|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On March 10 2022 05:20 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 04:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 16:12 Acrofales wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. The question was never whether their intent was to go and murder congresspeople. The post I originally responded to pretty much said exactly that. It's a common exaggeration about January 6th. On March 09 2022 23:31 NewSunshine wrote:
I know plenty of peaceful people who simply happen to have what they need to construct a gallows on hand. Happens all the time. Remember when some protestors built a guillotine and brought it to the front of Jeff Bezos's house? I'll bet they even chanted something about using it. But no one actually thought they intended to try to execute Bezos. On March 10 2022 00:31 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. What was their goal? By what means were they hoping to achieve it? Probably to stop the proceedings by occupying the room, that type of thing. I bet you it would've hit a little differently if those same people were attacking Bezos' family, brandishing weapons including firearms, trying to break into his house with said weapons, and then assaulting the police officers who intervened. I don't remember the particulars, but did they do any or all of the above to Bezos? You know what, it's really just funny how obviously low rent and bad faith your arguments have been, I'm not even trying to convince you that your arguments are garbage. Whether any of this sinks in is on you. I'm really just trying to keep anyone else from reading and thinking maybe you're onto something.
Reasonable observers can certainly sniff out your exaggerations. Just look at this post of yours. The Jan 6 rioters were brandishing firearms? And I'm not sure what you're saying about attacking family members. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate the facts? I guess it is because your argument depends on that exaggeration.
|
On March 10 2022 06:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 05:20 NewSunshine wrote:On March 10 2022 04:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 16:12 Acrofales wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. The question was never whether their intent was to go and murder congresspeople. The post I originally responded to pretty much said exactly that. It's a common exaggeration about January 6th. On March 09 2022 23:31 NewSunshine wrote:
I know plenty of peaceful people who simply happen to have what they need to construct a gallows on hand. Happens all the time. Remember when some protestors built a guillotine and brought it to the front of Jeff Bezos's house? I'll bet they even chanted something about using it. But no one actually thought they intended to try to execute Bezos. On March 10 2022 00:31 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. What was their goal? By what means were they hoping to achieve it? Probably to stop the proceedings by occupying the room, that type of thing. I bet you it would've hit a little differently if those same people were attacking Bezos' family, brandishing weapons including firearms, trying to break into his house with said weapons, and then assaulting the police officers who intervened. I don't remember the particulars, but did they do any or all of the above to Bezos? You know what, it's really just funny how obviously low rent and bad faith your arguments have been, I'm not even trying to convince you that your arguments are garbage. Whether any of this sinks in is on you. I'm really just trying to keep anyone else from reading and thinking maybe you're onto something. Reasonable observers can certainly sniff out your exaggerations. Just look at this post of yours. The Jan 6 rioters were brandishing firearms? And I'm not sure what you're saying about attacking family members. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate the facts? I guess it is because your argument depends on that exaggeration.
Some January 6th rioters had guns.
Some planted bombs the night before.
Some had other weapons as well.
Some called for the killing of our nation's leaders.
Some stormed the capitol.
Some were violent.
Some broke the law.
What's being exaggerated?
|
On March 10 2022 06:50 plasmidghost wrote:
I honestly have no idea what I'm even supposed to do at this point to stop the dozens of states making anti-trans legislation. It doesn't matter what the federal government or the courts say, kids are being stolen from loving families and it's soon going to be made illegal for me and everyone else to be trans and get healthcare. No one cares outside of us. LGBT groups don't care. Biden isn't doing more to actually stop these policies. I'm leaving the US permanently and moving to Belgium in August and even then, I think that I could lose my rights by then.
It's not that no one cares, it's that the people who care cannot do anything about it. Sadly half the voters in the US vote for bigoted fascists. Sadly, that is enough to have a lot of power over peoples lives.
I care and find it disgusting, but i am not even in the US.
