|
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 |
Northern Ireland22439 Posts
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 guess there’s nobody really bigger than Trump, or more popular in his particular camp
Whereas that’s somewhat the inverse with Kamala versus the Obamas or an Oprah
|
On October 25 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
From the jump you are changing the question. If you are looking at certain chromosomal traits, then obviously you would go there. But it turns out that for the vast majority of people you can imply at least some traits from others. That relates to what i said about definition vs determination. After looking again (briefly) still haven't found anyone documented case where someone has produced both gametes (having two different sex organs is not the same). But even so I acknowledged the complexity you refer to, although I did also say that I agree with others who object to throwing out the entire categorical scheme just because of rare exceptions that always come from abnormalities. I guess what I'm taking issue with is using those unusual and by definition abnormal occurrences and selectively using it to say that everything is always on the table.
Edit: you seem very caught up on the fact that something doesn't, as matter of logical necessity, have to be a certain way. I think that's not useful at all when we have a lot of info about the way things actually are.
|
On October 25 2024 01:21 WombaT 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 guess there’s nobody really bigger than Trump, or more popular in his particular camp Whereas that’s somewhat the inverse with Kamala versus the Obamas or an Oprah
Very true.
|
On October 25 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I'd consider a coin flip as something that is a binary. Of course there's a small chance that the coin lands perfectly on its edge leading to a result that is neither heads nor tails. To me, the people pointing out this (literal) edge case are the ones pushing their glasses up their nose and saying in the nasally voice "well actually.." For some reason I've never encountered a person that wants to go 12 rounds on whether or not a coin flip is actually binary because coins can land on their edge. If I did I would really hope they were trying to make some broader point and not trying to scold me for being dumb enough to think a coinflip is binary.
|
The road has but two sides despite the fact that an individual driving a car along it could technically drive in the middle of it.
|
On October 25 2024 01:32 Introvert wrote:
When you see people on the street, or interact with them, what is it about their person, their human condition, that makes you go classify them as a man or a woman, or somewhere in between, or neither?
Are we still talking about the factualities of what is a biological male? Or does that actually not matter all that much? The only real case where gametes come into play (or should), if you want a child and you find out through getting to know the person you're interested in that he or she produces the same gametes as you do. Welp. Guess you'll have to find someone else to procreate with.
|
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this.
|
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.
So you're saying the Republican party has turned into a cult of personality. I obviously agree, I'm just surprised to hear a Republican sympathizer say so.
|
On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
We should not let ourselves be baited into this.
Maybe we really have to get through this before we can actually trudge further along..
|
On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this.
Bolded: this is the post which started current outburst about trans people:
On October 22 2024 10:50 DOgMeAt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2024 07:48 Uldridge wrote:
The existential threat is there, no matter who wins though. Trump is just a symptom. He's the voice channeling all the conspiratorial, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised people. How do you turn the tide?
At the same time: why are these people like this? HOW did this happen? It's time for some really serious root cause analysis, because just brushing it off as "tsk, just impressionable, gullible, stupid, insane people" isn't going to cut it for the third election in a row. There are people thinking the hurricane was manmade to steal lithium. I don't understand reality any more.
We need something better than "they're too far gone". I'm actually starting to feel quite anxious for you guys, no matter the outcome. Let's just hope everything stays more or less calm at the turn of the year. so >50% are "just impressionable, gullible, stupid, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised, insane people" and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason? are you sure? skinner.jpg
What so bigoted about it? (mind that "ppl believing men can be women" is not reference to trans people, but to activists on the left)
Italic 1 and bolded italic: I like this honest and unbiased presentation of the problem by you  .
Bolded italic: from what I've seen leftwing people treat trans people kinda like meatshields for their ideas.
It kinda looks like that:
L: Trans women should be screened for Ovarian Cancer, because they are women.
R: No they shouldnt, they cant get ovarian cancer
L: Why you hate trans people??!!!??!!!
|
On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this.
I can understand why it doesn't always feel like things are improving, because politically the backlash is very severe. I think we're making progress on a societal level (in the sense that more people support transgender rights than ever before). The backlash is so strong because support has gotten very loud. This growing support frustrates right-wingers and they fight back harder than before. So now on both sides the noise is increasing, that's my impression.
|
On October 24 2024 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Of course Harris needs to do everything she can to earn more votes. That wasn't my question though. Suppose there was some October surprise where two or three key individuals spoke up against Trump - and in favor of Harris - and those two or three people were influential enough to actually have an impact on the election. Who would those two or three people be? As RenSC2 said above, one example could be Joe Rogan.
Rogan could possibly move the needle a little.
Republican politicians like Cheney stating their support of Harris make no impact, probably even a negative for Harris.
A heck of a lot of people have just tuned it all out.
|
Northern Ireland22439 Posts
On October 25 2024 03:19 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. Bolded: this is the post which started current outburst about trans people: Show nested quote +On October 22 2024 10:50 DOgMeAt wrote:On October 22 2024 07:48 Uldridge wrote:
The existential threat is there, no matter who wins though. Trump is just a symptom. He's the voice channeling all the conspiratorial, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised people. How do you turn the tide?
At the same time: why are these people like this? HOW did this happen? It's time for some really serious root cause analysis, because just brushing it off as "tsk, just impressionable, gullible, stupid, insane people" isn't going to cut it for the third election in a row. There are people thinking the hurricane was manmade to steal lithium. I don't understand reality any more.
We need something better than "they're too far gone". I'm actually starting to feel quite anxious for you guys, no matter the outcome. Let's just hope everything stays more or less calm at the turn of the year. so >50% are "just impressionable, gullible, stupid, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised, insane people" and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason? are you sure? skinner.jpg What so bigoted about it? (mind that "ppl believing men can be women" is not reference to trans people, but to activists on the left) Italic 1 and bolded italic: I like this honest and unbiased presentation of the problem by you . Bolded italic: from what I've seen leftwing people treat trans people kinda like meatshields for their ideas. It kinda looks like that:
L: Trans women should be screened for Ovarian Cancer, because they are women.
