|
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 June 09 2022 09:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Liberals were consistently promoting more reasonable gun control during that time, and before and after that incident. Clearly, conservatives being shot wasn't a severe enough tragedy to convince conservatives to start caring about gun control, nor do they blink during school shootings, daily mass shootings, or tens of thousands of gun-related suicides/homicides every year. I have no idea what it'll take for conservatives to stop bowing down to the NRA or to start voting for people who want a more nuanced approach to gun regulations and gun safety than "second amendment, no other rules, all loopholes allowed", but it looks like half our country still isn't willing to take action yet, even if polls say that many (most?) conservatives favor some slight pro-control changes. The point of my post wasn't gun control, I will just say that I think that's another issue, in fact maybe the issue that most illustrates, the difference between polling support for something and electoral support for it. In fact the elections data guy at the NYT just had a piece about this the other day. it's the not the NRA (which right now is in a bad spot and and is less influential than ever before), it's the voters. He makes the point I have tried to make here many, many, many times. Even if the question in a poll is worded well, and fairly, support for things should be expected to drop when the other side gets a chance to engage the argument and make their case. Also, actual legislation is different than 2-3 sentence proposals in a poll. I don't know if there's an issue that really like 90-10 in this country. Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 08:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Do you think Kyle didn't shoot liberals and got away with it and was celebrated for it? This question sounds like bait, but I'll answer it. I think the jury was correct in saying Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. He shouldn't have been there, but maybe the people he shot shouldn't have been chasing someone with a gun? I'm still amazed that he was armed with a rifle he was not concealing and still they went after him as he was running away. So no, I don't think that's a correct characterization of what happened. edit: also i wouldn't call the people burning stuff down in kenosha "liberals." Unless you would like that association?
Political talk about guns has told me a perceived threat with a gun running from a group doesn't stop being a threat, especially if said group is unarmed. They stop being a threat when they are disarmed or incapacitated.
|
On June 09 2022 09:58 ChristianS wrote:I’m not normally a CCStealthBlue but: Several Texas families are under investigation for child abuse because of providing gender-affirming care to their trans children (AKA the care recommended by every major medical authority for gender dysphoria). The Texas Supreme Court shielded some, but not all of these families from investigation. linkShow nested quote + According to the lawsuit, a 16-year-old transgender boy tried to kill himself the same day that Abbott issued the child abuse directive.
“[He] said that the political environment, including Abbott’s Letter, and being misgendered at school, led him to take these actions,” the lawsuit said.
He survived the attempt and was admitted to an outpatient psychiatric facility, where staff learned that he was undergoing hormone therapy. A week after he was discharged, an investigator from DFPS visited the family’s home and, according to the lawsuit, said that the psychiatric facility had reported the family for child abuse. The family remains under investigation.
It’s very imprecise to throw everything under this label of “gender affirming care.” As far as I can tell gender affirming care ranges from everything to using correct pronouns to puberty blockers to hormone replacement therapy to sex reassignment surgery. I dont think any country has an absolutist approach to gender affirming care to the point they allow minors to get HRT and sex reassignment surgery. So in that sense denying “gender affirming care” is pretty standard for most countries. In fact I think Sweden and Finland have banned puberty blockers for minors which I think is a step lower than HRT or surgeries. So Northern Europe is probably one of the most bigoted places when it comes to denying gender affirming care.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27343 Posts
On June 09 2022 09:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 08:24 WombaT wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. The broad left are perfectly capable of political violence, I don’t think anyone is under illusions otherwise. I’m surprised there’s not more of it in truth. Indeed it’s why most of here bemoan a seemingly never ending toxifying of the general cultural climate. Compared to past decades of American history we still live in a remarkably peaceful time, politically. And just to put aside the morality of it for a moment, political unrest in America almost always benefits conservatives. Two examples from recent history that lefties hate should cause them pause, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But these are lefties we are talking about. Looking backwards is not always high on their list of things to do 
Peaceful, relatively speaking absolutely better than some other periods. Fragmented and incredibly dysfunctional politically? Yes. Hyperbole abounds, we’re not living in Mad Max times, but given the increasing levels of that disjoint the potential is surely there for things to get considerably worse.
‘This question sounds like bait, but I'll answer it. I think the jury was correct in saying Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. He shouldn't have been there, but maybe the people he shot shouldn't have been chasing someone with a gun?’
Fair, I mean broadly an opinion I can generally think fair enough.