|
Northern Ireland26775 Posts
On March 10 2022 06:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 05:20 NewSunshine wrote:On March 10 2022 04:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 16:12 Acrofales wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. The question was never whether their intent was to go and murder congresspeople. The post I originally responded to pretty much said exactly that. It's a common exaggeration about January 6th. On March 09 2022 23:31 NewSunshine wrote:
I know plenty of peaceful people who simply happen to have what they need to construct a gallows on hand. Happens all the time. Remember when some protestors built a guillotine and brought it to the front of Jeff Bezos's house? I'll bet they even chanted something about using it. But no one actually thought they intended to try to execute Bezos. On March 10 2022 00:31 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. What was their goal? By what means were they hoping to achieve it? Probably to stop the proceedings by occupying the room, that type of thing. I bet you it would've hit a little differently if those same people were attacking Bezos' family, brandishing weapons including firearms, trying to break into his house with said weapons, and then assaulting the police officers who intervened. I don't remember the particulars, but did they do any or all of the above to Bezos? You know what, it's really just funny how obviously low rent and bad faith your arguments have been, I'm not even trying to convince you that your arguments are garbage. Whether any of this sinks in is on you. I'm really just trying to keep anyone else from reading and thinking maybe you're onto something. Reasonable observers can certainly sniff out your exaggerations. Just look at this post of yours. The Jan 6 rioters were brandishing firearms? And I'm not sure what you're saying about attacking family members. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate the facts? I guess it is because your argument depends on that exaggeration.
What reasonable observers? There are those in this thread who were, if not actually Trump supporters then in a ‘let’s see what he does first and the opposition is hysterical’ camp. Even that broad category absolutely flipped if not before then in cases then certainly by ‘stop the steal’ and Jan 6th.
No he’s saying that if the Jeff Bezos guillotine erectors invaded his personal dwelling etc, then the chance that they meant, or would follow thorough on genuine threats to his person would seem much higher.
As they did not do such things, there are only so many parallels to the events on January 6th that can be drawn, bar ‘did they erect a guillotine?’
You’ve spent way, way more time and energy splitting hairs and complaint about minutiae on this issue, and others than saying January 6th and Trump’s conduct was bad. Then you complain when people say you’re brushing it off I mean what other conclusion is there?
We’re already at like 3 pages of the great ‘the entire mob wasn’t murderous’ vs ‘some of the mob may have done actual harm’ debate ffs
|
On March 10 2022 08:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 06:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 10 2022 05:20 NewSunshine wrote:On March 10 2022 04:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 16:12 Acrofales wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. The question was never whether their intent was to go and murder congresspeople. The post I originally responded to pretty much said exactly that. It's a common exaggeration about January 6th. On March 09 2022 23:31 NewSunshine wrote:
I know plenty of peaceful people who simply happen to have what they need to construct a gallows on hand. Happens all the time. Remember when some protestors built a guillotine and brought it to the front of Jeff Bezos's house? I'll bet they even chanted something about using it. But no one actually thought they intended to try to execute Bezos. On March 10 2022 00:31 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2022 12:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 09 2022 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2022 15:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 08 2022 13:35 Severedevil wrote:
The people calling to kill government officials while hunting for government officials where the government officials work and equipped with weapons with which to kill the government officials would never ever kill government officials, don't be ridiculous. It's easy to make an argument when you exaggerate every aspect of the facts. All you are actually saying is that you strongly disagree with me. I'm just saying that when there's a crowd of a couple thousand and it's estimated by NPR that 3 dozen had weapons, but mostly makeshift blunt objects, no guns, no knives, etc, that crowd did set out with the intent to hunt and kill people. Let's examine how doc chose to respond to this situation, 1) Pretends facts are being exaggerated, essentially rejecting well documented reality. 2) Presupposes that the facts being discussed are a matter of disagreement, that it is just a matter of looking through a different lens, rather than documented reality. 3) Pretends what determines if bad people were present is the % of them, not the absolute value. In the end, it is worth pointing out that he has essentially not conceded a single point throughout this entire conversation. It has been long winded justifications for rejecting the realities that all of us are taking as a given. There has definitely been exaggeration of the facts on this site and elsewhere. The Jan 6th mob did not consist of bloodthirsty head choppers. That is my limited claim although it may help to clarify, the personally I was originally responding to basically said that the mob was there with intent to kill politicians, that was their goal and it's a certainty they would have slaughtered politicians if they came into contact. All I'm saying is that the crowd's goal was not to kill people and commit atrocities. Now, was there a risk that people would die? Yes that risk was above zero. But it is an exaggeration to say that the crowd was there to kill people. What was their goal? By what means were they hoping to achieve it? Probably to stop the proceedings by occupying the room, that type of thing. I bet you it would've hit a little differently if those same people were attacking Bezos' family, brandishing weapons including firearms, trying to break into his house with said weapons, and then assaulting the police officers who intervened. I don't remember the particulars, but did they do any or all of the above to Bezos? You know what, it's really just funny how obviously low rent and bad faith your arguments have been, I'm not even trying to convince you that your arguments are garbage. Whether any of this sinks in is on you. I'm really just trying to keep anyone else from reading and thinking maybe you're onto something. Reasonable observers can certainly sniff out your exaggerations. Just look at this post of yours. The Jan 6 rioters were brandishing firearms? And I'm not sure what you're saying about attacking family members. