|
Well, from that CNN article, Maduro's still striking a conciliatory note, so things aren't teeter-tottering yet.
Maduro assured his supporters that "there will not be a dictatorship in Venezuela" and reiterated his initiative for a dialogue to heal divisions.
He said the pro-government Constitutional Assembly is studying the possibility of early parliamentary elections "this very year."
"I am in agreement with rectifying the legislative power of the nation and going forward with free elections in the nation with guarantees, and for the people to decide on a new National Assembly," he told a Caracas rally.
|
On February 03 2019 08:35 iamthedave wrote:Well, from that CNN article, Maduro's still striking a conciliatory note, so things aren't teeter-tottering yet. Show nested quote +Maduro assured his supporters that "there will not be a dictatorship in Venezuela" and reiterated his initiative for a dialogue to heal divisions.
He said the pro-government Constitutional Assembly is studying the possibility of early parliamentary elections "this very year."
"I am in agreement with rectifying the legislative power of the nation and going forward with free elections in the nation with guarantees, and for the people to decide on a new National Assembly," he told a Caracas rally.
Maduro has been open to talks (I think he accepts he can't maintain the level of corruption and ineffectiveness in the government regardless of how much blame is allocated where) since this started.
By all appearances/reports Guaido's faction pulled out of previous talks, boycotted the election, swore himself in as President, and is now refusing talks and threatening direct military intervention from the US unless Maduro vacates the office.
Presumably since the US has continued to confirm that military invasion and occupation is on the table Guaido is making these credible threats for US invasion with the support of the US and Trump.
The US and Guaido don't want elections in my opinion. They would say the elections can't be legitimate, despite Guaido's faction being the ones to tell the UN not to observe the election and suggestions from the former Spanish PM (who was spearheading the talks before Guaido backed out) to seek solutions through traditional electoral reviews.
Perhaps Guaido-Maduro isn't being used by the US to justify our plans for the exploitation of Venezuela but it sure looks like it to me.
If talks do happen between the opposition and Maduro (Guaido may have overplayed his hand here) it will be despite the best efforts of the US and Guaido to keep them from happening.
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Do you think banning me from the Venezuela blog and reposting your posts here is an effective way to handle our disagreements? ______________________________________________________________________________________ If Nina ever gives up on Democrats and becomes a socialist Democrats are done for. Here she's pointing out the Dem establishment has been known about Northam's racist views and policy. He (and apparently he's denying it's him in his yearbook now) and Democrats are mad he got caught "Black-handed" if you will. There is some poetic justice in the Black guy his racist ass left off campaign materials taking over when he resigns (if he doesn't Democrats might as well call their party over). That he was allowed to be there in the first place is a problem the Democrats won't deal with or that they berated Bernie and his supporters for not backing Northam and instead fighting the establishment that wanted to elect this racist in a primary just to be smeared with all the typical "don't turn against Democrats" rhetoric for it. Perhaps if the Democratic party stopped ramming racists/Republicans down voters throats so they can "win" and shame people with "vote blue no matter who" type stuff they'd have a more enthusiastic and united base going into 2020.
I was going to respond to him on the Venezuela topic ... but did he seriously ban you only to repost here?
|
On February 03 2019 08:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Do you think banning me from the Venezuela blog and reposting your posts here is an effective way to handle our disagreements? ______________________________________________________________________________________ If Nina ever gives up on Democrats and becomes a socialist Democrats are done for. Here she's pointing out the Dem establishment has been known about Northam's racist views and policy. He (and apparently he's denying it's him in his yearbook now) and Democrats are mad he got caught "Black-handed" if you will. https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1091550436568588289There is some poetic justice in the Black guy his racist ass left off campaign materials taking over when he resigns (if he doesn't Democrats might as well call their party over). That he was allowed to be there in the first place is a problem the Democrats won't deal with or that they berated Bernie and his supporters for not backing Northam and instead fighting the establishment that wanted to elect this racist in a primary just to be smeared with all the typical "don't turn against Democrats" rhetoric for it. Perhaps if the Democratic party stopped ramming racists/Republicans down voters throats so they can "win" and shame people with "vote blue no matter who" type stuff they'd have a more enthusiastic and united base going into 2020. I was going to respond to him on the Venezuela topic ... but did he seriously ban you only to repost here?
