All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[zinderel]

One needs to be capable of critical thought to athunk it. Not something commonly found among GOP voters.

I don't honestly know if it's a lack of critical thinking or a lack of compassion. More and more, it feels like it's less that they don't get it, and more that they don't CARE. The leadership, I mean. The rank and file Republican is clearly a split between the two.

They deny the basic reality, the essential underpinning of human society, in order to enrich themselves, and do so by ginning up hate and division. They have absolutely been the driving force in the dissolution of civility in politics, and in social interactions. Where once, we might have at least considered 'What do we owe to each other?' an essential question, that has become twisted into 'What does everyone else owe me?' by the Republican Party leadership. Their slavish devotion and cult-like embrace of the horrorshow of Ayn Randian philosophy has removed all concept of genuine ethics from the core of the party, and people who defend them lose their own inherent humanity in the process.

It's utterly insane and I just...want to scream until my head explodes. Some days, the thought of getting up and facing the world as it is gets overwhelming and I just want to curl up and let death take me so I can stop living in this twisted world the Republican Party has given us...

But, I guess that makes me a snowflake, huh? Or maybe a cuck. I can't keep up...

[Mister Mets]

That doesn't say "sex is determined by biology". Sex is assigned and assumed, and the majority of the population is just lucky enough that what is assumed at birth matches roughly enough with how they actually feel.

Nearly as much as 2% of the population isn't so lucky, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment

Even if it was just one percent, we're still talking millions of people in the US, alone.

"Biological sex" really just is no more a simple binary than gender, sorry. Not if you're being factual and scientific about it. We can talk in generalities about both, but the fact is that humans do not collectively fit so neatly into two simple columns.

I said "sex is determined by biology." I haven't claimed that sex is binary, given the issues faced by people who are intersex.

Here, Mets. Educate yourself a bit.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...im-so-confused

https://www.refinery29.com/2017/11/1...sex-and-gender

https://familyinequality.wordpress.c...r-distinction/

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/...56384-0153.xml

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...ender-identity

It was super difficult to find these articles. I had to type "sex vs gender" into a google search and hit enter.

Turns out, 'sex' and 'gender' is a more complex topic than a dictionary definition used to justify dehumanization of a minority.

Who'd'athunk...

You're listing two articles that I explicitly included and quoted in a post you responded to.

If there's anything specific I said that you think is mistaken, point it out. I'm interested in learning more about this. But I think you're responding to a strawman version of my comments.

I don't honestly know if it's a lack of critical thinking or a lack of compassion. More and more, it feels like it's less that they don't get it, and more that they don't CARE. The leadership, I mean. The rank and file Republican is clearly a split between the two.

They deny the basic reality, the essential underpinning of human society, in order to enrich themselves, and do so by ginning up hate and division. They have absolutely been the driving force in the dissolution of civility in politics, and in social interactions. Where once, we might have at least considered 'What do we owe to each other?' an essential question, that has become twisted into 'What does everyone else owe me?' by the Republican Party leadership. Their slavish devotion and cult-like embrace of the horrorshow of Ayn Randian philosophy has removed all concept of genuine ethics from the core of the party, and people who defend them lose their own inherent humanity in the process.

It's utterly insane and I just...want to scream until my head explodes. Some days, the thought of getting up and facing the world as it is gets overwhelming and I just want to curl up and let death take me so I can stop living in this twisted world the Republican Party has given us...

But, I guess that makes me a snowflake, huh? Or maybe a cuck. I can't keep up...

Many conservatives look at the question of what we owe one another, but they think the best way the best way to help one another is through communities and not states. This is a distinction that is often missed.

[JCAll]

In this context, sex has a clear definition.

The problem is more that the definition doesn't match the reality, or that the "clear definition" will be used to facilitate discrimination.

[zinderel]

I think this is a complex issue, and I'm not going to pretend that it's solely clinical. However, in order to determine the policy prescription we should examine the clinical aspects, whether the executive branch was appropriately using its power, and what alternatives are available.

To answer the first question, I don't have anyone in my social circle who is trans. This isn't too unusual, since this is about 0.5 percent of the population, and I'm not involved in many circles in which I would be more likely than average to meet people who are trans. It's probably socially harmful to suggest that is should be acceptable to favor executive overreach just because it helps people you know.