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate the facts? I guess it is because your argument depends on that exaggeration. What reasonable observers? There are those in this thread who were, if not actually Trump supporters then in a ‘let’s see what he does first and the opposition is hysterical’ camp. Even that broad category absolutely flipped if not before then in cases then certainly by ‘stop the steal’ and Jan 6th. No he’s saying that if the Jeff Bezos guillotine erectors invaded his personal dwelling etc, then the chance that they meant, or would follow thorough on genuine threats to his person would seem much higher. As they did not do such things, there are only so many parallels to the events on January 6th that can be drawn, bar ‘did they erect a guillotine?’ You’ve spent way, way more time and energy splitting hairs and complaint about minutiae on this issue, and others than saying January 6th and Trump’s conduct was bad. Then you complain when people say you’re brushing it off I mean what other conclusion is there? We’re already at like 3 pages of the great ‘the entire mob wasn’t murderous’ vs ‘some of the mob may have done actual harm’ debate ffs
I think we will move on quicker if everyone realises he is never going to concede that someone within the mob could have potentially murdered a politician if circumstances had been even a little bit different. Just stop responding already.
|
On March 10 2022 06:50 plasmidghost wrote:
I honestly have no idea what I'm even supposed to do at this point to stop the dozens of states making anti-trans legislation. It doesn't matter what the federal government or the courts say, kids are being stolen from loving families and it's soon going to be made illegal for me and everyone else to be trans and get healthcare. No one cares outside of us. LGBT groups don't care. Biden isn't doing more to actually stop these policies. I'm leaving the US permanently and moving to Belgium in August and even then, I think that I could lose my rights by then.
People care. Never think they don't. But as you've realized, there's only so much we can do in the face of ignorance. Educating the unwilling isn't worth the effort. So what more can be done? You can get all of the trans people you know and go storm the Capital. That seems to be effective in getting conversations going. Or, less asshole-ish, sit-ins all over the place and force them to arrest you and figure out if you go in the women's tank or the men's tank. Make their lives a living hell as best you can.
|
On March 10 2022 10:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 06:50 plasmidghost wrote:
I honestly have no idea what I'm even supposed to do at this point to stop the dozens of states making anti-trans legislation. It doesn't matter what the federal government or the courts say, kids are being stolen from loving families and it's soon going to be made illegal for me and everyone else to be trans and get healthcare. No one cares outside of us. LGBT groups don't care. Biden isn't doing more to actually stop these policies. I'm leaving the US permanently and moving to Belgium in August and even then, I think that I could lose my rights by then. People care. Never think they don't. But as you've realized, there's only so much we can do in the face of ignorance. Educating the unwilling isn't worth the effort. So what more can be done? You can get all of the trans people you know and go storm the Capital. That seems to be effective in getting conversations going. Or, less asshole-ish, sit-ins all over the place and force them to arrest you and figure out if you go in the women's tank or the men's tank. Make their lives a living hell as best you can.
Yeah, apparently if you beat some folks to death and point guns at capital police officers that's a great way to get labeled as legitimate political discourse.
Sardonics aside, I really feel for the worsening situation faced by trans folks in this country. The radical Right is really seizing on that "LGB" bloc and quietly erasing the rights and existence of transgender people, which people definitely aren't as vocal in defending. I don't blame you for leaving the US, plasmid. It makes me sad and angry that you had to arrive at that solution. Please be safe.
|
On March 10 2022 06:50 plasmidghost wrote:
I honestly have no idea what I'm even supposed to do at this point to stop the dozens of states making anti-trans legislation. It doesn't matter what the federal government or the courts say, kids are being stolen from loving families and it's soon going to be made illegal for me and everyone else to be trans and get healthcare. No one cares outside of us. LGBT groups don't care. Biden isn't doing more to actually stop these policies. I'm leaving the US permanently and moving to Belgium in August and even then, I think that I could lose my rights by then.
What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology?
|
United States43979 Posts
On March 10 2022 13:29 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 06:50 plasmidghost wrote:
I honestly have no idea what I'm even supposed to do at this point to stop the dozens of states making anti-trans legislation. It doesn't matter what the federal government or the courts say, kids are being stolen from loving families and it's soon going to be made illegal for me and everyone else to be trans and get healthcare. No one cares outside of us. LGBT groups don't care. Biden isn't doing more to actually stop these policies. I'm leaving the US permanently and moving to Belgium in August and even then, I think that I could lose my rights by then. What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology?