You can think he’s innocent, but not a hero. People were referencing the latter, and there certainly are people who think he should be celebrated for shooting some Commies pussies
For fuck sake he’s doing rounds on talk shows and all, probably hasn’t had to buy a beer in quite some time. Not really the reception one gives a dumb but ultimately innocent kid who got in over his head?
|
|
|
On June 09 2022 10:32 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 09:58 ChristianS wrote:I’m not normally a CCStealthBlue but: Several Texas families are under investigation for child abuse because of providing gender-affirming care to their trans children (AKA the care recommended by every major medical authority for gender dysphoria). The Texas Supreme Court shielded some, but not all of these families from investigation. link According to the lawsuit, a 16-year-old transgender boy tried to kill himself the same day that Abbott issued the child abuse directive.
“[He] said that the political environment, including Abbott’s Letter, and being misgendered at school, led him to take these actions,” the lawsuit said.
He survived the attempt and was admitted to an outpatient psychiatric facility, where staff learned that he was undergoing hormone therapy. A week after he was discharged, an investigator from DFPS visited the family’s home and, according to the lawsuit, said that the psychiatric facility had reported the family for child abuse. The family remains under investigation. It’s very imprecise to throw everything under this label of “gender affirming care.” As far as I can tell gender affirming care ranges from everything to using correct pronouns to puberty blockers to hormone replacement therapy to sex reassignment surgery. I dont think any country has an absolutist approach to gender affirming care to the point they allow minors to get HRT and sex reassignment surgery. So in that sense denying “gender affirming care” is pretty standard for most countries. In fact I think Sweden and Finland have banned puberty blockers for minors which I think is a step lower than HRT or surgeries. So Northern Europe is probably one of the most bigoted places when it comes to denying gender affirming care.
I mean, it is and it isn’t. Obviously haircuts and pronouns (social transition) are very different interventions than surgeries, and there would be legitimate room for disagreement about, say, when starting hormones vs. staying on puberty blockers vs. some other courses would be the most appropriate treatment.
But for legal purposes the distinction doesn’t matter much because Republicans are quite clear that they want to ban all of it. Social transition is quite specifically called out, which is about as mild an intervention as you could do. “Gender affirming” is quite specifically what they don’t like about these treatments. Are you really gonna say “well those parents should have just stuck with social transition and eschewed other interventions (against medical guidelines)”? Do you really think that would even stop them from being targeted? If you really thought helping your kid transition was child abuse, wouldn’t haircuts and dresses and pronouns still qualify anyway?
I don’t know anything about Sweden or Finland policy on puberty blockers, or their motivations for those policies. What’s that got to do with this?
|
On June 09 2022 10:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 10:32 BlackJack wrote:On June 09 2022 09:58 ChristianS wrote:I’m not normally a CCStealthBlue but: Several Texas families are under investigation for child abuse because of providing gender-affirming care to their trans children (AKA the care recommended by every major medical authority for gender dysphoria). The Texas Supreme Court shielded some, but not all of these families from investigation. link According to the lawsuit, a 16-year-old transgender boy tried to kill himself the same day that Abbott issued the child abuse directive.
“[He] said that the political environment, including Abbott’s Letter, and being misgendered at school, led him to take these actions,” the lawsuit said.
He survived the attempt and was admitted to an outpatient psychiatric facility, where staff learned that he was undergoing hormone therapy. A week after he was discharged, an investigator from DFPS visited the family’s home and, according to the lawsuit, said that the psychiatric facility had reported the family for child abuse. The family remains under investigation. It’s very imprecise to throw everything under this label of “gender affirming care.” As far as I can tell gender affirming care ranges from everything to using correct pronouns to puberty blockers to hormone replacement therapy to sex reassignment surgery. I dont think any country has an absolutist approach to gender affirming care to the point they allow minors to get HRT and sex reassignment surgery. So in that sense denying “gender affirming care” is pretty standard for most countries. In fact I think Sweden and Finland have banned puberty blockers for minors which I think is a step lower than HRT or surgeries. So Northern Europe is probably one of the most bigoted places when it comes to denying gender affirming care. Reccomendations are not bans. No one is going to jail, no children are being taken away. Also, was it not pages ago where you were going hard at plasma for saying thisnwas happening? Probably time to apologize not put the latest facebook meme defence up. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/02/23/sweden-trans-healthcare-puberty-blockers/ https://genderreport.ca/finland-strict-guidelines-for-treating-gender-dysphoria/
Once again, your reading comprehension seems to be absolutely abysmal.
I told plasmid I was aware of CPS investigations but I had not heard of any children being taken away and asked for a source.