On the second question, part of it would be that I think you're wrong, and that policy prescriptions come with tradeoffs. Things that are meant to help people do end up backfiring, but we do live in a society in which we've seen significant social change and progress.

Treating trans people like they are human beings with hopes, dreams and essential rights isn't about 'just helping people I know'. But knowing, personally, someone who is trans helps make their struggle more tangible and real, and less of a thought experiment. Compassion doesn't require direct connection, it simply requires that you are capable of looking at a person and putting yourself in their shoes. It only requires you to think about how YOU would want to be treated if YOU were a minority. It requires you to think about laws, cultural 'rules' and other interactions and ask yourself, 'Is this an acceptible way to treat another human being, whether I understand their struggle on a personal level or not?'

I asked you that to see if you had that personal connection because it makes compassion easier, but is not required. Whether or not I personally knew anyone trans would not change my belief that they deserve basic human dignity, and the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We see 'significant social change and progress' IN SPITE of the best efforts of your party! Your party does literally EVERY underhanded, bullshit, unethical garbage tactic they can to drag their heels and prevent progress while also trying to force time to go in reverse so that only straight, white, Christian, landowning males matter. And you defend it.

What 'positive' tradeoff exists in dehumanizing immigrants?

What positive tradeoff exists in robbing Medicare to pay stock brokers, CEOS and assorted wealthy shitbags?

What positive tradeoff exists in denying trans people basic humanity?

[zinderel]

I said "sex is determined by biology." I haven't claimed that sex is binary, given the issues faced by people who are intersex.

You're listing two articles that I explicitly included and quoted in a post you responded to.

If there's anything specific I said that you think is mistaken, point it out. I'm interesting in learning more about this. But I think you're responding to a strawman version of my comments.

Many conservatives look at the question of what we owe one another, but they think the best way the best way to help one another is through communities and not states. This is a distinction that is often missed.

You posted but clearly did not understand, since you continue asserting that sex is based on a simple dictionary definition, and not recognizing it as a more complex thing. And I get why you are doing that - I mean, the party you defend at literally every turn says it, so it must be true, and every agument opposing it is a straw man or too emotional or not nuanced enough (how stripping the sex vs gender discussion of all complexity is somehow 'nuanced', I fail to see...).

As to your 'community vs state' argument, that entirely circumvents the point. What we owe one another is based on what you, as an individual, owe to me, as an individual, and vice-versa. From that, we build a society. The society Republicans want is one with castes, social strata that cannot be escaped or changed. You are born this specific thing, and that is it, **** you if you try to be different. They excuse this by holding up strawmen like 'What about the children!? Won't someone think of the CHILDREN!?!?' When the topic of sexuality comes up. 'How do I explain the filthy sex acts homos engage in to my child?' 'Why should I care about some friggen he/she?' On poverty, it's the old saw that 'If you don't want to be poor, you should just work harder.' On immigration, it's the deeply nuanced 'Go back where you came from and stop stealing my job!' or 'No muslims in my neighborhood!'

Your party has sought to divide us at every turn based on dubious morals, and has abandoned ethics entirely, and you still defend them. *shakes head*

[SuperiorIronman]

It's not a complex issue, in fact its a stupidly easy issue to solve.

1. No Men's restroom, just family restrooms.
Trans goes both ways and not everyone goes the full 9 yards so just having 1 all-encompassing Bathroom with or without including a women's is that simple. Men's restrooms are already outfitted for this and so it's either a matter of expanding it or simply changing a name plate for the room.

2. The medical records already exist.
Go to your local MVA or DMV and get the license updated to include transgender on the card. FTM or MTF so authorities or medical professionals know what they are speaking to. FTM or MTF does not change birth gender, but with that on the card, somebody with a fucking brain-cell can put it together.

It really does boil down to those two points. Both of which is solved by a trip to the MVA or DMV or using existing facilities. It's not complex in the slightest, it's easy to solve. Update records and use existing facilities. Trying to shut an entire group of people out of existence in America is god damned fascinating at how much it gets wrong about running a country.