R: No they shouldnt, they cant get ovarian cancer
L: Why you hate trans people??!!!??!!!
When does that happen? :S
|
On October 25 2024 03:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Of course Harris needs to do everything she can to earn more votes. That wasn't my question though. Suppose there was some October surprise where two or three key individuals spoke up against Trump - and in favor of Harris - and those two or three people were influential enough to actually have an impact on the election. Who would those two or three people be? As RenSC2 said above, one example could be Joe Rogan. Rogan could possibly move the needle a little. Republican politicians like Cheney stating their support of Harris make no impact, probably even a negative for Harris. A heck of a lot of people have just tuned it all out.
That's fair. I appreciate the response!
|
Northern Ireland22439 Posts
On October 25 2024 03:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 19:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Of course Harris needs to do everything she can to earn more votes. That wasn't my question though. Suppose there was some October surprise where two or three key individuals spoke up against Trump - and in favor of Harris - and those two or three people were influential enough to actually have an impact on the election. Who would those two or three people be? As RenSC2 said above, one example could be Joe Rogan. Rogan could possibly move the needle a little. Republican politicians like Cheney stating their support of Harris make no impact, probably even a negative for Harris. A heck of a lot of people have just tuned it all out.
I think Rogan’s influence is really overstated, I mean his personal pulling power. His whole shtick is having on a bunch of people of differing perspectives and let them have room to speak. A lot of people like the guy even if they don’t agree with everything he says
He definitely has a lot of influence, but I think it’s giving various guests exposure and drawing people to them, more than him having a huge amount of sway with his audience
|
On October 25 2024 03:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 03:19 Razyda wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. Bolded: this is the post which started current outburst about trans people: On October 22 2024 10:50 DOgMeAt wrote:On October 22 2024 07:48 Uldridge wrote:
The existential threat is there, no matter who wins though. Trump is just a symptom. He's the voice channeling all the conspiratorial, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised people. How do you turn the tide?
At the same time: why are these people like this? HOW did this happen? It's time for some really serious root cause analysis, because just brushing it off as "tsk, just impressionable, gullible, stupid, insane people" isn't going to cut it for the third election in a row. There are people thinking the hurricane was manmade to steal lithium. I don't understand reality any more.
We need something better than "they're too far gone". I'm actually starting to feel quite anxious for you guys, no matter the outcome. Let's just hope everything stays more or less calm at the turn of the year. so >50% are "just impressionable, gullible, stupid, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised, insane people" and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason? are you sure? skinner.jpg What so bigoted about it? (mind that "ppl believing men can be women" is not reference to trans people, but to activists on the left) Italic 1 and bolded italic: I like this honest and unbiased presentation of the problem by you . Bolded italic: from what I've seen leftwing people treat trans people kinda like meatshields for their ideas. It kinda looks like that:
L: Trans women should be screened for Ovarian Cancer, because they are women.
R: No they shouldnt, they cant get ovarian cancer
L: Why you hate trans people??!!!??!!! When does that happen? :S
It doesn't. That's his point. It exists as often as Simberto's imagined discourse where right-wingers on TL argue trans people are "gross and shouldn't exist" and the left-wingers heroically defend them from the trans genociders.
|
On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
Thankfully, DogMeat was immediately warned (their first post in this thread, iirc) and then eventually banned for doing pretty much this... although I think it was more transparently trolling than what other conservatives tend to do. It was also a little depressing to see some of the other conservatives try to cover for - and validate - DogMeat, as opposed to distancing themselves from an obvious troll. People who are mostly on the same side of the political aisle are still allowed to call out an "ally" if they're being too extreme and inappropriate (this, of course, goes for everyone, regardless of their political affiliation).
I've been trying to be better at not getting baited into off-topic discussions, fake analogies, or red herrings (like oBlade's ridiculous rant about Hitler) when trying to actually have a discussion about a specific idea, but I definitely struggle, just like everyone else.
|
I remain deeply concerned by the normalization of a nominee for president calling their opponent Hitler while he gets shot at, and of her allies doing the same thing, despite your desire to whitewash it when you yourself brought it up. I find it to be intimately intertwined with the question of why calling people a fascist, and Hitler, isn't as dissuasive as you expect it should be, or wish it were.
Would you care to go on record disavowing Johnny Kelly's comments, or Kamabla's, or both?
|
On October 25 2024 04:01 oBlade wrote:
I remain deeply concerned by the normalization of a nominee for president calling their opponent Hitler while he gets shot at, and of her allies doing the same thing, despite your desire to whitewash it when you yourself brought it up. I find it to be intimately intertwined with the question of why calling people a fascist, and Hitler, isn't as dissuasive as you expect it should be, or wish it were.
Would you care to go on record disavowing Johnny Kelly's comments, or Kamabla's, or both?
Case in point: I'm going to ignore your terrible attempt at baiting me for a second time I appreciate you letting me practice with you <3
|
On October 25 2024 04:01 oBlade wrote:
I remain deeply concerned by the normalization of a nominee for president calling their opponent Hitler while he gets shot at, and of her allies doing the same thing, despite your desire to whitewash it when you yourself brought it up. I find it to be intimately intertwined with the question of why calling people a fascist, and Hitler, isn't as dissuasive as you expect it should be, or wish it were.
Would you care to go on record disavowing Johnny Kelly's comments, or Kamabla's, or both? have you tried asking the nominees own running mate why he thinks Trump is America's Hitler?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