On May 26 2022 06:22 BlackJack wrote:I don't know a lot about this. Do you have any more information on this? I tried googling but I couldn't find any information on children being taken away from their parents homes for being trans. I found some articles about custody battles between two parents where they disagree how to raise their child. I found some other articles about CPS investigations or about families "fearing" that their child will be taken away. But I couldn't actually find anything about trans children being taken from their families homes. + Show Spoiler +Given what little I know about the foster-care system this would be truly reprehensible if trans kids were being taken from homes with loving parents. I just can't determine how common this is.
He said his only source was people he knew on Twitter that he trusted and didn't have a reputable source on children being taken away from their parents and I said you shouldn't post things if you're not prepared to source it from a reputable source. Unlike you, plasmid is able to admit when he makes an error and owned up to it:
On May 26 2022 10:31 plasmidghost wrote:
Yeah, I shouldn't have said that. My apologies. It was most likely spread due to us being afraid of that happening and I didn't check to see that it hadn't happened yet, I had just assumed it had.
Now you come along and nonchalantly talk about children being taken away from their parents again. So did you find the source I was asking for or are you making things up?
P.S. I never even said that kids weren't being taken away from parents. I literally said "I don't know a lot about this. Do you have any more information on this?..." Not sure how this constitutes "going hard at plasmid." Also not sure how I would owe someone an apology for asking for a source even if they later provided one. I'm sure these things make sense in your head though.
|
I remember thinking plasmid was fine and probably only apologized because you were pretty aggro about sourcing and banworthiness. I think “I read a thing on Twitter” is a perfectly acceptable thing to say in the politics thread, and if somebody asks for a source it’s fine to either go find one or say “can’t find one right now, take it with a grain of salt.” LL made some claims about the VA that weren’t true a while back, but I just said “I don’t think that’s true,” I didn’t say “you better provide a source or else that’s banworthy.”
That said I don’t care that much either way and holding grudges pretty much always makes the thread worse.
|
|
|
On June 09 2022 11:59 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 11:52 ChristianS wrote:
I remember thinking plasmid was fine and probably only apologized because you were pretty aggro about sourcing and banworthiness. I think “I read a thing on Twitter” is a perfectly acceptable thing to say in the politics thread, and if somebody asks for a source it’s fine to either go find one or say “can’t find one right now, take it with a grain of salt.” LL made some claims about the VA that weren’t true a while back, but I just said “I don’t think that’s true,” I didn’t say “you better provide a source or else that’s banworthy.”
That said I don’t care that much either way and holding grudges pretty much always makes the thread worse. A younger me would have held grudges, but at this point with how dire things for us are in Texas and in the US, I don't even have the mental bandwidth to care about petty arguments, I'm too busy trying to ensure that the people I love aren't about to be legislated out of existence I need to provide a bunch of info about trans stuff because there is currently a ton of misinformation and misconceptions with regards to what's being posted, but I'm out at the moment
I mean, if you have the time, I’d certainly appreciate it. I hope I haven’t fucked anything up too badly in talking about this stuff but there’s a ton I don’t know and it’s a little hard to know where to start.
|
On June 09 2022 09:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Liberals were consistently promoting more reasonable gun control during that time, and before and after that incident. Clearly, conservatives being shot wasn't a severe enough tragedy to convince conservatives to start caring about gun control, nor do they blink during school shootings, daily mass shootings, or tens of thousands of gun-related suicides/homicides every year. I have no idea what it'll take for conservatives to stop bowing down to the NRA or to start voting for people who want a more nuanced approach to gun regulations and gun safety than "second amendment, no other rules, all loopholes allowed", but it looks like half our country still isn't willing to take action yet, even if polls say that many (most?) conservatives favor some slight pro-control changes. The point of my post wasn't gun control, I will just say that I think that's another issue, in fact maybe the issue that most illustrates, the difference between polling support for something and electoral support for it. In fact the elections data guy at the NYT just had a piece about this the other day. it's the not the NRA (which right now is in a bad spot and and is less influential than ever before), it's the voters. He makes the point I have tried to make here many, many, many times. Even if the question in a poll is worded well, and fairly, support for things should be expected to drop when the other side gets a chance to engage the argument and make their case. Also, actual legislation is different than 2-3 sentence proposals in a poll. I don't know if there's an issue that really like 90-10 in this country. Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 08:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Do you think Kyle didn't shoot liberals and got away with it and was celebrated for it? This question sounds like bait, but I'll answer it. I think the jury was correct in saying Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. He shouldn't have been there, but maybe the people he shot shouldn't have been chasing someone with a gun? I'm still amazed that he was armed with a rifle he was not concealing and still they went after him as he was running away. So no, I don't think that's a correct characterization of what happened. edit: also i wouldn't call the people burning stuff down in kenosha "liberals." Unless you would like that association?