Not who you asked but the question is flawed because it assumes all athletes fit in either a biological female bucket or a biological male bucket with set testosterone in each bucket. Biological sex is far more complicated than that and hormone production is variable within sex.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57748135.amp
We wouldn’t ban Phelps from swimming just because his weird proportions make him efficient but we ban people with weird natural hormones. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. Biological women don’t all fit the same pattern, biological men also don’t all fit the same pattern. The terms cannot be adequately defined.
The trans athlete debate attempts to take a problem that has no good answer (how to treat non conforming individuals in a contest in which all competitors are exceptional) and reduce it to men trying to cheat in women’s sports. Trans folks are expected to come up with a solution even though the problem was unsolvable before even considering trans people.
|
On March 10 2022 13:29 gobbledydook wrote:What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology?
It's a game, who cares?
|
Pretty much any debate around "fairness" in sport tends to descend into incoherence pretty quickly even leaving aside "natural gifts." What crosses the line into "unfair competition" varies tremendously by sporting community and is incredibly arbitrary. Motorsports is a great example of this, where some motorsports are more or less pay to compete and others aren't. In most competitive physical sports it's acceptable to spend millions to use trainers, equipment, and nutrition to alter the body's function (with potential long term physical damage, thanks gymnastics) but some chemical substances aren't acceptable because they cross some arbitrary line of being "too good" at altering the body's function.
|
On March 10 2022 13:46 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 13:29 gobbledydook wrote:What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology? It's a game, who cares?
I don't think this is a reasonable perspective. A great number of people put a ton of effort and emotion into becoming better runners and other various forms of athleticism. At a recent big Portland marathon, the top 20 men all beat the fastest woman by a healthy margin. There are some forms of competition where it really just doesn't make sense for trans women to compete in the women's category. I consider myself generally very liberal and trans-allied, but the whole idea of trans women competing in women's sports gets a huge thumbs down from me. The existence of better and worse competitors within each sex does not mean the whole thing is pointless. There are some pretty extreme examples where men and women are in completely different leagues
|
On March 10 2022 14:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 13:46 Severedevil wrote:On March 10 2022 13:29 gobbledydook wrote:What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology? It's a game, who cares? I don't think this is a reasonable perspective. A great number of people put a ton of effort and emotion into becoming better runners and other various forms of athleticism. At a recent big Portland marathon, the top 20 men all beat the fastest woman by a healthy margin. There are some forms of competition where it really just doesn't make sense for trans women to compete in the women's category. I consider myself generally very liberal and trans-allied, but the whole idea of trans women competing in women's sports gets a huge thumbs down from me. The existence of better and worse competitors within each sex does not mean the whole thing is pointless. There are some pretty extreme examples where men and women are in completely different leagues
It is, however, a pretty stupid point to bring up when talking about the situation of trans people in the US. We are talking about real harm for real people by bigoted fascists. And yet every time it comes up, it takes less than a page to get to "But what if some of them are better at some sports? We should do something about that!"
It is a valid topic to talk about once we have all agreed that trans people actually have a right to exist. Before that, lets focus on that instead. (And by "we" i don't mean "we in this forum", i mean humanity. I hope that we in this forum all agree that trans people have a right to exist.)
|
On March 10 2022 14:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 13:46 Severedevil wrote:On March 10 2022 13:29 gobbledydook wrote:What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology? It's a game, who cares? I don't think this is a reasonable perspective. A great number of people put a ton of effort and emotion into becoming better runners and other various forms of athleticism. At a recent big Portland marathon, the top 20 men all beat the fastest woman by a healthy margin. There are some forms of competition where it really just doesn't make sense for trans women to compete in the women's category. I consider myself generally very liberal and trans-allied, but the whole idea of trans women competing in women's sports gets a huge thumbs down from me. The existence of better and worse competitors within each sex does not mean the whole thing is pointless. There are some pretty extreme examples where men and women are in completely different leagues
On this boat as well.
Last time this topic came up, I did a look through NCAA D-1 athletics, but that's probably too high a bar. The top woman in the world can't even approach high school state championship times, this year, in anything 400m and up
Source:
https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/
(feel free to search world records for any event).
