All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

Okay, if asshats like Soldano insist that rape survivors give birth, then it should be mandatory that the rapist provide child support until that child turns eighteen, or face a non-negotiable term in prison until the child comes to age.



Sounds like Putin hoped the fracturing Trump caused with NATO would continue even after he left office. Big mistake on his part it looks like.

Basically, yes. The horrible pullout from Afghanistan made him think the fracturing was still ongoing, and Putin likely couldn't wrap his head around how domestic and foreign policy are treated differently in the US, even if the divide between the two has been weakening as of late.

[Catlady in training]

Could someone please explain to me why the situation in Ukraine is such a mess that could devolve into a possible war?

I am not any expert on it, but from what I have been listening to in past few weeks, one of the problems is that Putin has never come to terms with the end of USSR. He also seems to view Ukraine not as a separate nation, but rather a part of Russia and their language as a dialect of Russian. And he doesn't want to grant them the right to decide for themselves whether they want to belong to EU and NATO and wants a reassurance from NATO that they will never include Ukraine. He also doesn't like the presence of NATO troops in its eastern countries. The soldiers he deployed to the border with Ukraine (reportedly 100K) are apparently a precaution and he blames the US and NATO for being the ones to escalate the conflict. Sadly, his people have been doing some heavy propaganda in Ukraine and some other central/eastern european countries, so there are many who believe that.

[Catlady in training]

Harassing a group of people is different from skepticism.

We have to be willing to discuss sensitive topics on which some people may have firmly held beliefs that are wrong. This is true in religion, parenting, and medication. Hypochondriacs and addictions are reasons we shouldn't have a policy of taking people at their word, especially when it comes to minors.

With skepticism comes the possibility we'll get it wrong, and we have to be mindful of that. These are sensitive questions.

But you do understand, I hope, that such scepticism, especially from parents who seem to be the target audience of the book, can also be very harmful to people who are part of an already marginalized group? Parents are supposed to be there for their children and listen to them, but here they are encouraged to doubt them and even to isolate them from their friends, based on what I've read.* Transgender people are already at a greater risk of suicide and unhealthy coping mechanisms, so this is just making it worse, instead of helping. I would think that anyone with some empathy can understand it.

*I am not villing to buy that book in order to see if what the trans community says about it is true or not, especially since as a cis woman I can't claim to have a better understanding of these topics than trans people. But I have now read several reviews from both sides (there doesn't seem to be much middle groung here) and the trans community and their allies seem to mostly think it is trasphobic, which is enough for me. Just because some well-meaning cis people don't consider something transphobic and harmful, that doesn't mean it isn't.

Just to follow up on the apparent "trend" of groups transitioning together, I wonder if there might be some misunderstanding in terminology. The book apparently doesn't give a lot of thought to non-binary identities, or she dismisses them. Perhaps she is conflating non-binary people (who do seem to have quite an increase in recent years, especially among young people) with transgender people. Non-binary people sometimes identify or are referred to as part of the larger transgender community, but we need to understand the specifics of each person's identity to make any conclusions and if the author conflates non-binary people with transgender people and with transgender people who seek out transitions, the conclusions will be misleading.

[worstblogever]

And did you see this one, WBE?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/mornin...od-put-them-in

Sigh, yeah, I did.

[Mister Mets]

And we are being gaslit to believe they are not gerrymandering to take away Democratic votes.

https://timjwise.***********/republi...w-90642aa1450b

The link got censored here.

I'm curious as to who made the argument that Republicans don't gerrymander.

There is a separate argument that the Republican net benefit in gerrymandering is limited to a handful of seats out of 435. This is largely because Democrats gerrymander too. Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley admit as much under oath.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/politic...601-story.html

When Democrats have control, they gerrymander. Democrats in New York look to gain three seats (despite the state losing one seat in redistricting) through gerrymandering despite provisions in state law against it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/n...dering-ny.html

Democratic lawmakers in New York adopted on Wednesday an aggressive reconfiguration of the state’s congressional districts that positions the party to flip three seats in the House this year, a greater shift than projected in any other state.

The new lines would shape races in New York for a decade to come, making Democrats the favorites in redrawn districts currently held by Republicans on Long Island, Staten Island and in Central New York. They would also help tighten the party’s hold on swing seats ahead of what is expected to be a strong Republican election cycle, all while eliminating a fourth Republican seat upstate altogether.

Legal and political experts immediately criticized the new district contours as a blatant and hypocritical partisan gerrymander. And Republicans, who were powerless to stop it legislatively in Albany, threated to challenge the map in court under new anti-gerrymandering provisions in New York’s Constitution, though it was unclear if they could prove partisan intent.