It wasn't bait it was a simple question and you answered it in the positive. You didn't even try to dispute what it was you're just trying to justify the political violence you like. Trying to dodge the fact that he's still being celebrated for it isn't something you can just gloss over and no one will notice.
Its incredible that you cheekily decide to edit in a "if you agree with me that they were protesting you win" statement at the end there. I mean yeah I agree with you they were liberals and he shot them thanks for agreeing with me. do you want to take a stab at the right celebrating him for the political violence he committed?
|
On June 09 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 09:20 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2022 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Liberals were consistently promoting more reasonable gun control during that time, and before and after that incident. Clearly, conservatives being shot wasn't a severe enough tragedy to convince conservatives to start caring about gun control, nor do they blink during school shootings, daily mass shootings, or tens of thousands of gun-related suicides/homicides every year. I have no idea what it'll take for conservatives to stop bowing down to the NRA or to start voting for people who want a more nuanced approach to gun regulations and gun safety than "second amendment, no other rules, all loopholes allowed", but it looks like half our country still isn't willing to take action yet, even if polls say that many (most?) conservatives favor some slight pro-control changes. The point of my post wasn't gun control, I will just say that I think that's another issue, in fact maybe the issue that most illustrates, the difference between polling support for something and electoral support for it. In fact the elections data guy at the NYT just had a piece about this the other day. it's the not the NRA (which right now is in a bad spot and and is less influential than ever before), it's the voters. He makes the point I have tried to make here many, many, many times. Even if the question in a poll is worded well, and fairly, support for things should be expected to drop when the other side gets a chance to engage the argument and make their case. Also, actual legislation is different than 2-3 sentence proposals in a poll. I don't know if there's an issue that really like 90-10 in this country. On June 09 2022 08:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Do you think Kyle didn't shoot liberals and got away with it and was celebrated for it? This question sounds like bait, but I'll answer it. I think the jury was correct in saying Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. He shouldn't have been there, but maybe the people he shot shouldn't have been chasing someone with a gun? I'm still amazed that he was armed with a rifle he was not concealing and still they went after him as he was running away. So no, I don't think that's a correct characterization of what happened. edit: also i wouldn't call the people burning stuff down in kenosha "liberals." Unless you would like that association? It wasn't bait it was a simple question and you answered it in the positive. You didn't even try to dispute what it was you're just trying to justify the political violence you like. Trying to dodge the fact that he's still being celebrated for it isn't something you can just gloss over and no one will notice. Its incredible that you cheekily decide to edit in a "if you agree with me that they were protesting you win" statement at the end there. I mean yeah I agree with you they were liberals and he shot them thanks for agreeing with me. do you want to take a stab at the right celebrating him for the political violence he committed?
Wasn't the first guy that attacked Rittenhouse on tape yelling the N word at a protest for police violence against black people? Most sources I've read seem to indicate he wasn't really on any side. I honestly don't know many liberals that are keen to claim pedo guy as one of their own.
|
On June 09 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 09:20 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2022 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Liberals were consistently promoting more reasonable gun control during that time, and before and after that incident. Clearly, conservatives being shot wasn't a severe enough tragedy to convince conservatives to start caring about gun control, nor do they blink during school shootings, daily mass shootings, or tens of thousands of gun-related suicides/homicides every year. I have no idea what it'll take for conservatives to stop bowing down to the NRA or to start voting for people who want a more nuanced approach to gun regulations and gun safety than "second amendment, no other rules, all loopholes allowed", but it looks like half our country still isn't willing to take action yet, even if polls say that many (most?) conservatives favor some slight pro-control changes. The point of my post wasn't gun control, I will just say that I think that's another issue, in fact maybe the issue that most illustrates, the difference between polling support for something and electoral support for it. In fact the elections data guy at the NYT just had a piece about this the other day. it's the not the NRA (which right now is in a bad spot and and is less influential than ever before), it's the voters. He makes the point I have tried to make here many, many, many times. Even if the question in a poll is worded well, and fairly, support for things should be expected to drop when the other side gets a chance to engage the argument and make their case. Also, actual legislation is different than 2-3 sentence proposals in a poll. I don't know if there's an issue that really like 90-10 in this country. On June 09 2022 08:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Do you think Kyle didn't shoot liberals and got away with it and was celebrated for it? This question sounds like bait, but I'll answer it. I think the jury was correct in saying Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. He shouldn't have been there, but maybe the people he shot shouldn't have been chasing someone with a gun? I'm still amazed that he was armed with a rifle he was not concealing and still they went after him as he was running away. So no, I don't think that's a correct characterization of what happened. edit: also i wouldn't call the people burning stuff down in kenosha "liberals." Unless you would like that association? It wasn't bait it was a simple question and you answered it in the positive. You didn't even try to dispute what it was you're just trying to justify the political violence you like. Trying to dodge the fact that he's still being celebrated for it isn't something you can just gloss over and no one will notice. Its incredible that you cheekily decide to edit in a "if you agree with me that they were protesting you win" statement at the end there. I mean yeah I agree with you they were liberals and he shot them thanks for agreeing with me. do you want to take a stab at the right celebrating him for the political violence he committed?