Indeed. Despite having this blog shut down until I met Seeker's demand to unban him here. I Find the whole thing perplexing and have tried to address it with him (as you see quoted here) and with staff and they've been, well go with, unresponsive.
|
|
|
It's very rude to talk to oligarchs like that. They prefer relentless submission and sycophantic worship for their attempts to secure a system by which they as individuals/cadres determine the course of the commons.
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 09:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 08:55 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2019 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Do you think banning me from the Venezuela blog and reposting your posts here is an effective way to handle our disagreements? ______________________________________________________________________________________ If Nina ever gives up on Democrats and becomes a socialist Democrats are done for. Here she's pointing out the Dem establishment has been known about Northam's racist views and policy. He (and apparently he's denying it's him in his yearbook now) and Democrats are mad he got caught "Black-handed" if you will. https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1091550436568588289There is some poetic justice in the Black guy his racist ass left off campaign materials taking over when he resigns (if he doesn't Democrats might as well call their party over). That he was allowed to be there in the first place is a problem the Democrats won't deal with or that they berated Bernie and his supporters for not backing Northam and instead fighting the establishment that wanted to elect this racist in a primary just to be smeared with all the typical "don't turn against Democrats" rhetoric for it. Perhaps if the Democratic party stopped ramming racists/Republicans down voters throats so they can "win" and shame people with "vote blue no matter who" type stuff they'd have a more enthusiastic and united base going into 2020. I was going to respond to him on the Venezuela topic ... but did he seriously ban you only to repost here? Indeed. Despite having this blog shut down until I met Seeker's demand to unban him here. I Find the whole thing perplexing and have tried to address it with him (as you see quoted here) and with staff and they've been, well go with, unresponsive. I warned you like 6 times and was very direct and polite. How long did you think I was going to let you continue to insult me? I also let you know that if you were going to continue to be so disrespectful I would stop respecting you. I also gave you multiple warnings on that. It is probably time for you to stop playing victim and take some responsibility for the situations you create.
People can read the thread if they want to know more about what happened specifically. My only question to you here was whether you believed banning me from the Venezuela blog and then reposting your posts from it here was an effective way to handle our disagreements.
Your response not including something addressing that is emblematic of my general problem with your posting.
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2019 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 08:55 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2019 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Do you think banning me from the Venezuela blog and reposting your posts here is an effective way to handle our disagreements? ______________________________________________________________________________________ If Nina ever gives up on Democrats and becomes a socialist Democrats are done for. Here she's pointing out the Dem establishment has been known about Northam's racist views and policy. He (and apparently he's denying it's him in his yearbook now) and Democrats are mad he got caught "Black-handed" if you will. https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1091550436568588289There is some poetic justice in the Black guy his racist ass left off campaign materials taking over when he resigns (if he doesn't Democrats might as well call their party over). That he was allowed to be there in the first place is a problem the Democrats won't deal with or that they berated Bernie and his supporters for not backing Northam and instead fighting the establishment that wanted to elect this racist in a primary just to be smeared with all the typical "don't turn against Democrats" rhetoric for it. Perhaps if the Democratic party stopped ramming racists/Republicans down voters throats so they can "win" and shame people with "vote blue no matter who" type stuff they'd have a more enthusiastic and united base going into 2020. I was going to respond to him on the Venezuela topic ... but did he seriously ban you only to repost here? Indeed. Despite having this blog shut down until I met Seeker's demand to unban him here. I Find the whole thing perplexing and have tried to address it with him (as you see quoted here) and with staff and they've been, well go with, unresponsive. I warned you like 6 times and was very direct and polite. How long did you think I was going to let you continue to insult me? I also let you know that if you were going to continue to be so disrespectful I would stop respecting you. I also gave you multiple warnings on that. It is probably time for you to stop playing victim and take some responsibility for the situations you create. People can read the thread if they want to know more about what happened specifically. My only question to you here was whether you believed banning me from the Venezuela blog and then reposting your posts from it here was an effective way to handle our disagreements. Your response not including something addressing that is emblematic of my general problem with your posting. Oh I posted it here for others not you. It is not all about you. Which was part of the point I was trying to get across on my blog, which you took over and were constantly rude and condescending on. If you would like to be unbanned simply PM and ask me and then follow the simple rules EZPZ if you don't care then all good!
