|
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 October 24 2024 19:36 KT_Elwood wrote:
I think these are Motivations to vote for Trump:
1. It's the name next to an (R). You are from an (R) familiy. You go to work. You go to Church. And you Vote the guy with the (R).
Motivations to vote for Harris:
1. It's the name next to (D)...
I think these are often overlooked. Most voters keep their party affiliation and vote in the same way they did the previous election, regardless of who is running in the next election. Even if the current candidate of a preferred party isn't great, I think many voters would conclude that it's still probably in their best interest for their preferred party to keep control of the executive branch. Couple this with voters being uninformed or confused or overwhelmed by election information and misinformation, and a lot of voters will consider their preferred party to almost always be a safer option.
That being said, not deciding to switch parties isn't the same as actively voting for your current party. Voter enthusiasm and voter turnout could significantly affect elections, and if people aren't energized to go out and vote for you, then you're going to lose.
|
Rule of corporate lawyers through stacked courts and politicly appointed officials is really scary.
|
1. "Humans have two legs" --> this sentence is true in most contexts, is inaacurate in some".
2. "Most humans have two legs" --> this senctence is true in almost all contexts but is also needleslly long in some.
There is also a more subtle yet crucial differnce here that the word "humans" used in both sentence refer to two different concepts. In (1) the referent is a general concept of human, an idea of human, an essence, an abstract ignoring accidental differences like the fact that some humans obviously have one or no legs.
In (2) the referent is an enumeration over every human being, a more precise expression not ignoring individual differences. The word "most" informs the recipient that we do want to use word :humans"in more precise meaning and context.
(1) is more used in informal speech, normal discussions between people and most importantly for this thread in POLITICS. (2) is less used (because is longer!!!!) and we want our speech to be quick, to communicate ideas and emotions quickly. It has place in scientific discourse and where we have time and sire to be precise.
So both (1) and (2) can be true depending on the context.
Substituting "two legs" for "two sexes" should be an easy exercise...
Edit: Changed "two genders" for "two sexes".
|
On October 24 2024 20:34 Silvanel wrote:
Substituting "two legs" for "two genders" should be an easy exercise...
I'm not sure if your switching of the word "sex" to "gender" was intentional or not, since they are not the same thing, but on the topic of gender: do you believe there are two genders? Why or why not?
|
It doesn't have to be that hyperbolic. Plenty of people think that Trump's better for the economy than Harris.
Nah, thats just Nr. 1 or 2. It is an opinion not based on reality.
|
On October 24 2024 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think these are often overlooked
Maybe not in focus, because it's boring. People doing the expected stuff, leads to the focus on swing voters and states getting more interesting.
Traditional Voters are kind of the NPCs here.
|
On October 24 2024 20:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 20:34 Silvanel wrote:
Substituting "two legs" for "two genders" should be an easy exercise... I'm not sure if your switching of the word "sex" to "gender" was intentional or not, since they are not the same thing, but on the topic of gender: do you believe there are two genders? Why or why not?
I am polish and in polish there is no difference between gender and sex, we use same word to describe both concepts: "płeć". It creates some confusion during the translation (both ways). If it makes more sense to You can read it as sex ( I will even edit my original post). Due to the way my mother tongue works I simply omitted this difference when translating my thoughts to english. Apologies.
The sex vs gender or "płeć biologiczna" vs "płeć społeczna" as You could express it in polish is totally different discussion, irrelevant to the point I was trying to make and one I am not willing to discuss at this time.
|
Norway28441 Posts
Norwegian is the same. Sex and gender are biologisk kjønn and sosialt kjønn, respectively. In the days of yesteryore we only used kjønn. But this does sometimes confuse Norwegians who watch the american debate because they hear people talk about gender and assume they're talking about sex.
|
Ah, that's pretty interesting! Thanks for the clarification 
|
On October 24 2024 13:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:57 Billyboy wrote:US based biological labs in Ukraine. Republican Senator Mitt Romney gave some of the harshest condemnation of the former Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman, tweeting that she is "parroting false Russian propaganda" and that her "treasonous lies may well cost lives." The US has or had biolabs in Ukraine, you have posted a quote from Mitt Romney who is not Tulsi Gabbard. Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:57 Billyboy wrote:Here is another quote from her “I’ve been thinking about how infinitely greater the death and suffering will be if we allow the mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, self-serving politicians – if we allow them to lead us now into the apocalypse of World War III,” Gabbard said. “So, now is the time for anyone who cares for their loved ones, who cares for our fellow Americans, who cares for all human beings and wildlife; now is the time to be reminded of the grim reality that we all face if we don’t stop them.”