that wasn't the intent of my edit or my post really. There are some people cheering him on but I am happy that he was acquitted when he was clearly acting in self-defense (not to "murder liberals"). If he had been convicted even in the face of such strong evidence it would have been yet another blow to another institution we need, the jury trial. I already said he shouldn't have been there, so it's hard to say I'm cheering him on.
I don't think normal american liberals nor far-left types would like to describe the rioters as "liberals" although maybe they would object for different reasons.
|
On June 09 2022 13:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2022 09:20 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2022 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Liberals were consistently promoting more reasonable gun control during that time, and before and after that incident. Clearly, conservatives being shot wasn't a severe enough tragedy to convince conservatives to start caring about gun control, nor do they blink during school shootings, daily mass shootings, or tens of thousands of gun-related suicides/homicides every year. I have no idea what it'll take for conservatives to stop bowing down to the NRA or to start voting for people who want a more nuanced approach to gun regulations and gun safety than "second amendment, no other rules, all loopholes allowed", but it looks like half our country still isn't willing to take action yet, even if polls say that many (most?) conservatives favor some slight pro-control changes. The point of my post wasn't gun control, I will just say that I think that's another issue, in fact maybe the issue that most illustrates, the difference between polling support for something and electoral support for it. In fact the elections data guy at the NYT just had a piece about this the other day. it's the not the NRA (which right now is in a bad spot and and is less influential than ever before), it's the voters. He makes the point I have tried to make here many, many, many times. Even if the question in a poll is worded well, and fairly, support for things should be expected to drop when the other side gets a chance to engage the argument and make their case. Also, actual legislation is different than 2-3 sentence proposals in a poll. I don't know if there's an issue that really like 90-10 in this country. On June 09 2022 08:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2022 07:24 Introvert wrote:
Wr already had conservatives shot in 2017 but as usual people forget it ever happened. It was memory-holed as quickly as possible. Do you think Kyle didn't shoot liberals and got away with it and was celebrated for it? This question sounds like bait, but I'll answer it. I think the jury was correct in saying Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. He shouldn't have been there, but maybe the people he shot shouldn't have been chasing someone with a gun? I'm still amazed that he was armed with a rifle he was not concealing and still they went after him as he was running away. So no, I don't think that's a correct characterization of what happened. edit: also i wouldn't call the people burning stuff down in kenosha "liberals." Unless you would like that association? It wasn't bait it was a simple question and you answered it in the positive. You didn't even try to dispute what it was you're just trying to justify the political violence you like. Trying to dodge the fact that he's still being celebrated for it isn't something you can just gloss over and no one will notice. Its incredible that you cheekily decide to edit in a "if you agree with me that they were protesting you win" statement at the end there. I mean yeah I agree with you they were liberals and he shot them thanks for agreeing with me. do you want to take a stab at the right celebrating him for the political violence he committed? that wasn't the intent of my edit or my post really. There are some people cheering him on but I am happy that he was acquitted when he was clearly acting in self-defense (not to "murder liberals"). If he had been convicted even in the face of such strong evidence it would have been yet another blow to another institution we need, the jury trial. I already said he shouldn't have been there, so it's hard to say I'm cheering him on. I don't think normal american liberals nor far-left types would like to describe the rioters as "liberals" although maybe they would object for different reasons.
Again you confirm that you want to justify political violence you agree with and then try to make it seem like you aren't a bad guy for it.