[Mister Mets]

Allowing the Republicans to retain control means we lose control of everything, since the Republican refuse to do their job and be a check on the President. Which means that, if you vote to have the House and Senate be in Republican control, then you are voting for Trump. There isn't a single Republican running for public office who would stand up to to Trump, not one.

I am a Republican, so all things being equal, I do prefer Republicans being in control to Democrats being in control.

However, I'm not as convinced of the necessity of fighting Trump. A lot of what he's done is generic Republican policies. The exceptions are areas where congressional oversight is limited (Steve Bannon shouldn't have been anywhere near the White House, but that didn't have anything to do with the advise and consent of Congress; The administration should be more vocal about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi but this isn't something Congress can force.) There are potential overreaches (IE- If Trump were to shut down the Meuller probe) but that hasn't happened yet.

Maybe it's because they realized that some Democrats are willing to throw her under the bus quickly... While she also got more votes than any candidate other than Obama on one of his wins. They're trying to sow discord in the Democratic party.

Hillary getting more votes than anyone since Obama isn't that relevant since the population has been growing constantly.

I heard from a reliable source that Nancy Peolsi has made it clear to any and all Democratic Candidates that, if they need to use her as a scape goat, diss her, or whatever, in order to win...then do it. She has no ego in this, only a desire to flip the house. Basically, she'd sacrifice herself, throw herself under the bus if needed to get the Democrats in control of the House.

I would not be surprised if Hillary feels the same way. She's thick skinned enough not to worry about Democratic Candidates distancing themselves from her if they think it's the best way to win.

But what the Far Right and the Republicans are doing, that's just horrible and twisted.

The heckling of Pelosi was stupid and wrong.

However, she has made serious mistakes as party leader. She has really failed to get a new generation of leadership in the House. The top three are over the age of 78. Two of the top-ranking House Democrats decided they'd rather be state attorney generals, and the highest ranking member below the age of 65 lost a primary.

There was a screw-up involving an important House race that does highlight her flaws.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-castro-912087

An independent Mason-Dixon poll last week showed former Spanish-language TV journalist and personality Maria Elvira Salazar leading Shalala by 2 percentage points — and Diaz said that lead may grow as word blazes through the Cuban-American community about Lee’s comments.

Shalala and Pelosi insisted they were unaware of the logistical details of the event.

“I don’t know who invited her. We have members of Congress popping down here all the time,” said Shalala, who stressed that she’s anti-Castro.

Pelosi denied knowing why Lee decided not to appear at the event.

“You’re asking me a question that I cannot answer,” Pelosi told POLITICO. “I would not begin to go down that path because I don’t know what the objection to her was and why she is not here.”

Pelosi said Lee told her the night before that she was in Georgia instead.

“She’s all over the country. It’s a coincidence,” Pelosi said of her friend. “We are friends. She’s my colleague in California. She is a leader in the Congress of the United States, a respected leader. But I’m all over the country, everyplace, all the time. And by coincidence, some of my colleagues overlap in their travels. But it isn’t a decision that they make to go to be where I am. They’re going to where they’re going. And it sometimes overlaps.”

But according to Democratic and campaign insiders in Washington and Miami, Lee’s decision to come to Miami came at the request of Pelosi, whose visit was planned a month before. Lee’s appearance was relayed to the Shalala campaign through Washington Democratic channels on Monday night, said the sources, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid angering Pelosi.

Shalala’s staff felt they were boxed in. They knew the Lee appearance could be problematic but this was an event that Pelosi was coming down for and they were afraid of slighting the Democratic leader and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. So staffers on Tuesday posted the campaign announcement on Shalala’s website the following day anyway, touting the arrival of Lee and Pelosi.

“Pelosi is the future House speaker. She’s the most powerful Democrat in the chamber,” said a Shalala campaign staffer, explaining the decision to plow ahead. “We couldn’t offend her and tell her she couldn’t bring her friend. We were stuck.”

The staff of a former cabinet official running in an open election were so worried about offending Pelosi, they made decisions they expected would hurt their campaign. That suggests poor communication from the former and likely future Speaker of the House.

[Mister Mets]

The problem is more that the definition doesn't match the reality, or that the "clear definition" will be used to facilitate discrimination.