No info on "how" or who exactly the "them" is. You don't know who the mainstream media, military industrial, and self serving politicians are? I don't personally like WW3 or the idea of proxy wars between nuclear powers escalating due to hawkish retards in the pocket of the defense industry who know nothing about the world. Seems reasonable and sane to me. Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:57 Billyboy wrote:That Russia's invasion is Ukraine's fault. “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border.” I mean is there a Russia propaganda point she doesn't love? Looks like she said it's Biden's fault which you took to mean is Ukraine's fault somehow. This is not exactly Alex Jones level stuff that you made it out to be. Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? Why didn't you mention Hitler? You know Drumpf is a racist so why do you shy away from Kelly saying he liked Hitler? Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? Why didn't you mention Hitler? You know Drumpf is a rapist so why do you shy away from Kelly saying he liked Hitler? John Kelly is just an appointee. Him remembering 2 weeks before an election that Drumpf said he liked Hitler's generals stretches John Kelly's already nonexistent credibility. Musk is not likely to immediately switch back to supporting Democrats. Nor is Melania going to come out despite whatever sick people fantasize about their marriage. If you really wanted to sway people, you'd need a turncoat who's widely respected among elected Republicans, like Mitt Romney or Dick Cheney. Someone principled like that. Maybe it's not the question of "muh fascism" itself that's not swaying people but the fact that nobody cares what John Kelly or any other wolf criers have to say.
Thank you for making my point. Dems are not going to do the mental gymnastics that MAGA people are. They are not going to support people who constantly echo Russian talking points. Traditional Republican's would realize that if their influencers were taking large sums of money from Russian operatives those people were not victims of fraud, but fraudsters.
I'll end with McConnel ‘MAGA movement is completely wrong’ and Reagan ‘wouldn’t recognize’ Trump’s GOP
Crazy how I can find tons of quotes from long term well respected Republicans that are saying what I am. And the only people you can find to counter it are the other MAGA crack pots and grifters who lack values, substance, and just pray on ignorance and anger.
|
On October 24 2024 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We've mentioned Hitler, Trump's racism, and Trump's history of sexual assault plenty of times. We could certainly talk more about those things, if you'd like, but my question was about a different topic, and it was a hypothetical. I agree with you that I couldn't see Melania actually endorsing Harris and telling people not to vote for her husband, but that wasn't my question. I think Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney have already publicly denounced Trump and endorsed Harris (I was looking for people who haven't yet), but I see your broader point about how it could be useful coming from a more traditional, old school, non-MAGA Republican (to show that they still exist - that there's a conservative resistance still alive within Trump's party). Who would those people be, though, who are similar to Romney and Cheney but haven't yet said anything?
You didn't mention Johnny Kelly's specific quoting of Drumpf saying Hitler did good things and he wished he had Hitler's generals. The reason is even you are able to realize that claim, its timing, its lack of foundation, is so patently absurd that it immediately erases any semblance of integrity or credibility Johnny Kelly had left, and brings into focus that the issue isn't alleged fascism, it's the desperation of trying to run a campaign and a political party off of Godwin's Law wolfcrying.
Another possible reason is you didn't read your own link again.
And it's now the official line of Kamabla as she calls him Hitler while Obama wanders around stumping with the genius question "How'd we get so divided?"
John Kelly was an appointee. A disgruntled one at that. He has no voters and no supporters. He makes money selling feces that are in demand by media who need to load something into their shit flinging catapults. His endorsement or anti-endorsement is as valid as any random person on a street corner.
Are there people who can sell out their party and country for a little more clout than they already have? Yes. Is there someone with so much clout that can sway allllllll the people you think are evil not to vote for the candidate they prefer? No, because nobody with that much clout needs to sell out for a marginal amount extra. Your question is akin to saying "If Doug Emhoff finally came out and admitted that actually the effect his wife would have on the country is even worse than him fucking and impregnating his nanny, would that manage to persuade people not to vote for an incompetent disaster just because she has D next to her name?" It's not a question to theorycraft about the nature of endorsements, it's just not so subtly calling Drumpf Hitler and his voters cultists. People who follow the proclamations of the likes of Dick Cheney have already done so.
The "traditional" "conservatives" have already moved. Republicans have been sick of them for a long time. That's why they were replaced. That's why they cling for political life with their scant relevance. Now they are globalist retirees. The Democrats can keep them in their new home.
On October 24 2024 21:29 Billyboy wrote:
Thank you for making my point. Dems are not going to do the mental gymnastics that MAGA people are. They are not going to support people who constantly echo Russian talking points. Traditional Republican's would realize that if their influencers were taking large sums of money from Russian operatives those people were not victims of fraud, but fraudsters.