If your two outcomes where "I'm glad he was able to get away with it" and "the system is broken for not letting him get away with it" then you don't see a problem with him murdering people at a protest you just care about who he murdered. and how. You don't even say that you're not cheering him on just saying that its "hard to say it". I disagree that its hard to say it its pretty easy to say it and I did it pretty easily. Its pretty fun to watch you try to separate the protestors there as being outside of both "normal liberals" and "far-left types" and then cast doubt on your own attempt to do that in the same exact sentence. Take stances and stick to them, people don't respect you when you can't even support what you're saying even as you say it.
So I'm glad we've reached an agreement that he is being celebrated for killing people he disagrees with politically and that the people he killed with are on the other side of the political spectrum from him. Last bit we need to clear up do you think kyle is a conservative? Does the evidence of the interviews he's giving and the talk shows he's going on prove that he's a conservative?
|
|
|
Notice how they're not denying that they think they were liberals but trying to discredit them and trying to make other people disassociate with the dead.
It's a pretty clever way that someone taught them to make the other side look bad and also not defend their side as they do it. If you accept that as a legitimate argument tactic then they can handwave the nazis that support trump away as not being a viewpoint supported by the entire right and therefore can't be used to discredit someone on the right for being on the same side as them in protests. Never argue the facts or accept a position you could lose on but constantly try to change the conversation till it's framed as you want.
|
|
|
On June 09 2022 14:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 11:37 BlackJack wrote:On June 09 2022 10:47 JimmiC wrote:On June 09 2022 10:32 BlackJack wrote:On June 09 2022 09:58 ChristianS wrote:I’m not normally a CCStealthBlue but: Several Texas families are under investigation for child abuse because of providing gender-affirming care to their trans children (AKA the care recommended by every major medical authority for gender dysphoria). The Texas Supreme Court shielded some, but not all of these families from investigation. link According to the lawsuit, a 16-year-old transgender boy tried to kill himself the same day that Abbott issued the child abuse directive.
“[He] said that the political environment, including Abbott’s Letter, and being misgendered at school, led him to take these actions,” the lawsuit said.
He survived the attempt and was admitted to an outpatient psychiatric facility, where staff learned that he was undergoing hormone therapy. A week after he was discharged, an investigator from DFPS visited the family’s home and, according to the lawsuit, said that the psychiatric facility had reported the family for child abuse. The family remains under investigation. It’s very imprecise to throw everything under this label of “gender affirming care.” As far as I can tell gender affirming care ranges from everything to using correct pronouns to puberty blockers to hormone replacement therapy to sex reassignment surgery. I dont think any country has an absolutist approach to gender affirming care to the point they allow minors to get HRT and sex reassignment surgery. So in that sense denying “gender affirming care” is pretty standard for most countries. In fact I think Sweden and Finland have banned puberty blockers for minors which I think is a step lower than HRT or surgeries. So Northern Europe is probably one of the most bigoted places when it comes to denying gender affirming care. Reccomendations are not bans. No one is going to jail, no children are being taken away. Also, was it not pages ago where you were going hard at plasma for saying thisnwas happening? Probably time to apologize not put the latest facebook meme defence up. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/02/23/sweden-trans-healthcare-puberty-blockers/ https://genderreport.ca/finland-strict-guidelines-for-treating-gender-dysphoria/ Once again, your reading comprehension seems to be absolutely abysmal. I told plasmid I was aware of CPS investigations but I had not heard of any children being taken away and asked for a source. On May 26 2022 06:22 BlackJack wrote:I don't know a lot about this. Do you have any more information on this? I tried googling but I couldn't find any information on children being taken away from their parents homes for being trans. I found some articles about custody battles between two parents where they disagree how to raise their child. I found some other articles about CPS investigations or about families "fearing" that their child will be taken away. But I couldn't actually find anything about trans children being taken from their families homes. + Show Spoiler +Given what little I know about the foster-care system this would be truly reprehensible if trans kids were being taken from homes with loving parents. I just can't determine how common this is. He said his only source was people he knew on Twitter that he trusted and didn't have a reputable source on children being taken away from their parents and I said you shouldn't post things if you're not prepared to source it from a reputable source. Unlike you, plasmid is able to admit when he makes an error and owned up to it: On May 26 2022 10:31 plasmidghost wrote:
Yeah, I shouldn't have said that. My apologies. It was most likely spread due to us being afraid of that happening and I didn't check to see that it hadn't happened yet, I had just assumed it had. Now you come along and nonchalantly talk about children being taken away from their parents again. So did you find the source I was asking for or are you making things up? P.S. I never even said that kids weren't being taken away from parents. I literally said "I don't know a lot about this. Do you have any more information on this?..." Not sure how this constitutes "going hard at plasmid." Also not sure how I would owe someone an apology for asking for a source even if they later provided one. I'm sure these things make sense in your head though. I guess by that logic you are going to not post about the swedish and finnish bans and apologize to thread? You seem to think its ban worthy to post without sources. Ive said Ive been wrong numerous times, search "my bad" written by me you find lots. I make mistakes then try to learn. Can you provide the same? I also think that most people would think that investigations into their children was them "trying to take their kids away". It is barely a stretch to say getting kids taken away it is not happening because it has not happened quite yet. But it is clearly the intent of the law hence the investigations. Or are you suggesting thay all of this is extremely cruel political grandstanding to trick the "social conservatives" into thinking they are trying to take their children away? Seems like an awfully evil view of ones party but I guess at least possible.