It matches the reality. It's just conflated with different concepts (gender, and gender identity.)

Treating trans people like they are human beings with hopes, dreams and essential rights isn't about 'just helping people I know'. But knowing, personally, someone who is trans helps make their struggle more tangible and real, and less of a thought experiment. Compassion doesn't require direct connection, it simply requires that you are capable of looking at a person and putting yourself in their shoes. It only requires you to think about how YOU would want to be treated if YOU were a minority. It requires you to think about laws, cultural 'rules' and other interactions and ask yourself, 'Is this an acceptible way to treat another human being, whether I understand their struggle on a personal level or not?'

I asked you that to see if you had that personal connection because it makes compassion easier, but is not required. Whether or not I personally knew anyone trans would not change my belief that they deserve basic human dignity, and the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We see 'significant social change and progress' IN SPITE of the best efforts of your party! Your party does literally EVERY underhanded, bullshit, unethical garbage tactic they can to drag their heels and prevent progress while also trying to force time to go in reverse so that only straight, white, Christian, landowning males matter. And you defend it.

What 'positive' tradeoff exists in dehumanizing immigrants?

What positive tradeoff exists in robbing Medicare to pay stock brokers, CEOS and assorted wealthy shitbags?

What positive tradeoff exists in denying trans people basic humanity?

The comments about tradeoffs are more about policies than attitudes. I'm not claiming there are benefits to bad attitudes (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)

Looking at the policies, open borders would be unworkable. It would be likely to cause significant damage to social cohesion. So, there have to be some kind of restrictions on immigration, even if there is a moral argument in letting in more people than currently exist in the United States, because any restrictions dehumanize the rest of the world by suggesting that due to an accident of birth, they are less entitled to American citizenship than anyone else.

Current safety net policies do create perverse incentives (IE- penalizing people who get married) and wealthy people do pay more taxes/ contribute to the economy, so we want to encourage them to stay in the US.

As for trans rights, the procedures can be permanent and expensive, so there should be some barriers.

You posted but clearly did not understand, since you continue asserting that sex is based on a simple dictionary definition, and not recognizing it as a more complex thing. And I get why you are doing that - I mean, the party you defend at literally every turn says it, so it must be true, and every agument opposing it is a straw man or too emotional or not nuanced enough (how stripping the sex vs gender discussion of all complexity is somehow 'nuanced', I fail to see...).

As to your 'community vs state' argument, that entirely circumvents the point. What we owe one another is based on what you, as an individual, owe to me, as an individual, and vice-versa. From that, we build a society. The society Republicans want is one with castes, social strata that cannot be escaped or changed. You are born this specific thing, and that is it, **** you if you try to be different. They excuse this by holding up strawmen like 'What about the children!? Won't someone think of the CHILDREN!?!?' When the topic of sexuality comes up. 'How do I explain the filthy sex acts homos engage in to my child?' 'Why should I care about some friggen he/she?' On poverty, it's the old saw that 'If you don't want to be poor, you should just work harder.' On immigration, it's the deeply nuanced 'Go back where you came from and stop stealing my job!' or 'No muslims in my neighborhood!'

Your party has sought to divide us at every turn based on dubious morals, and has abandoned ethics entirely, and you still defend them. *shakes head*

I accept that sex is more complex, and that there are categories beyond male and female.

Republicans don't want castes, or social strata that can't be escaped or changed. I think you've got the wrong understanding on a lot of this stuff. One reason for pushback on Democratic policies is that they often don't acknowledge that there are other forces than the individual or the state.

I don't know if you remember Obama's 2012 "Life of Julia" ad, but there were some interesting conservative discussions on this theme inspired by that one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/o...-of-julia.html

[Panfoot]

You're completely ignoring how this actually affects people and isn't just some simple "technically the definition means this" matter. Can you honestly say that this has a positive purpose and isn't just a way to make the lives of ~1.4 million people even harder?

You want to answer this one or just ignore it?

[Adam Allen]

I said "sex is determined by biology." I haven't claimed that sex is binary, given the issues faced by people who are intersex.

You're listing two articles that I explicitly included and quoted in a post you responded to.

If there's anything specific I said that you think is mistaken, point it out. I'm interesting in learning more about this. But I think you're responding to a strawman version of my comments.