One argument would be that this is why we need independent commissions, to take this power away from politicians who would obviously be self-interested. Except we're seeing some problems with so-called independent commissions.

Democratic operatives tricked California's redistricting commission into making some favorable decisions by pretending to represent apolitical organizations.

https://www.propublica.org/article/h...ing-commission

We could say that this is just some local party hacks, although if the national party was upset about this, they could have responded with the vociferousness they currently reserve for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

A New Jersey commission came up with a plan that really favors the Democratic party. The independent member on the board was swayed by work from an algorithm from a Princeton organization, and no one can verify whether this works, because the algorithm is proprietary.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/redistric...ow-their-work/

This is a larger fight where both sides are tainted.

[worstblogever]

This is a larger fight where both sides are tainted.

One side that lost spread a big lie about election fraud that caused an insurrection/coup attempt, and that side also has candidates now calling for violence at polling sites if their voters are suspicious.

Seems like the latest example of someone with a false equivalency about things being "tainted", and by whom.

[Kirby101]

I can Google articles too.

Republicans Gain Heavy House Edge in 2022 as Gerrymandered Maps Emerge

These maps show how Republicans are blatantly rigging elections

GOP already has enough safe seats — through redistricting alone — to win back House in '22

Congressional gerrymandering has been a boon for GOP, report finds

But as long as it's the Right Party, why worry about Democracy anyway.

[Tami]

FBI Identifies People of Interest in Bomb Threats Against Black Colleges

WASHINGTON—The FBI has identified at least six people of interest in a rash of bomb threats directed at places of worship and historically Black colleges and universities, law-enforcement officials said Wednesday. The incidents are being investigated as racially motivated extremism and hate crimes, authorities said.

Dozens of campuses, churches and Jewish institutions have reported receiving bomb threats since Jan. 4, the officials said, though no explosives have been found at any of the locations. More than 20 HBCUs have received threats since Saturday alone.

The people of interest, all juveniles, are thought to have used a disguised phone number to make the threatening calls, the officials said. Investigators were searching homes and conducting interviews but it couldn’t be determined if any arrests have been made.

[Mister Mets]

Here is the source..
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSt...ornia-82573398

I completely understand that opposition by businesses would be one factor, but it seems unlikely that it's the only factor.

There would be some consequences if California were the only state with a public option.

This is a big reason no one other state wants to be the first to go for a public option.

Vermont considered it in 2014, but couldn't pay for it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/...vermont-113711

California has a similar average income ($31,960 VS $31,492)

But you do understand, I hope, that such scepticism, especially from parents who seem to be the target audience of the book, can also be very harmful to people who are part of an already marginalized group? Parents are supposed to be there for their children and listen to them, but here they are encouraged to doubt them and even to isolate them from their friends, based on what I've read.* Transgender people are already at a greater risk of suicide and unhealthy coping mechanisms, so this is just making it worse, instead of helping. I would think that anyone with some empathy can understand it.

*I am not villing to buy that book in order to see if what the trans community says about it is true or not, especially since as a cis woman I can't claim to have a better understanding of these topics than trans people. But I have now read several reviews from both sides (there doesn't seem to be much middle groung here) and the trans community and their allies seem to mostly think it is trasphobic, which is enough for me. Just because some well-meaning cis people don't consider something transphobic and harmful, that doesn't mean it isn't.

Just to follow up on the apparent "trend" of groups transitioning together, I wonder if there might be some misunderstanding in terminology. The book apparently doesn't give a lot of thought to non-binary identities, or she dismisses them. Perhaps she is conflating non-binary people (who do seem to have quite an increase in recent years, especially among young people) with transgender people. Non-binary people sometimes identify or are referred to as part of the larger transgender community, but we need to understand the specifics of each person's identity to make any conclusions and if the author conflates non-binary people with transgender people and with transgender people who seek out transitions, the conclusions will be misleading.

There are difficult questions here.

Parents are supposed to be there for their children, but adolescents sometimes want to do things that aren't in their long-term best interests (drop out of college, abuse alcohol, etc) so there is going to be some kind of balance.

Right now, a mainstream argument is that minors should be able to live out their gender identities freely, with limited delays, even if this means invasive genital operations, puberty blockers which result in fertility loss, and other major procedures.

There are some difficult fights about this involving efforts at minor emancipation, and custody disputes between divorced parents.

Do we have any review of the book that suggests Shrier fails to appreciate the nuances between trans girls and females (used here purely in the biological sense) who identify as nonbinary?

Putin thought the West was weaker than it was and overplayed his hand. Problem is that he's a strongman and backing down would make him look weak, exacerbating any issues he has on the domestic front.

