rah

Women in relationships with assholes who believe they should have no rights

Firstly, the original commenter who described the kind of relationship we're discussing didn't say "no rights" they said "shouldn't be allowed to vote" which is a very much more limited view than what you're raging against.

are always being abused by the aforementioned asshole.

That's not the situation that was described by the original commenter. Just because someone is an asshole and has reprehensible views, doesn't necessarily mean that they are abusive. There's a difference and if you can't see and acknowledge that difference then you're just engaging in misandry. In which case, best of luck, take care, bye now.

Have you forgotten the entire context of this thread?

Nope.

Did you even glance at the article?

I read every word.

They also talked about ... a man who doesn’t want his partner to vote

That is not what they talked about. They said "men who genuinely claim that women shouldn't be allowed to vote". That is not the same thing as a man who displays controlling behaviour over their partner.

Can you really not infer anything from that?

There's no need for anyone to infer anything in this discussion, it's quite clear and explicit what people are talking about.

I don't understand your argument and you haven't addressed the issue at hand.

Please spell out for me why a woman in a relationship with a man who believes that women shouldn't have the right to vote, can't exit that relationship?

Victims of abuse are victims

Note that the person you responded to didn't mention abuse, you introduced the term "abuse". We're talking about women in relationships with assholes, not abused women.

Rowling is transphobic, that’s a fact

This Vox article misrepresents at least the first of the events it lists. It says

'this is notable because the piece made the basic argument Rowling continues to make today, namely that trans women are by default part of a “male-bodied” group who are dangerous to women and who should not have access to women’s bathrooms'

and this is partly true because the Medium article it's taking about, which Rowling liked, is indeed referring to a "male-bodied" group, that group being males:

'You have read our painful disclosures, our universal cries of me too! You have had a taste of what it might be like to try to navigate a male dominated world as a woman, and of how a socially conditioned fear of male bodies might ingrain itself.'

But in the tweet the Vox article quotes, they misrepresent the Medium article as referring not to males but to trans women:

'JK Rowling hitting that like button on a "trans women are rapists" piece'

This is a non sequitur.

You've spent two weeks with this woman. These are questions to be asking after two years. Chill. Enjoy what you have.

it was Purism's choice to start their own Debian-based PureOS instead of just helping develop PostmarketOS or another existing OS for less money

PureOS already existed for Purism's laptops. Purism didn't start PureOS for the phone.

was Purism's choice to start Phosh instead of just helping develop GNOME Shell

It was the GNOME Shell folks themselves who said not to use GNOME Shell on mobile because "it's a trap".

which Phosh appears to be heavily based on

phosh was written from scratch.

still don't understand how you think meat eaters are being harmed by the poor psychological state of the animals while they were alive

Psychological state has a great impact on the physical body. Hormones, neurotransmitters, etc., can be released or suppressed depending on psychological state. When you consume part of an animal, you consume part of that system. Think of the rush of chemicals (cortisol, adrenalin, etc.) in an animal as they're being slaughtered.

I could say more about subtle energy and karma but you probably get the idea.

the beef which enters a person's body won't be harmful to them (the person) at all

I differ completely.

If you're talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive

Well there's no psychological state when they're dead :-)

more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state

Cows having more absolute space than chickens doesn't imply that cows will have a better psychological state. What matters is how much space the animals have relative to how much space the animals need. I would expect farms to give animals precisely as little space as the farm can get away with, meaning the degree of suffering will be exactly at the point of maximum suffering while still surviving, for cows and chickens.

Regardless, I think there's likely more harm to meat eaters due to the psychological impact of being slaughtered.

Generally, there's no data on these issues so it's all just opinion either way. Suffice it to say that to me, your position seems naive.

industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in

You seem to be talking about material conditions. What concerns me more are the psychological conditions and I don't believe there to be any difference in that respect.

Do you believe that the beef which enters a person's body will be in some way less harmful, all else being equal, than chicken? Solely because of the absolute difference in the material conditions?

That red spot next to Ukraine makes me ashamed of my auburn hair :-(

Edit: curious why the downvotes?

disorganized thinking like that

What disorganised thinking?