How is the fact that there were biolabs in Ukraine a Russian talking point?
On October 24 2024 21:29 Billyboy wrote:I'll end with McConnel Show nested quote + ‘MAGA movement is completely wrong’ and Reagan ‘wouldn’t recognize’ Trump’s GOP
This also doesn't help me understand why Gabbard's opinion that Biden fucked up Ukraine is a progressively dumber conspiracy theory with no substance.
On October 24 2024 21:29 Billyboy wrote:
Crazy how I can find tons of quotes from long term well respected Republicans that are saying what I am.
Unfortunately so far you've only quoted Romney and McConnell.
On October 24 2024 21:29 Billyboy wrote:
And the only people you can find to counter it are the other MAGA crack pots and grifters who lack values, substance, and just pray on ignorance and anger.
This is legitimately pointless namecalling. You haven't even built up what you "are saying" or what "it" is that anyone would counter.
|
On October 24 2024 21:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We've mentioned Hitler, Trump's racism, and Trump's history of sexual assault plenty of times. We could certainly talk more about those things, if you'd like, but my question was about a different topic, and it was a hypothetical. I agree with you that I couldn't see Melania actually endorsing Harris and telling people not to vote for her husband, but that wasn't my question. I think Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney have already publicly denounced Trump and endorsed Harris (I was looking for people who haven't yet), but I see your broader point about how it could be useful coming from a more traditional, old school, non-MAGA Republican (to show that they still exist - that there's a conservative resistance still alive within Trump's party). Who would those people be, though, who are similar to Romney and Cheney but haven't yet said anything?
You didn't mention Johnny Kelly's specific quoting of Drumpf saying Hitler did good things and he wished he had Hitler's generals. The reason is even you are able to realize that claim, its timing, its lack of foundation, is so patently absurd that it immediately erases any semblance of integrity or credibility Johnny Kelly had left, and brings into focus that the issue isn't alleged fascism, it's the desperation of trying to run a campaign and a political party off of Godwin's Law wolfcrying.
Another possible reason is you didn't read your own link again.
And it's now the official line of Kamabla as she calls him Hitler while Obama wanders around stumping with the genius question "How'd we get so divided?"
John Kelly was an appointee. A disgruntled one at that. He has no voters and no supporters. He makes money selling feces that are in demand by media who need to load something into their shit flinging catapults. His endorsement or anti-endorsement is as valid as any random person on a street corner.
Are there people who can sell out their party and country for a little more clout than they already have? Yes. Is there someone with so much clout that can sway allllllll the people you think are evil not to vote for the candidate they prefer? No, because nobody with that much clout needs to sell out for a marginal amount extra. Your question is akin to saying "If Doug Emhoff finally came out and admitted that actually the effect his wife would have on the country is even worse than him fucking and impregnating his nanny, would that manage to persuade people not to vote for an incompetent disaster just because she has D next to her name?" It's not a question to theorycraft about the nature of endorsements, it's just not so subtly calling Drumpf Hitler and his voters cultists. People who follow the proclamations of the likes of Dick Cheney have already done so.
The "traditional" "conservatives" have already moved. Republicans have been sick of them for a long time. That's why they were replaced. That's why they cling for political life with their scant relevance. Now they are globalist retirees. The Democrats can keep them in their new home.
If you don't want to answer my question, and instead rant about Hitler, that's totally cool too. If you do come up with any other names, such as Elon Musk, Melania Trump, or Joe Rogan, feel free to share!
|
On October 24 2024 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Norwegian is the same. Sex and gender are biologisk kjønn and sosialt kjønn, respectively. In the days of yesteryore we only used kjønn. But this does sometimes confuse Norwegians who watch the american debate because they hear people talk about gender and assume they're talking about sex.
Here in Austria we simply incorporated the term "gender". "Geschlecht" still stands for "sex", "gender" stands for "gender". A fairly obvious solution to a fairly easy problem.
|
On October 24 2024 21:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We've mentioned Hitler, Trump's racism, and Trump's history of sexual assault plenty of times. We could certainly talk more about those things, if you'd like, but my question was about a different topic, and it was a hypothetical. I agree with you that I couldn't see Melania actually endorsing Harris and telling people not to vote for her husband, but that wasn't my question. I think Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney have already publicly denounced Trump and endorsed Harris (I was looking for people who haven't yet), but I see your broader point about how it could be useful coming from a more traditional, old school, non-MAGA Republican (to show that they still exist - that there's a conservative resistance still alive within Trump's party). Who would those people be, though, who are similar to Romney and Cheney but haven't yet said anything?