Why not just post it in the actual US politics thread and in your blog instead of coming here (where you agreed to stay out after it was shut down because you were banned) then?
|
Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement:
And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it.
I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution."
Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems.
|
On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: Show nested quote +And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems.
There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate.
It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon.
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 09:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2019 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2019 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 08:55 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2019 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Do you think banning me from the Venezuela blog and reposting your posts here is an effective way to handle our disagreements? ______________________________________________________________________________________ If Nina ever gives up on Democrats and becomes a socialist Democrats are done for. Here she's pointing out the Dem establishment has been known about Northam's racist views and policy. He (and apparently he's denying it's him in his yearbook now) and Democrats are mad he got caught "Black-handed" if you will. https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1091550436568588289There is some poetic justice in the Black guy his racist ass left off campaign materials taking over when he resigns (if he doesn't Democrats might as well call their party over). That he was allowed to be there in the first place is a problem the Democrats won't deal with or that they berated Bernie and his supporters for not backing Northam and instead fighting the establishment that wanted to elect this racist in a primary just to be smeared with all the typical "don't turn against Democrats" rhetoric for it. Perhaps if the Democratic party stopped ramming racists/Republicans down voters throats so they can "win" and shame people with "vote blue no matter who" type stuff they'd have a more enthusiastic and united base going into 2020. I was going to respond to him on the Venezuela topic ... but did he seriously ban you only to repost here? Indeed. Despite having this blog shut down until I met Seeker's demand to unban him here. I Find the whole thing perplexing and have tried to address it with him (as you see quoted here) and with staff and they've been, well go with, unresponsive. I warned you like 6 times and was very direct and polite. How long did you think I was going to let you continue to insult me? I also let you know that if you were going to continue to be so disrespectful I would stop respecting you. I also gave you multiple warnings on that. It is probably time for you to stop playing victim and take some responsibility for the situations you create. People can read the thread if they want to know more about what happened specifically. My only question to you here was whether you believed banning me from the Venezuela blog and then reposting your posts from it here was an effective way to handle our disagreements. Your response not including something addressing that is emblematic of my general problem with your posting. Oh I posted it here for others not you. It is not all about you. Which was part of the point I was trying to get across on my blog, which you took over and were constantly rude and condescending on. If you would like to be unbanned simply PM and ask me and then follow the simple rules EZPZ if you don't care then all good! Why not just post it in the actual US politics thread and in your blog instead of coming here (where you agreed to stay out after it was shut down because you were banned) then? I thought I explained that in the post above. I agreed to stay out of here basically to be a nice guy and stop your tantrum. But then when you continued post after post to be a jerk to me I told you that if you kept doing it I would post where ever I felt like. You chose to keep being an ass and I chose to post this here. Sometimes I will, sometimes the main one and sometimes my blog.
And you think this is the best way to resolve our disagreements (to get back to the original question)?
|
On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: Show nested quote +And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems.
What's your world view based in? Objectivism?
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon.
The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive.
|
On February 03 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:
I thought it couldn't hurt to give you a timeout since what you were posting certainly wasn't helping. Then I didn't think to much more about it after.
This is your blog so I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you want your blog to be about politics I'm also happy to take it to PM up to you!
If we could go back to you not posting here and handling this in PM that would be ideal.
|
On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism?
Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