Imagine doubling down on the idea that you can say something that's not happening is happening just because you think it will happen in the future. Jesus. I'm done wasting my time now.
|
Also fun fact the Constitution doesn't protect you anymore if you're within 100 miles of a border. Cops can just search whatever without a warrant if they feel like it. Just a great judicial system we have now.
|
On June 09 2022 13:57 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 12:11 ChristianS wrote:On June 09 2022 11:59 plasmidghost wrote:On June 09 2022 11:52 ChristianS wrote:
I remember thinking plasmid was fine and probably only apologized because you were pretty aggro about sourcing and banworthiness. I think “I read a thing on Twitter” is a perfectly acceptable thing to say in the politics thread, and if somebody asks for a source it’s fine to either go find one or say “can’t find one right now, take it with a grain of salt.” LL made some claims about the VA that weren’t true a while back, but I just said “I don’t think that’s true,” I didn’t say “you better provide a source or else that’s banworthy.”
That said I don’t care that much either way and holding grudges pretty much always makes the thread worse. A younger me would have held grudges, but at this point with how dire things for us are in Texas and in the US, I don't even have the mental bandwidth to care about petty arguments, I'm too busy trying to ensure that the people I love aren't about to be legislated out of existence I need to provide a bunch of info about trans stuff because there is currently a ton of misinformation and misconceptions with regards to what's being posted, but I'm out at the moment I mean, if you have the time, I’d certainly appreciate it. I hope I haven’t fucked anything up too badly in talking about this stuff but there’s a ton I don’t know and it’s a little hard to know where to start. All good, I'll post stuff here that's relevant to what's being discussed. Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 09:58 ChristianS wrote:I’m not normally a CCStealthBlue but: Several Texas families are under investigation for child abuse because of providing gender-affirming care to their trans children (AKA the care recommended by every major medical authority for gender dysphoria). The Texas Supreme Court shielded some, but not all of these families from investigation. link According to the lawsuit, a 16-year-old transgender boy tried to kill himself the same day that Abbott issued the child abuse directive.
“[He] said that the political environment, including Abbott’s Letter, and being misgendered at school, led him to take these actions,” the lawsuit said.
He survived the attempt and was admitted to an outpatient psychiatric facility, where staff learned that he was undergoing hormone therapy. A week after he was discharged, an investigator from DFPS visited the family’s home and, according to the lawsuit, said that the psychiatric facility had reported the family for child abuse. The family remains under investigation. This article is pretty straightforward. It should be noted that there is no legal requirement whatsoever for DFPS to investigate families of trans kids for child abuse, as per our Supreme Court's ruling last month. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, there is no legal requirement for any doctor in the state to report trans kids to DFPS, meaning that the doctors in the psychiatric facility willingly turned this family over to DFPS and should burn in hell. If I'm wrong on that and they were forced to, I would say two things: Do no harm isn't just empty words, and the just following orders excuse didn't work in the Nuremberg trials. Show nested quote +On June 09 2022 10:32 BlackJack wrote:On June 09 2022 09:58 ChristianS wrote:I’m not normally a CCStealthBlue but: Several Texas families are under investigation for child abuse because of providing gender-affirming care to their trans children (AKA the care recommended by every major medical authority for gender dysphoria). The Texas Supreme Court shielded some, but not all of these families from investigation. link According to the lawsuit, a 16-year-old transgender boy tried to kill himself the same day that Abbott issued the child abuse directive.
“[He] said that the political environment, including Abbott’s Letter, and being misgendered at school, led him to take these actions,” the lawsuit said.