You didn't mention Johnny Kelly's specific quoting of Drumpf saying Hitler did good things and he wished he had Hitler's generals. The reason is even you are able to realize that claim, its timing, its lack of foundation, is so patently absurd that it immediately erases any semblance of integrity or credibility Johnny Kelly had left, and brings into focus that the issue isn't alleged fascism, it's the desperation of trying to run a campaign and a political party off of Godwin's Law wolfcrying. Another possible reason is you didn't read your own link again. And it's now the official line of Kamabla as she calls him Hitler while Obama wanders around stumping with the genius question "How'd we get so divided?" John Kelly was an appointee. A disgruntled one at that. He has no voters and no supporters. He makes money selling feces that are in demand by media who need to load something into their shit flinging catapults. His endorsement or anti-endorsement is as valid as any random person on a street corner. Are there people who can sell out their party and country for a little more clout than they already have? Yes. Is there someone with so much clout that can sway Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 21:29 Billyboy wrote:
Thank you for making my point. Dems are not going to do the mental gymnastics that MAGA people are. They are not going to support people who constantly echo Russian talking points. Traditional Republican's would realize that if their influencers were taking large sums of money from Russian operatives those people were not victims of fraud, but fraudsters. How is the fact that there were biolabs in Ukraine a Russian talking point?
Are you actually serious with this? Or are you just trolling?
|
On October 24 2024 23:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 21:40 oBlade wrote:On October 24 2024 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We've mentioned Hitler, Trump's racism, and Trump's history of sexual assault plenty of times. We could certainly talk more about those things, if you'd like, but my question was about a different topic, and it was a hypothetical. I agree with you that I couldn't see Melania actually endorsing Harris and telling people not to vote for her husband, but that wasn't my question. I think Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney have already publicly denounced Trump and endorsed Harris (I was looking for people who haven't yet), but I see your broader point about how it could be useful coming from a more traditional, old school, non-MAGA Republican (to show that they still exist - that there's a conservative resistance still alive within Trump's party). Who would those people be, though, who are similar to Romney and Cheney but haven't yet said anything?
You didn't mention Johnny Kelly's specific quoting of Drumpf saying Hitler did good things and he wished he had Hitler's generals. The reason is even you are able to realize that claim, its timing, its lack of foundation, is so patently absurd that it immediately erases any semblance of integrity or credibility Johnny Kelly had left, and brings into focus that the issue isn't alleged fascism, it's the desperation of trying to run a campaign and a political party off of Godwin's Law wolfcrying. Another possible reason is you didn't read your own link again. And it's now the official line of Kamabla as she calls him Hitler while Obama wanders around stumping with the genius question "How'd we get so divided?" John Kelly was an appointee. A disgruntled one at that. He has no voters and no supporters. He makes money selling feces that are in demand by media who need to load something into their shit flinging catapults. His endorsement or anti-endorsement is as valid as any random person on a street corner. Are there people who can sell out their party and country for a little more clout than they already have? Yes. Is there someone with so much clout that can sway On October 24 2024 21:29 Billyboy wrote:
Thank you for making my point. Dems are not going to do the mental gymnastics that MAGA people are. They are not going to support people who constantly echo Russian talking points. Traditional Republican's would realize that if their influencers were taking large sums of money from Russian operatives those people were not victims of fraud, but fraudsters. How is the fact that there were biolabs in Ukraine a Russian talking point? Are you actually serious with this? Or are you just trolling?
Both, that's MAGA. The parts they like are serious and the parts they don't like are just trolling. Those change per individual.
|
On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that. Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you. Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard. Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you. I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify. Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back: On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits. This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine. Later, in response to DPB, you add On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post. Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing Your ending statement is this: On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue. You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.". You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits. Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from. My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do. The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people." Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts. Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male. In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way. Biologically it's gametes. We have either sperm or eggs, there is no third type (it's "binary"). In many animals chromosomes can determine the sex but they don't define it. Famously, in alligators incubation temperature determines sex. Edit: so chromosomes are a useful shorthand but edge cases don't make the whole exercise arbitrary.
This is close to true, perhaps good enough for government work, but it’s not quite right. Fundamentally, what someone’s “biological sex” is depends on what purpose you have for defining their biological sex – for sex-linked genetic traits, for instance, chromosomes *is* what you would care about, whether or not their gametes match.
Stepping back a little, biology is a constant exercise of looking at enormously complex, heterogeneous systems, and trying to define rules and categories that will help understand how they work, even though every rule or category will have nontrivial exceptions you’ll then have to account for. Even something relatively robust like “species” has weird exceptions that make it a little hard to delineate exactly how many species of this type of bird there are in a certain population, or where the dividing line is between them. But if we define a prototypical case, and describe the characteristics that the vast majority of cases follow, we can talk about the cases that deviate from the rule and why, which is still a better understanding than we had before.
