What does it look like? Does this ongoing discussion truly sound like the kind of concern that would be compatible with a certain individual that was declared unwelcome in trans communities based on a history of intolerance?
I don’t know your game, but with all that having been expressed, don’t compare me to a transphobe. I’m not even sure what anyone who isn’t obsessed with past community members would think this has to do with the question.
My week has been good. I’ve been getting end-of-the-month shopping done.
I thought that place was dead.
And we’re sure the writer wasn’t going for Greek or just chose the Cyrillic font found on many programs to slightly conceal the message?
Let us hope. Not defending either of these two individuals, but Pope Leo wasn’t afraid of throwing shade on Donald Trump due to his practices involving ICE at the most vulnerable moments, which follows Pope Francis who was equally political but more about social progress (e.g. climate change). Both of these popes, as well as Pope Benedict, always used to stop just short of declaring full tolerance towards LGBT practices while trying to appeal to the LGBT crowd, so let’s hope this is their limit.
Was that what the manifesto video was? I was early to the news but too late to see her manifesto part before it was blocked out. Though without having seen it and having just heard about it, I found it absurd she expected nobody to do anything about it, like it was just going to stay on display after she had died.
Based on the track record of the people currently in power, I wouldn’t put it past them to use that as a justification in hindsight, but how do we know it was what the shooter meant to bring about at the time of her actions?
Even though only one has succeeded?
He wasn’t fighting an officer that saw him coming though.
The pope right now seems staunchly anti-Trump. Unless you mean in the sense that this fuels him (the pope). I don’t know. The possibility of the norms being broken does feel like it could be at play. Some saints have become saints without the typical rules. The Romanovs are a good example of this. It was almost instantaneous, and they’re explicitly not even Catholic to my knowledge. To cite another one, there’s a muderous conquistador who is relevant here too, though I forgot his name. He slaughtered two hundred indigenous people and was by no means “practicing”, yet he was on a Catholic mission, so poof, he had started climbing the ranks. Saint Tekakwitha might be a recent third (but more innocent) example. She too challenged what it means to be Catholic, but the story goes the papacy was so desperate to penetrate the Haudenosaunee that they were like “she’s extremely lowkey, but we’ll take it”.
Close. She massacred Minneapolis Catholic school students.
has there been a transphobic reaction from the holy see? and why?
Not yet, but this is a concern, especially as he is from where it happened, is of the affected group, is only a year in office, and probably knows the casualties were all children who were born after 2010 and would make sainthood records in regards to their ages (one even took a bullet for a classmate).
To sum it up, there was a mass shooting yesterday at a Catholic school in Minneapolis. Depending on the sources, the body count is currently either three or six, including the shooter who chose to die rather than let herself be arrested. Seventeen more were injured. The first thing people will notice about the shooter is that she is male-to-female transgender, and she mentions this in a manifesto she wrote that was intended to be seen after the shooting (but the place she published it to took it down, who would’ve thunk).
Initially I would’ve thought that three (or even six) people wouldn’t have made as much of an impact as, say, the typical twenty something people you hear about, but we live in a weird timeline and people are reacting more to this than in other cases. It’s safe to speculate there’s also some bias at play. Now enter the pope. He got appointed this year and for once is literally as American as apple pie. I think of all these circumstances put together and I think “well shit”.
No. The reason the statistics claim that is that their definition of “mass shooting” isn’t as strict as the one held by the individuals who look up the statistics.
Had you heard of the American mass shooting yesterday?
I hear this a lot from all sides, but how do people actually think civilians with guns are going to fare against government enforcers who would inevitably be better armed? They never tell us that part.
Guarantee it doesn’t make things any better.
TIL there’s a Department of Violence and Apathy.
For someone so rich, you’d think he’d know a little more science.