It's no contest that in competitive athletics, biological sex matters. It should be women, and open. F to M or M to F can compete in open events, but there is no case where they should be able to compete as women
|
On March 10 2022 14:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 13:46 Severedevil wrote:On March 10 2022 13:29 gobbledydook wrote:What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology? It's a game, who cares? I don't think this is a reasonable perspective. A great number of people put a ton of effort and emotion into becoming better runners and other various forms of athleticism. At a recent big Portland marathon, the top 20 men all beat the fastest woman by a healthy margin. There are some forms of competition where it really just doesn't make sense for trans women to compete in the women's category. I consider myself generally very liberal and trans-allied, but the whole idea of trans women competing in women's sports gets a huge thumbs down from me. The existence of better and worse competitors within each sex does not mean the whole thing is pointless. There are some pretty extreme examples where men and women are in completely different leagues
I'd have to agree with you. Trans-women shouldn't be able to compete in elite womens athletics, discipline dependent(maybe like archery or something? could be fine?). At recreational levels, because skills matter more, it's generally fine. Co-ed ultimate frisbee for example, there are some trans-women in the league who are 6ft tall, who are not exactly good matchups for the 5'2 average lady on my teams, but even if they run slower, can't jump as high and are somewhat vertically challenged they can still make smarter plays.
At the elite level though, men are just physiologically stronger. There's literally no argument to be made for that not being the case. Transitioning M-F doesn't take away all the advantages of starting from a stronger baseline, and once you put in the training, you probably peak somewhere in between where a M would be, and where a F would be given the same training. Most of the time that's below elite level, but cases where it lies in the elite level are where it gets problematic. Having womens records being broken by M-F trans just leaves a sour taste IMO, and they should really go into a separate category.
|
On March 10 2022 15:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 14:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 10 2022 13:46 Severedevil wrote:On March 10 2022 13:29 gobbledydook wrote:What's your opinion on male athletes that undergo transition to female? Should they be allowed to compete with biologically female athletes, who naturally do not have the same muscle mass due to biology? It's a game, who cares? I don't think this is a reasonable perspective. A great number of people put a ton of effort and emotion into becoming better runners and other various forms of athleticism. At a recent big Portland marathon, the top 20 men all beat the fastest woman by a healthy margin. There are some forms of competition where it really just doesn't make sense for trans women to compete in the women's category. I consider myself generally very liberal and trans-allied, but the whole idea of trans women competing in women's sports gets a huge thumbs down from me. The existence of better and worse competitors within each sex does not mean the whole thing is pointless. There are some pretty extreme examples where men and women are in completely different leagues It is, however, a pretty stupid point to bring up when talking about the situation of trans people in the US. We are talking about real harm for real people by bigoted fascists. And yet every time it comes up, it takes less than a page to get to "But what if some of them are better at some sports? We should do something about that!" It is a valid topic to talk about once we have all agreed that trans people actually have a right to exist. Before that, lets focus on that instead. (And by "we" i don't mean "we in this forum", i mean humanity. I hope that we in this forum all agree that trans people have a right to exist.)
I actually think its a pretty smart point to bring up, if your objective is to hide the damage that transphobia does behind an argument designed to paint trans activists as unrealistic, hysterical or stupid and militant.
|
I thought it was in this very thread where we were talking about testosterone levels of trans women and it turned out they generally had lower levels of testosterone than cis women, because they had to take all kinds off medicine to keep them from having adverse effects on their bodies. Combined as well with a cocktail of other hormones and medicine that don't help with athleticism at all.
A comparison of women to men is just not a fair way to judge trans women, because they have taken extreme measures to NOT be men anymore and those extreme measures generally curtail muscle growth and skeletal development in a way that is counterproductive for athletics.
But that aside, this question is just in bad taste. Plasmidghost isn't asking to run track as a woman. They're asking for politicians to give them rights to exist. Responding to this topic with "but sports!" is an extremely insensitive straw man.
|
Another problem is that many people are horrified of the idea that someone with a dick could go into a female restroom. From a moral standpoint it’s true that it should not be an issue, but you cannot deny that many people cannot accept this emotionally. I am sure that many women would be horrified if they saw a person with a penis in the female restroom and assume the worst, which is that person is a sexual predator.
We cannot ignore these sentiments when deciding on rules about restrooms. Right now people feel offended and horrified and that is why they are pushing back against trans friendly rules. There really has to be a solution that makes everyone feel safe.
|
Even in men's toilets the only dick I see is my own. I'm sure you can come up with a slightly less bad take on this if you try a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
