My omission of your point was intentional because as I said, in this context it’s not pedantic but rather self-defeating.

If we were in a different context I’d be right there with you championing the fact that trans men are effected by reproductive rights issues.

But for all the reasons I’ve already explained I chose not to bring transgender matters into this conversation because it only serves to make it harder to get the things you actually want, which is reproductive healthcare equality for trans men (and women).

It was a deliberate choice to meet my target audience where they are, knowing that a victory in that context would benefit trans men too.

While you are technically correct, this is very obviously a discussion about reproductive rights, and the historical oppression of women as those who are most commonly impacted by reproductive rights issues. Your point is factual and valid but it is a distraction from the very important conversation being had here.

If this discussion leads to improved protection of reproductive rights, by pointing to the imbalance between traditionally male and traditionally female rights under US law, then trans men will also benefit. As such, the distraction of pointing out that trans men are also impacted therefore it’s “not just women” and the implication that we shouldn’t be talking about the ongoing oppression of women but rather “uterus havers”, works against your own interests.

The people who need to be convinced that reproductive rights need protection, and for whom the “it’s imbalanced” argument will be effective, are often even more vehemently opposed to trans issues. Bringing your point up here only serves to further entrench people who might otherwise be swayed to make changes that would benefit trans men. This is called “breaking into jail”.

There is a time and a place to have the “trans men are impacted by reproductive rights issues” discussion and this isn’t it.

No, I’m saying that women are SUPPOSED to have the same rights as everyone (e.g. complete bodily autonomy) but have their rights restricted in varying ways from state to state.

This really isn’t that hard to understand. Women have had their rights restricted in ways that men didn’t for a long, long time. It’s so normal that you aren’t even aware of it.

They got the right to vote later than men.

They got federal protection for their right to have their own bank account without a man’s approval in 1974 for fuck’s sake.

Is it so hard to recognize that women’s rights are controlled in ways that men’s aren’t?

You are missing the point. There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women’s rights.

Things like parental rights don’t apply here because those impact both genders (they are zero-sum; a decrease in men’s paternal rights implies an increase in women’s rights).

Only women have specific rights that ONLY impact women and vary from state to state

You’re missing the point: are any of those rights different my state only for men or are all of those rights different by state for EVERYONE including men and women?

There are no rights exclusive to men that vary by state. The only rights that vary by state for one gender are women’s rights

Anyone who knows anything about what a large language model is already knew this.

Gaza is none of the things you listed there.

Moving people from Gaza to another location achieves none of the things you named.

For the record, I am NOT in favor of relocating anyone but the fuckfaced Israeli settlers in the West Bank

Still doesn’t somehow mean the majority of Israelis favor genocide.

The hyperbole needs to stop.

IsraelHayom is as bad as FOX News in terms of bias and hackery while your second source very specifically talks about expulsion, not genocide. I’m not gonna suggest that forcing everyone out of Gaza is even remotely okay but it is a far, far cry from “most Israelis support exterminating everyone in Gaza”.

It is frankly concerning that you have been convinced by a fear-mongering news source and a marginally related opinion piece that “most Israelis want to exterminate all Gazans”. Please do better.

I see you are too fired up to actually have a back and forth. Maybe some other time

here are the top 5 songs according to Spotify. if you have a different top song list I’d be happy to look at it.

Can you tell me which lyrics you take issue with?

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/omer-adam-malkat-hador-english

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/odeya-ben-adam-english

https://lyricstranslate.com/sr/noa-kirel-bridezilla-english

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/omer-adam-hashir-shat-ahavt-english

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/peer-tasi-muzar-english

Would you like me to find vile Twitter posts from any particular nation or culture? it’s not hard

Or would you prefer the articles about social media bots supporting netenyahu?

Can you define “they” and “them” please?

Wishing harm on strangers isn’t the strong position you seem to think it is

You just aggregated an entire national population into a single “they” and I don’t think that’s okay

I do not disagree with you that the government and a large contingent of Israelis fit that description. And I’m not sure why you think otherwise. No society is a monolith.

First of all, please cite your polling sources. You cannot make such a strong claim without providing a reputable polling source.

Second, your population chart is misleading as it is only marginally more bottom heavy than the world average

I appreciate the argument you’re making and I’m not dismissive you outright but you have not been convincing.

I’m not even going to pretend to defend the behavior of the Israeli military, government, orthodoxy, and settlers, but it is hyperbolic to claim a majority of Israelis are in favor of genocide. That just isn’t true by any reasonable measure.

It’s mostly about consent. We can debate when and where sentience begins, but it begins somewhere and vegans hold a moral philosophy that says using another sentient being’s work product or body without their consent is immoral.

Note that I am not vegan myself but understand, if not agree with, their moral position.

And as another reply said, most vegans recognize it as a “best effort” philosophy, as they appreciate the impracticality of an absolutist stance. They are focused on “harm reduction”.

blue = azul

bluey = azula

Site-to-site and individual client setups are not mutually exclusive. They can co-exist.

I have Wireguard on both my phone and laptop - and tailscale should work the same way - which I only activate when I’m away from my home network.

You could even set it up where each “roaming” device is always connected to their “home” network by VPN, which uses site-to-site to further route the traffic where it needs to go.

I recommend looking into setting up site-to-site VPN configurations between routers at each location. I have this set up between my home network and my parents’ network.

Once you have it properly configured you can simply have the router itself handle routing of specific traffic over the VPN connection, instead of needing each device to connect to the VPN individually.

it’s a bit more complicated to set up and maintain but not anything outrageously complex, and absolutely worth it for your use case IMO