing for extending those protections to cover more scenarios). I think my response to you in the other comment chain conveys my feelings well.

I think I just see the purpose of creating laws differently than you do. To me, there is an abstract ideal law that we should aim for. The relative necessity to current society of different potential laws is not something I consider important to what laws shpuld be added; if we are adding the femicide protections, it makes sense to also add them for other genders, even if those protections are not currently needed to the same degree, and the urgency to add them is therefore lower. But it seems like you are viewing the act of adding a law as something meant to address the problems in current society, and that we should focus on the laws that are most immediately helpful now, because that will do the most good, regardless of if those laws could be improved before passing to cover lesser issues like I am pushing for. I think that’s a sensible enough way to operate-- you can’t make the laws perfect before passing them, so doing the most good you can by passing the most important laws first and coming back later to fix lesser issues that may still exist afterwards makes sense-- but since it’s not the perspective I’m coming from, it took me a while to realize how you are thinking about this issue.

(Sorry for wall of text)

Edit:

Generalizing the law implies that the problem is equal

This is a good example of a disagreement caused by how we view the act of passing laws. To me, modifying a law to cover more scenarios makes it “more correct” and should always be done. But if you believe that more important laws should be passed first rather than revised to be more complete for theoretical future scenarios, me claiming that the law should be extended to all genders is implying that all genders have the same need for the law to be passed, and therefore that the issue is equal across genders, which is clearly incorrect.

I don’t think it’s valid to pretend my arguments are entirely pointless and then dismiss them because it’s a serious issue. Of course it’s a serious issue; that’s why I’m arguing about it. I’m not calling your arguments hysteria or illogical just because they’re motivated by different reasons than mine are. I am perfectly willing to know why you believe generalizing the law would make it less effective; I explicitly asked, even. But if you do not feel that it is worth it to go into detail then I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by continuing this discussion.