I didn’t watch tat much movies, but maybe you’re right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I’m also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).

I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it’s more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I’m wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.

I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by “capturing hearts and minds” if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.

So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.

Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.

Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it’s really reasonable.

For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it’s not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.

Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)

Im with you ! I know and understand people don’t like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)

Happy to hear this. That’s the danger of implied things, your message ends up way worse when you dont say them out loud

Okay you now have stated a correct reason. I would add two things that can help you refine your way of seeing things :

• It’s probably best to say ‘kill Russian invaders’ or even ‘kill invaders’, since the problem is invaders and not Russian (I mean, killing random civilians in Moscow wont help Ukraine, but it’s still what you said is good)
• Insisting on killing is still weird. Killing soldiers is not the goal of fighting an invasion back, it is one way to achieve the real goal : all Russians soldiers out of Ukraine. If that’s what you’re talking about, i advise you to say ‘fighting’ instead of ‘killing’, so it’s not mistaken for a random bloodlust against a country.

Now I got to apologize if we agree on all those points, I mistook your shortened thinking for blatant stupidity, which would be my bad

Alright alright, promoting killing of people based on their country without bothering giving a reason, i see what type of asshole im talking to

Yeah, like it never happened thar US weapons send somewhere to fight Russians were then used for even worse purposes Besides, is killing Russians a good thing? I mean fighting back the invasion is necessary, and it will cause deaths in russians troops but we should wish for a minimum of casualties, we are talking about human lives

I see what you mean, in your case as well as mine, Reaper is far more powerful and so far more adequate to our needs But people do not always search for powerful software. Sometimes they only want something easy to learn, with only basic tasks but well performed and entirely free. When you have these requirements, Audacity is better

Not at the moment, from what I know

Eh, what you say is interesting actually. Still, imo it does not change any of what has been said prior to that, you still made a scene to complain about people “making a scene”, and you still complained “we have the right to talk” while defending someone saying trans should stop talking.

This being said and put apart, i can identify two points in your comment.

1. You do not think people should care about trans rights, because in your opinion they are not threatened, and they should be considered as anyone else.
2. You have a huge problem with children having access to medical transition. (Not said in a bad way, but given that half your message is about this very precise point of the whole more diverse notion that are transgender and transsexuality, and that it is “all (you) have to say about”, it really seems the main, if not the only, issue for you).

For the 1st point :

• There are two types of violence. let’s call them blind violence and targeted violence. First one can strike anyone, anywhere, both you and trans people. Second one can only strike targeted peoples and communities, like trans, and maybe groups of people you belong to, or are considered to belong to (religions, origins, etc.). It’s very difficult to prevent blind violence, by it’s very nature. But targeted violence is more easy to prevent, precisely because it’s easier to identify potential targets and potential criminals. Targeted violence is also more massive. That’s why people try to care about communities which are targets of violence, as trans are, and as many other are, sadly.
• You make a difference between trans rights and your own rights. What about that trans rights are your rights ? You have the right to change gender, you have the right to have medical help about that, and so on. Trans do not have more rights, you have the same as them. Just because you do not need it does not mean it’s not your rights. You don’t know where your life will lead you, maybe you’ll need it at some point.
• You seem to have a specific definition of “diverse”, which i don’t understand. I cannot really guess why you do not find Lemmy “diverse”. If you consider that “diverse” means a place where you can say you don’t like trans, well first you actually can, and then it’s not really what i would call diverse. To me, diversity is different from freedom of speech. Diversity -> you can produce “positive” things, meaning they have a meaning on their own. Freedom of speech -> you can produce “negative” things, meaning you can disagree with someone/something. To sum it up : imo criticism isnt diversity, it’s more on the freedom of speech spectrum. And in any case, you can criticize a lot here on Lemmy.
• I dont really know which are the “issues we should be up in arms about”. If your true goals are freedom, happiness and healthiness, well the actual fate of trans people should be your concern, because they are the target of specific violence so more violence than the average (happiness–), the right of switching genders is at stake in many countries (freedom–) and their handling by health professional is also in danger (healthiness–). There are others matters that are as important, and we can even say more important, i would agree on that. But why on earth would you argue that everything is going fine for trans people and that they should shut up, while on the same time saying you are defending happiness and freedom of speech ?

For the 2nd point :

• As i said, it seems very specific. Kid surgery is a hot topic, even in trans communities, and that is not at all what is the most important in trans struggle. So it seems a bit unfair to focus that much on it.
• You should not call medical transition “cosmetic surgery”, because it’s not what it is, it’s actually considered therapy, as it is meant to prevent bad effects on your health. Your body is not the only thing to consider, your mental health matters too. If you can help a kid avoiding suicide and madness thanks to medicine, it is therapy, not cosmetic surgery. (You can be against this kind of therapy though, but you dont need it to be considered cosmetic surgery to be against).
• As i said before, all kids remain equal in rights in this case. they all get access to the same therapies, and all are banned from cosmetic surgery.
• One of the problem people try to avoid by changing sex is gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the fact of having mental issues due to your body. So it is both a physical and a psychological problem, your body is in the heart of the problem, so changing it is one of the solutions.
• Still, you can say that for any ethics reasons you should not change a kid’s sex. I do not agree but yeah, sure, that’s your opinion. Is this one disagreement really enough for you to defend that trans should stop talking about their issues, that they are the real problem and that you are the good guy by telling them to shut up ? I mean, from a logical point of view, it’s obviously wrong, you cannot pass from one to the other. But i even struggle to understand how a single point like this can make you that much tired of hearing about trans. I must confess that i strongly suspect that though this is all that you have to say, it is not all you think, and that you have many more disagreement that you wish to keep for yourself.

Im sorry my answer is so long, i already shortened it as much as i could. Sorry if this a problem for you. Two things i want to acknowledge “quickly” :

• Being trans is not something you want or choose, as a lot of what you said seems to imply. It’s not just what you think, it’s what you are, and you have very little power about it, like our cis identity (i presume you are cis, sorry if not). This plus the fact that our societies are more hostile towards trans people makes it logical that they should deserve a specific medical care, because they cannot change how they feel by the only power of their will.
• All what you said is your point of view, and i respect that. I advise you to try and consider though, that it might hurt peoples. Not a lot of course, but that’s the problem with systemic hate : even little and peaceful disagreements, when put together, can become a huge moral burden. Of course the solution is not for you to shut up. Continue to express yourself. But if you just think about how it can hurt people, i truly believe that it can help you expressing your point of view while caring for the people it could hurt, and so making it less hurtful. And if you feel too overwhelmed by anything else, or too lazy to think about this, well, i happily admit that it’s not a huge deal, there are bigger problems out here.

Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is “not” violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a “like” system than a “like/dislike” : there isn’t really a way to disagree with a statement (the “angry” emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

Well, let’s take it as a personal opinion then. Now here’s mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.

I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like “making a show of being hated -> attention seeker”. But ok, let’s forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that’s the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It’s very simple really. Either you don’t get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?

Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating “Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them” and “Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us” ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it’s funny it’s the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing

Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as “ironic”. Like someone complains “I’m tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”, and someone replies “Im’ tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”. I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment’s logic to itself.

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

• Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
• Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge’s approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
• More ID checking to “protect minor”

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

• preventing children to access porn
• punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
• punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
• preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
• regulating the market of cloud storage providers
• regulating gambling and real-money video games
• preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

• Fines for website admins who do not comply
• Forcing websites to check people’s identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
• Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
• Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
• Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
• Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
• Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
• It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like “Pirating contents harms artistic creation” (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
• It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
• Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.