baddisease

I really hate when leakers fuck up the songs. Don't leak them if you're going to ruin them. It reminds me of old school leakers putting their shitty "DJ" tags on everything.

Can someone tell me why people want the original files of Lana's leaks? Is there a quality difference? Or is it a collector thing?

Don't fall for ragebait.

Idk I like it when she swears lol

Ethel made it. Fox sux cox

The really unnecessary swearing in Cherry. It would have been perfect without it, which is why I prefer the clean version.

For some reason, I think the Venn Diagram of politicians who would be willing to support hate speech and trans rights are the same, so....

You're not understanding how anti-trans rhetoric influences politicians, the people who pass laws and make policy, and how that makes me lose rights? I don't mean to be rude either but I don't know how to make this any more clear. Hate speech by both private individuals and political thinkers and influencers enters the media which influences politicians who pass laws that restrict trans rights. Do you get it?

I'm not sure how it would work in the USA but I know other countries do it and manage to do it in a way that other things are still legal.

If you meant how not limiting their speech limits our rights it's because they lie about trans people, constantly and consistently. And publications that are right or right leaning pick up those lies, that hate speech. No amount of fact checks matter. Once the lies are out there, it validates the bigotry of a lot of the haters. My problem with the idea that hate speech should be okay, other than me not liking it, is that it's never based on logic, so engaging them the way free speech absolutists want is near impossible. They'll lie, twist or invent their own logic, and when all else fails they'll resort to slanders. They use children, for instance, to do this. People argue calmly for that rights, challenge the illogical beliefs of transphobes. And when the transphobes are losing, they just call trans people and people who support us pedophiles. Nobody can push back bc then they'll say "oh you're defending pedos now!" As long as these people do this, I don't think the idealistic idea that facts and truth would win is realistic. The only recourse when these people lie, incite to violence, and incite to genocide (and calling to "end transgenderism" is, imo, a call to genocide) along with other examples of anti-trans hate speech is to keep them from being able to spew it consequences free.

I'm sad I won't get best taste

If we limit their hate speech, we're limiting our rights. If we let them spout hate speech, that will be limiting our rights. Doesn't sound like there's any winning.

Also that minorities deserve rights isn't something I'm willing to debate with anyone. Why in the world are people dying on the hate speech hill?

If anyone "disagrees" with trans rights, they can fuck all the way off.

I'll be nicer. I don't see how unrestricted free speech will do that. There's been unrestricted free speech outside of SM and it's all led to what's happening now.

Unrestricted free speech marginalizes us According to you, restricting it marginalizes us. What, precisely, won't?

How? That's not even logical. Just read what I linked. Also just saying "you're wrong" doesn't actually make me wrong.

I'm going to leave these here https://time.com/6171183/elon-musk-free-speech-tech-bro/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/11/elon-musk-donald-trump-free-speech-bro.html

Like I said, no amount of your free speech debate shit will keep the right from coming after you. You can't talk or reason your way out of what they want. First of all: I am trans, I work with trans people, I organize with them. I know more than you do. It's even ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Also I HIGHLY doubt they'd be okay with the right-wing doing what they're doing. Absolute free speech only empowers the people who want to marginalize us and you've yet to actually demonstrate how it helps us. Like I said, I'll never be a free speech bro bc I know that it can be harmful.

I'm really hoping the features are limited on this album. Her recent features have been ridiculous and barely Lana songs. I was okay with Dealer being mostly not Lana bc the song was good but I can't keep doing that. And I get she wants to support her friends but a lot of her friends really suck musically.

How is it crazy and wrong? I will never and can never be a free speech bro that thinks language and speech doesn't influence the world around them. And, as a specific example, anti-trans hate speech is contributing and has contributed to the systemic oppression of trans people and the Day 1 mission of Trump to "end transgender lunacy" with 4 specific policy actions was directly influenced by hate speech targeting us and the very public and very popular call to "eradicate transgender ideology" in Washington DC is supporting that. According to you and everyone who thinks like you that's completely okay for them to do and is enabled by that worldview. They're going to almost certainly successfully obliterate trans identity and " free speech" bullshit birthed that. No amount of reasoned debate has stopped that. You're not even acknowledging the history of speech and it's influence on oppression bc the right to be hateful is more important to you. And I really hope you're not gay or bi bc once they're done with us, they'll get to you and no amount of speech will save you.

Like I said earlier, I value minorities and oppressed groups over the right of people to spout bullshit. I do. I've yet to see any argument that could budge me from that position. And like I said, bigotry and hate speech doesn't come from logic, so no amount of speech will stop it.

OB isn't flawless. There are good songs but then the songs that aren't good tend to be bad.

"Human nature" isn't really a good argument here. There are societies and have been societies that restricted free speech that did, in fact, protect minorities in a way that kept the from bearing the full brunt of oppression and marginalization. Additionally, cultures are different and certain types of marginalization didn't always exist in some cultures but was introduced by an external force. This is true of queer people. There have been and are societies that didn't harm is or harm us as much until the European Christian West colonized or otherwise genocided them. "Logical arguments against they can use against idiots" implies that bigotry - both individual and systemic - is logical and can be reasoned with out of existence. It can't be. The antisemitic arguments both in Nazi Germany and all the ones that led up to it, for instance, were illogical and based on fake sciences, religion, and twisting of historical facts. Those people couldn't be reasoned with. It took a war to stop it. And even then they needed ideological reeducation and restructuring (both societal and ideological). Same with anti black racism. Logic and free speech didn't stop slavery or the Klan. The Civil War, Reconstruction, and suppression of organizations like the KKK (though not entirely successful) were what helped to alleviate that for a time period. You can use free speech to advocate against those people but typically it only comes back with a vengeance eventually. The resurgence of queerphobia under Trump and overt racism in the Obama era proves that. It's not "being afraid that other opinions could prove us wrong", it's that history has consistently shown that allowing those opinions to thrive only allows them to fester and grow even as active attempts to challenge them in the court of public opinion happen. The Paradox of Tolerance applies here: a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance bc to allow intolerance would destroy tolerance completely.

You don't have the right of "free speech" on social media. You have to abide be their rules. And providing those arguments, no matter how strong, doesn't really seem to lead the people who are wrong to change.