"Exactly as horrible" is unfair to you. But it sounds like you're advocating to give up on rule of law and just have the strongest most violent people be the ones to decide what's right. And I'd argue that you'd just get back to where we are right now: wealthy people would control the system, they'd employ strong violent people to enforce their personal whims as "law", and you'd be complaining that nobody is willing to beat up the pedophile (because his friends would hire goons to kill them).

I mean, presumably that's what's stopping you personally from implementing your own recommendation, right? Because if you showed up and kicked this guy's ass you'd be beaten and arrested by the police.

labels that the people you were labeling didn’t even like

This is a silly criticism. "Latinx" and similar terms were used by some US kids of Latin-American descent and those people felt the "X"-ed words provided them better representation. Many native Spanish speakers didn't feel represented and objected to the terms being applied to them. So: there were two (maybe even more???) groups of people and they didn't agree on one label being applied to both of them.

It doesn't make sense to say that this is a problem with "woke" (wtf does that even mean) because the "non-woke" alternative is to use labels that people don't like... exactly the thing you're complaining woke did wrong. It's not a change making us worse off, it's just a failure to deliver total success. (Maybe it failed to deliver even partial success here? That's a conversation that might be worth having, but "worse off" seems like a straight hallucination.)

Now, if you want to say, "I have a big criticism of progressive movements: they do not succeed to the degree that they promise!" then sure. You should get in line behind literally every person who has ever considered themselves progressive, because all of them have also come up with this brilliant piece of insight and are eager to share it.

Whoah how did you type those words that are illegal to say? You must be so brave

It's interesting how the English language makes a phrase like "trans women are women" ambiguous about the number of women that each trans woman is... I always assumed "one" but you raise an interesting question.

That I've unwisely installed some bad software and I should delete it, as recommended.

It's fucked up that the Greens actually went into business as Russian stooges instead of just being an opposition party.

Do you feel like you understand what "hacked" even means? If so: a phone is a little computer. If not... I donno. I guess you should give a bit more story about why you're interested in "hacking" and yet know so little about it? Something that makes it more interesting to reply.

For basic questions, why wouldn't you start with Wikipedia, which is an excellent resource? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_hacking

Many on the cultural right are forgetting something critical: same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights. A crucial argument against gender ideology was the infringement on women’s rights. But unlike trans edge cases such as women’s sports or prisons, marriage isn’t a zero-sum issue. There isn’t a finite number of spots on the “marriage team.” My getting married takes nothing away from straight couples.

It's too bad they're both too incurious to think for themselves and so media-illiterate that they haven't read The Handmaid's Tale... Obviously lesbian couples can be broken up and forced into miserable straight marriages and this is precisely what the right would want to do! (It's even part of the American past that MAGA wants to return to!)

100%

Also the "it wasn't a fear-based decision, I just rationally opposed all the forced child gender-transitions". It's not possible to roll ones eyes hard enough.

I actually do have empathy for a TERF who'd say, "I uncritically chugged conservative media and become terrified of stories about men 'transitioning' as a way to attach women. Now I see that was all lies and I was a fool who never tried putting myself in others' shoes."

Peter Thiel has confidence that his own personal power will keep him safe. Since he's a sociopath, having homosexuality be illegal actually benefits him because if he gets tired of a relationship he can just out the other man and have them executed.

It's not entirely clear to me whether history supports his confidence. But little no-name "activists" like the article author are always going to be destroyed.

One of the more rational things he's said. The US is not interested in holding him accountable and other countries aren't willing/able to risk attacking the US to kidnap him.

I think the US will be fine as long as we don't repeatedly elect some kind of cabal of pedophile authoritarians.