He survived the attempt and was admitted to an outpatient psychiatric facility, where staff learned that he was undergoing hormone therapy. A week after he was discharged, an investigator from DFPS visited the family’s home and, according to the lawsuit, said that the psychiatric facility had reported the family for child abuse. The family remains under investigation. It’s very imprecise to throw everything under this label of “gender affirming care.” As far as I can tell gender affirming care ranges from everything to using correct pronouns to puberty blockers to hormone replacement therapy to sex reassignment surgery. I dont think any country has an absolutist approach to gender affirming care to the point they allow minors to get HRT and sex reassignment surgery. So in that sense denying “gender affirming care” is pretty standard for most countries. In fact I think Sweden and Finland have banned puberty blockers for minors which I think is a step lower than HRT or surgeries. So Northern Europe is probably one of the most bigoted places when it comes to denying gender affirming care. Few things: Show nested quote +It’s very imprecise to throw everything under this label of “gender affirming care.” As far as I can tell gender affirming care ranges from everything to using correct pronouns to puberty blockers to hormone replacement therapy to sex reassignment surgery. Florida is seeking to ban everything you list, including correct pronouns, for every minor in the state.As far as legality goes, this guidance is technically not enforceable, but as was the case with Texas investigations into child abuse, that means nothing and the GOP will do it anyway.Show nested quote + I dont think any country has an absolutist approach to gender affirming care to the point they allow minors to get HRT and sex reassignment surgery. I'm not sure of any doctor that does gender-affirming surgery for any trans minor below 16 under any circumstance, and I know that most every medical board doesn't recommend it for trans kids under 18. I could absolutely be wrong regarding surgeries, but I personally haven't heard of surgeons providing those procedures that young even in the worst-case scenarios. This WaPo article has some good insights specifically relating to trans youth, highlighting that puberty blockers are completely reversible if stopped, that cross-sex hormones are usually started at 16, and that surgeries are usually done at 18 or later. Medical science and care is, of course, changing daily as more studies and evidence is gathered, but you are right that at the moment, I don't think any country allows complete medical transition for any reason under 18. Show nested quote +In fact I think Sweden and Finland have banned puberty blockers for minors which I think is a step lower than HRT or surgeries. So Northern Europe is probably one of the most bigoted places when it comes to denying gender affirming care. Yeah, they are, there's no sugarcoating it. What Finland and Sweden has done flies in the face of decades of research into trans medical care, starting from the early 1970s. I'm not going to get too much into the political reasoning behind why they did it since this is the US politics thread, but the TL;DR is that they've been plagued by trans-exclusionary radical feminists and heavy propaganda by far-right orgs in the US like the Heritage Foundation into going against trans people. Here's an article on the benefits of medical care for trans youth.This is a good case study into one trans person's experiences 22 years after starting transition at 13.Here's a megathread linking currently over 100 studies and counting on the positive benefits of gender-affirming care for trans youth. I don't think I have the capability to read every single study in detail due to paywalling and time, but check some of them out.
According to this link I googled it appears that hormone therapy is banned in a few European countries below the age of 18, including Italy, Portugal, and Austria.
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/mapping-minimum-age-requirements-concerning-rights-child-eu/access-transgender-hormone-therapy
So I would assume that the Texas family of the 16 year old on hormone therapy that ChristianS posted about would be in hot water if they also lived in any of the countries that explicitly set the age of hormone therapy at 18. Surely not all of these countries are beholden to right-wing US hate groups, so what else is going on here? Do you think anyone is actually acting in good faith out of a legitimate concern for children?
I think people are genuinely concerned due to how the prevalence of gender dysphoria has just exploded in the last couple decades. For example this excerpt I found in one of your links from the French National Academy of Medicine
The recognition of this disharmony is not new, but a very strong increase in the demand for physicians for this reason has been observed (1, 2) in North America, then in the countries of northern Europe and, more recently, in France, particularly in children and adolescents. For example, a recent study within a dozen high schools in Pittsburgh revealed a prevalence that was much higher than previously estimated in the United States (3): 10% of students declared themselves to be transgender or non-binary or of uncertain gender (b). In 2003, the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne had diagnosed gender dysphoria in only one child, while today it treats nearly 200
...
However, a great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, particularly psychological, of this population and the many undesirable effects, and even serious complications, that some of the available therapies can cause. In this respect, it is important to recall the recent decision (May 2021) of the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm to ban the use of hormone blockers.
What is your belief on why we are seeing such a huge jump in prevalence in gender dysphoria?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