He was hoping that his latest but of brinkmanship would fracture NATO even further, but instead it seems to have strengthened it, and the way he governs doesn't give him much of an out.

It's a messed up situation.

I hope he ends up worse off, and the worlds ends up better off, because he went too far. I'm not sure that's the likeliest outcome.

It would be nice if the world could look at this, and agree to fast-track Ukraine's NATO membership.

[Mister Mets]

One side that lost spread a big lie about election fraud that caused an insurrection/coup attempt, and that side also has candidates now calling for violence at polling sites if their voters are suspicious.

Seems like the latest example of someone with a false equivalency about things being "tainted", and by whom.

What does this have to do with gerrymandering being a larger fight where both sides are tainted?

I'm fairly sure my next post (A few down) showed that I was interested in the nuance you saw in the book as a whole and was just using it's subtitle to accentuate the point of it. So Yes, yes I think you do.



Well I hope the lack of any link other than a MotherJones one means it was taken care of.

If someone asks me a question directly, I'll usually answer.

I'm not going to be able to answer every question. Sometimes I'll miss it when scrolling at work or whatever. But I really doubt that there's anyone here who holds themselves to a higher standard when it comes to responding to comments than they would hold me.

That said, I responded to the point about the subtitle. It's not my responsibility to respond to the best possible steelman version of someone else's argument.

The other post you mention was a response to Tendrin, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect a response to that one. It's certainly not reasonable to view the lack of a response to a post you made to someone else as a character flaw.

If you want to know how I got the impression that her views are nuanced, it was largely by listening to longer-form interviews, like the one she did on Bari Weiss' podcast.

In a speech, she does make comments that show an appreciation for trans Americans that is much more moderate than views held by some people in public life.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/abi...edom-in-an-age

When I testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee back in March, I started by stating that I am proud to live in an America where gay and transgender Americans live with less stigma and fear than at any point in American history. That is the glory of freedom as well—the chance for adults to live authentic lives and guide their own destinies. And allowing mature adults to make those sorts of choices for themselves is absolutely a requirement of a free society. Yes, you can reject the false, dogmatic insistences of Gender Ideology and still wish to see transgender Americans prosper and flourish and fulfill their dreams in America. I do.

If you are someone who believes you have pronouns or would like to supply them, by all means, that is your prerogative. Whenever anyone asks me to use their preferred pronouns, and I can do so without confusing my audience or muddying an argument, I do so and I think this is an important courtesy.

In the speech, there will be much money people here will find repugnant, although she does not seem to subscribe to the view that anyone who is trans is a victim of mental illness, which is a view held by many Americans (for example, Ben Shapiro.)

These are not the actions of a man who didn't expect his incendiary speech about 'not having a country anymore' and how the election was stolen and how we're going to 'march down to the capitol' to have an impact, least of all when he's reportedly pleased by it happening. Mets keeps wanting to shout 'it's just a conspiracy theory!' as a means to dismiss that there were, in fact, multiple conspiracies at work to overturn the election. If anything, Trump's recklessness in provoking the crowd, knowing full well that groups like the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys were present, might be the actual thing that prevented the Eastman plan from going into effect and in fact *they have admitted that*.

It's pretty clear Trump wanted them to 'fight'. The rioters understood their orders just fine, as they had understood them just fine at all his other rallies where he called for 'war'.

Here's a pre riot article:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...tic-terrorism/

It's pretty obvious Trump knew what he was doing.

I think there may be some ways people may be talking past one another.

For some people, the question of whether Donald Trump coordinated the attack on the capitol is a proxy for whether you think he was in the wrong on January 6.

I have written before about the concept of the paperwork coup, and the other stuff he was doing.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5885830

Trump was in the wrong. It doesn't mean he knew that the capitol would be attacked, or there would be something else on that level.

It's possible that we'll get conclusive evidence that Trump did have advance warning, or that senior Republicans were involved in the coordination on the attack on the capitol. Until then, it's a conspiracy theory.

[Mister Mets]

I can Google articles too.

Republicans Gain Heavy House Edge in 2022 as Gerrymandered Maps Emerge

These maps show how Republicans are blatantly rigging elections

GOP already has enough safe seats — through redistricting alone — to win back House in '22

Congressional gerrymandering has been a boon for GOP, report finds

But as long as it's the Right Party, why worry about Democracy anyway.

That information is a bit outdated. I addressed this in a post a few weeks ago, so I'll copy and paste.