Many conservatives look at the question of what we owe one another, but they think the best way the best way to help one another is through communities and not states. This is a distinction that is often missed.

Sex is not determined by biology. You're only getting this from what you're reading because it's what you already think; at least, that's the only reason I can guess you are ignoring some what is in the articles you're posting.

From one of the two you and zinderel both posted:

Some people call the sex we’re assigned at birth “biological sex.” But this term doesn’t fully capture the complex biological, anatomical, and chromosomal variations that can occur. Having only two options (biological male or biological female) might not describe what’s going on inside a person’s body.

Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” This acknowledges that someone (often a doctor) is making a decision for someone else. The assignment of a biological sex may or may not align with what’s going on with a person’s body, how they feel, or how they identify.

It is fantastically important to acknowledge that "biological sex" is something assigned by perfectly fallible human beings, and not some immutable quality that must be insisted upon, even when that assignment is in conflict with an individual's intimate awareness of self.

Important to acknowledge this, because while "sex" and "gender" are not the same ... well, they are about equally as real, and as complicated.

In other words, any attempt to refer to the one, in order to disregard the other -- is inevitably oversimplifying.

[Tami]

Trump administration trying to define transgender out of existence – report

I think this headline sums it up pretty well. In a way it reminds me of Climate Change. Both are real, both are important and the issues around them are important, yet Trump and those around him are trying to use words to make both of them Non-existent.

Words aren't going to stop the Climate from continuing to become more chaotic, that it is changing.

Words aren't going to magically disappear the fact that Sex is defined on many levels, mostly personal ones, a truth that will never change.

[zinderel]

The comments about tradeoffs are more about policies than attitudes. I'm not claiming there are benefits to bad attitudes (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)

Republican policies are based on the abjectly monstrous idea that trans people are mentally ill predators who want to rape girls in the bathroom. That gay people are all child molesters who want to have drag queens perform analingus in front of kindergardeners in public libraries. That Muslim refugees are all secretly Isis. That Latinx immigrants are all drug mules and gang members. That women are all hysterical baby murderers in waiting. That only straight, white, Christian landowning males are deserving of recognition and acclaim and prestige and power. The 'bad attitudes' you try to ignore as inconsequential are critical to understanding why and how Republicans vote the way they do and enact the policies they do.

Looking at the policies, open borders would be unworkable. It would be likely to cause significant damage to social cohesion. So, there have to be some kind of restrictions on immigration, even if there is a moral argument in letting in more people than currently exist in the United States, because any restrictions dehumanize the rest of the world by suggesting that due to an accident of birth, they are less entitled to American citizenship than anyone else.

So the Republican solution is to treat immigrants like less-than-human criminals in every case except for when they are wealthy, white, and/or related to the president's former mistress and current third trophy wife. Meanwhile, all anyone on the left wants, when not speaking hyperbolically or imagining a perfect world without petty bullshit like borders, nations, 'race' or money, is to let people immigrate wherever they goddamn please more easily, like we used to do when countless (white) people came over in boats and got to be Americans after maybe filling out a form and taking a pledge. Unless your fears of immigration are less about cultural issues and more about skin color, the current Republican stance makes no sense, and is deeply unethical.

Current safety net policies do create perverse incentives (IE- penalizing people who get married) and wealthy people do pay more taxes/ contribute to the economy, so we want to encourage them to stay in the US.

Wealthy people SHOULD pay higher taxes. That is how a healthy, functional society works. You know...'With great power, comes great responsibility' and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' and 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need'.The wealthy benefit from societies rules and economic structures to a vastly greater degree than most, and thus SHOULD shoulder more of the burden that GAVE them those advantages. That's how the US used to work, when things were less broken and Ayn Rand hadn't yet been fetishised to the point that her ideals leeched the soul out of your party.

As for trans rights, the procedures can be permanent and expensive, so there should be some barriers.

There are. They're called 'doctors' and they don't just hand out surgical procedures like Oprah hands out cars. The government has no place telling doctors what is and is not medically/psychologically sound for or otherwise beneficial to a patient's well being. Which is also why Republicans need to shut the **** up about abortion, but that's another topic entirely.