The nitpicky problem with “sex is binary, you either produce one gamete or the other” is that a small number of people produce both, and a huge number of people produce neither. The more fundamental problem is that when people talk about sex, even specifically “biological sex,” their gametes may or may not be relevant. If I’m talking about a chimeric individual (someone whose body is made partly of cells with a different genetic set), and I say that one of their genetic sets is male and the other is female, I don’t think anyone would think I was talking about gametes. Or, to put it another way, if I say “a male liver cell” it would be idiotic to respond “liver cells don’t produce gametes so there’s no such thing as male or female liver cells.”
All of which is to say that we could, perhaps, say “gametes are binary” in that any individual gamete is one or the other (I’m not aware of any exceptions to that, although there’s no theoretical theoretical reason there couldn’t be). But biological sex is a complex constellation of traits that usually correlate into two populations, but not always. If you’re gonna push your glasses up your nose and say in a nasally voice, “Well actually, biological sex *is* binary” I could maybe excuse the know-it-all technicality of it, if you weren’t also wrong on the technicality.
The relevance of all this to US politics is slim, except that one faction has committed itself to the rhetorical position that sex and gender are binary, and anyone who disagrees is a leftist radical wholly detached from scientific reality. Those folks are incurious dullards, every bit as censorious and tyrannical as BlackJack’s woke scolds who insist biological sex doesn’t exist, but in my experience, substantially more numerous and vocal.
|
On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?
At this point I think only person being able to do it, is Trump himself by doing something monumentally stupid (we talking being caught on video being sh...ed by Putin, or promising to bring back slavery) other than that, Trump dying, or Kamala getting 9.5 billion votes, he is going to be president.
|
On October 25 2024 00:36 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? At this point I think only person being able to do it, is Trump himself by doing something monumentally stupid (we talking being caught on video being sh...ed by Putin, or promising to bring back slavery) other than that, Trump dying, or Kamala getting 9.5 billion votes, he is going to be president.
I do agree with you that Trump would essentially be his own worst enemy in a hypothetical case of who could damage Trump the most. On the other hand, while Harris could obviously hurt her own chances too, I think there are a bunch of other public figures who have been rallying for her - such as Barack and Michelle Obama - who could also hypothetically harm Harris's chances if they suddenly did a 180 on supporting her. I'm having trouble figuring out who is analogous to the Obamas and their support of Harris on the Trump side.
|
On October 25 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 00:36 Razyda wrote:On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? At this point I think only person being able to do it, is Trump himself by doing something monumentally stupid (we talking being caught on video being sh...ed by Putin, or promising to bring back slavery) other than that, Trump dying, or Kamala getting 9.5 billion votes, he is going to be president. I do agree with you that Trump would essentially be his own worst enemy in a hypothetical case of who could damage Trump the most. On the other hand, while Harris could obviously hurt her own chances too, I think there are a bunch of other public figures who have been rallying for her - such as Barack and Michelle Obama - who could also hypothetically harm Harris's chances if they suddenly did a 180 on supporting her. I'm having trouble figuring out who is analogous to the Obamas and their support of Harris on the Trump side.
I dont think their situation is similar. Trump is running on being Trump, so he doesnt rely so much on support (as in people dont vote for him because he is Republican). Kamala runs (beside not being Trump) as Democrat candidate more than being Kamala, so if notable Democrats turned away from her, she would suffer.
|
On October 25 2024 01:06 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 00:36 Razyda wrote:On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? At this point I think only person being able to do it, is Trump himself by doing something monumentally stupid (we talking being caught on video being sh...ed by Putin, or promising to bring back slavery) other than that, Trump dying, or Kamala getting 9.5 billion votes, he is going to be president. I do agree with you that Trump would essentially be his own worst enemy in a hypothetical case of who could damage Trump the most. On the other hand, while Harris could obviously hurt her own chances too, I think there are a bunch of other public figures who have been rallying for her - such as Barack and Michelle Obama - who could also hypothetically harm Harris's chances if they suddenly did a 180 on supporting her. I'm having trouble figuring out who is analogous to the Obamas and their support of Harris on the Trump side. I dont think their situation is similar. Trump is running on being Trump, so he doesnt rely so much on support (as in people dont vote for him because he is Republican). Kamala runs (beside not being Trump) as Democrat candidate more than being Kamala, so if notable Democrats turned away from her, she would suffer.
Good point; maybe the analogy doesn't really work so well. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