A look at the current congressional map suggests that it's not helping out Republicans running for the House as much as you would expect. There had been some earlier concerns that Republicans might be able to take back the House just be gerrymandering, but this doesn't seem to match current plans. I'll note that this was about gerrymandering as a net advantage. There may be states where Republicans make small gains, but that can be made up by Democrats gerrymandering.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021...stricting.html

There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.

To be sure, blue states have probably left more gerrymander-able seats on the table than red ones, simply because some of the nation’s most Democratic states have outsourced redistricting authority to independent commissions. Fortunately for Team Blue, California’s nonpartisan commission is poised to finalize a quite pro-Democratic map. As of this writing, California’s House map is likely to feature 44 seats to the left of the country, and eight to its right. If Democrats boasted full control over California redistricting, they probably could have produced a 50-to-2 Democratic gerrymander. But still, not a bad haul.

I'll note you don't seem to dispute that Democrats have gerrymandered in Maryland in the past, in New York in the current cycle, that they've gone against the spirit of the changes in California, that it is suspicious to have an independent commission in New Jersey based on algorithms they can't check, and that the party makes no effort to punish anyone who abuses the process on their side.

[Zauriel]

Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies.” — Robert F. Kennedy

Thank you RFK for your firm commitment and dedication to progress. But ironically, change has found a big enemy in his own son. RFK would have been embarrassed if not ashamed to learn about his son's opposition to the vaccines.

RFK Jr. may have apologized for his asinine comments but he still hasn't given up on opposing vaccines

It has caused a rift between him and his family


RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine crusade deepens rift with family and friends


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is making millions off his anti-vax crusade

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump was in the wrong. It doesn't mean he knew that the capitol would be attacked, or there would be something else on that level.

It's possible that we'll get conclusive evidence that Trump did have advance warning, or that senior Republicans were involved in the coordination on the attack on the capitol. Until then, it's a conspiracy theory.

While Trump may not have known the Capitol would be attacked, he damn sure wasn’t in a hurry to send in the National Guard to quell the violence after it started.

[Dalak]

What does this have to do with gerrymandering being a larger fight where both sides are tainted?

If someone asks me a question directly, I'll usually answer.

I'm not going to be able to answer every question. Sometimes I'll miss it when scrolling at work or whatever. But I really doubt that there's anyone here who holds themselves to a higher standard when it comes to responding to comments than they would hold me.

That said, I responded to the point about the subtitle. It's not my responsibility to respond to the best possible steelman version of someone else's argument.

The other post you mention was a response to Tendrin, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect a response to that one. It's certainly not reasonable to view the lack of a response to a post you made to someone else as a character flaw.

When you often respond to posts that don't reference you and factor in that the posts in question referenced you by name, it's fair to assume you read them. So when you cop out on the cheapest possible answer it's not arguing in good faith, whether you wish to think it's your responsibility or not you knew that's not what I was asking and responded as you did anyway. That's not good behavior for a teacher, nor is supporting misinformation in any form much less from someone representing themself as an expert on the matter.

If you want to know how I got the impression that her views are nuanced, it was largely by listening to longer-form interviews, like the one she did on Bari Weiss' podcast.

In a speech, she does make comments that show an appreciation for trans Americans that is much more moderate than views held by some people in public life.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/abi...edom-in-an-age


In the speech, there will be much money people here will find repugnant, although she does not seem to subscribe to the view that anyone who is trans is a victim of mental illness, which is a view held by many Americans (for example, Ben Shapiro.)

More moderate than some in a world where there are those who call for their death isn't as high a bar as you think, especially in a country where the GoP vilifies them as sex-criminals who aren't safe to have in bathrooms (Ex: all the Bathroom laws passed and not). However my question was how much nuance you saw in the book itself, and not in what you assume her personal views are based on lip service in speeches when compared to what she publishes. You avoided the question again when it was clearly laid out, so yes I still believe you have a habit of avoiding answers to direct questions. Not something I would expect in an educator either, outside of philosophy.

[Tendrin]

The entire premise of Shrier's book is false and, again, it treats trans gender identiites as a communicable fad. In the grand scheme of things, there's an argument that this is not as harmful as wanting them dead outright. However, as the key predictor of the trans suicide rate is whether or not their family is supportive, in a way, Shrier is just as murderous as the rest of them.

Harrowing statistics from a study recently published by the American Academy of Pediatrics revealed alarming levels of attempted suicide among transgender youth -- with the highest rates among transgender boys and non-binary youth. The findings emphasize the urgency of building welcoming and safe communities for LGBTQ young people, particularly for transgender youth.

https://www.hrc.org/news/new-study-r...rans-adolescen

Maybe the real irreversible damage is the suicides Shrier will cause along the way. <3