I accept that sex is more complex, and that there are categories beyond male and female.

That's nice. Your party doesn't.

Republicans don't want castes, or social strata that can't be escaped or changed.

That is utterly laughable, if one pays even sparing attention to reality. Republicans place wealthy, white, Christian cis/het males at the top of the caste system they want for America, above everyone else. Then there are the women who subsume their own liberties and rights to appease their husbands. Then come the PoC and LGBT+ quislings like Ron Christie, Ben Carson or the Log Cabin folks, who are willing to look the other way as Republican/right wing policies kill their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and neighbors, as long as they get a tax break. Then there are the white working class, who will never be anything but workers slaving away for the wealthy under Republican policies. Then there are the white working class women. Then there are 'legal' workers of color beneath that, and THEIR wives, mothers and daughters beneath them, and then, WAAAAAAAAAAY at the bottom, are the 'queers' and 'he/shes' who go against God, the 'foreigners' and terrorists...I mean immigrants...who want to destroy America, and the atheists who want to destroy the Baby Jesus.

This is demonstrable fact. These are your party's policies. This is what your party wants. You can PRETEND that this isn't true by focusing on the one or two Republicans who aren't monstrous bastards in human meat suits (and who the base of your party call RINO's, for not being hateful, greedy and ignorant enough), but everyone will know that you're either lying or hopelessly deluded.

[Mister Mets]

Sex is not determined by biology. You're only getting this from what you're reading because it's what you already think; at least, that's the only reason I can guess you are ignoring some what is in the articles you're posting.

From one of the two you and zinderel both posted:


It is fantastically important to acknowledge that "biological sex" is something assigned by perfectly fallible human beings, and not some immutable quality that must be insisted upon, even when that assignment is in conflict with an individual's intimate awareness of self.

Important to acknowledge this, because while "sex" and "gender" are not the same ... well, they are about equally as real, and as complicated.

In other words, any attempt to refer to the one, in order to disregard the other -- is inevitably oversimplifying.

We might be arguing past one another. I fully acknowledge that doctors can and have been mistaken about determinations of sex. From my understanding, this is not an issue addressed by the Times article. The term "intersex" does not appear in it.

When I said sex is determined by biology, I'm talking about biological features such as chromosomes and genatalia someone is born with. This is in the context of the distinction between sex and gender/ gender identity.

[zinderel]

On a TOTALLY different topic, I was driving home last night after dropping off drunk friends - I was the DD last night - and got pulled over by a cop (#ACAB). He came up to the passenger side and started giving me a schpiel about going 65 in a 55 mph zone, and then paused as he got a good look at me. He stared at me for a moment, then said, 'Never mind, you have a nice night, sir' and let me go.

He was white. I am white and look like a burly mountain man, so can easily be mistaken for straight, until I open my mouth. I can't help but wonder how that would have gone if I was black. Or more 'femme' in my sartorial presentation...

[zinderel]

We might be arguing past one another. I fully acknowledge that doctors can and have been mistaken about determinations of sex. From my understanding, this is not an issue addressed by the Times article. The term "intersex" does not appear in it.

When I said sex is determined by biology, I'm talking about biological features such as chromosomes and genatalia someone is born with. This is in the context of the distinction between sex and gender/ gender identity.

It is STUPID easy to argue for 'biological features such as chromosomes and genitalia' as the defining trait of 'sex' when your 'sex' matches your gender identity AND your sexuality (there's that cis/het privilege we keep hearing about...) and there is no clash. The reality is, though, that for many people, 'having a penis' at birth does not make them 'male', and whatever their 'chromosomes' or 'genitals' say shouldn't take precedence over what the person saddled with the wrong parts wants out of their life.

Did you know that things like 'sex' and 'gender' are actually incredibly fluid in nature, and that what we understand to be 'firm science' as it applies to humans (a species of animal with an inflated sense of self worth) is absolutely NOT firm in the rest of nature?

https://beckman.illinois.edu/news/20...hodesfishstory

Republican policy is that what you are assigned at birth takes precedence over all other considerations, though, so when it comes to that, you'll pay lip service to 'science' that supports your theories, but not when it comes to actual existential threats like climate change that might hurt your wealthy donors bank accounts.