For a second I read that as America, and I thought, eh, pretty close.

But for real though, maybe we do also get rid of cars? Why not build more public transit and less drunk driving accidents? The only especially bad part of this is the police.

We didn’t start the fire!

Source on this?

It’s not easy, fast, or free, but it is worth it. I currently still have a Spotify account, but I’m weaning myself off. I’ve been going the Bandcamp + jellyfin route. Buy an album a month (about the price of monthly streaming) and add it to my personal library. Next month, check what I’ve been listening to most on Spotify and buy that. It’s twice as expensive (for now) but I’m supporting artists more directly and have an exit strategy for Spotify. Curious about other’s approaches!

…sure, I guess? An argument can be repurposed to try and make a lot of different points. Here’s the thing though…

A logical argument is considered valid if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. However, an argument can be valid but not necessarily true (like the argument you’re suggesting). This is because validity only concerns the form of the argument, not the truth of the premises or the conclusion.

Here are some examples of valid but not necessarily true arguments:

Modus ponens: If it’s raining, then the streets will be wet. It is raining. Therefore, the streets will be wet. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the streets are not wet for some other reason.

Modus tollens: If it is not raining, then the streets will not be wet. The streets are not wet. Therefore, it is not raining. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the streets are not wet for some other reason.

Hypothetical syllogism: If it is raining, then the streets will be wet. If the streets are wet, then the roads are slippery. Therefore, if it is raining, then the roads are slippery. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the roads are not slippery for some other reason.

In each of these examples, the argument is valid because it follows a valid logical form, but it may not be true because the premises or conclusion may not be true.

Now think about the “enough men” argument. It’s not translatable to misogyny and racism because the context (the premises) is vastly different for people who don’t identify as men, and for people who are not white, straight, or really any other centered group (these things vary a lot depending on the specific culture you’re looking at and the intersectional dynamics that exist). Not enough women are violent towards men (though this does happen, and it is also bad) for men to have a realistic need to protect themselves in as many interactions.

Using the argument out of specific context, without true premises, nearly guarantees that the argument will no longer be true, while still being logically valid.

So there you have it; you don’t need to worry about security seeing all your bits and pieces - just whatever you’ve forgotten to take out of your pockets.

Clearly not written by someone who knows any trans people.

The Raccoontuers

I don’t know why you’re so upset at the article. Every time I compare myself to the Joneses I feel all sorts of inadequacy. /S

The issue is not with people feeling inadequate. The issue is fully with wealth inequality.