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

[JB]

I was curious to see how long it would take before legal action was taken against the new law.

PILF sues NYC Board of Elections over law allowing foreign citizens to vote
Lawsuit alleges foreign citizens voting violates the Fifteenth Amendment and that the law was passed with an illegal racial intent to hurt the power of African American voters and change the racial composition of the New York City electorate.
https://publicinterestlegal.org/pres...izens-to-vote/

Today, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York against the New York City Board of Elections for violating the 15th Amendment. The Foundation’s clients are Phyllis Coachman, Deroy Murdock, Katherine James, and Anthony Gilhuys. All four are African American NYC voters and American citizens.

In January, New York City enacted a law that allows foreign citizens to cast ballots in the city’s municipal elections. The 15th Amendment prohibits election procedures from being enacted with a racially discriminatory intent. The complaint alleges that the sponsors of the legislation made explicit statements evidencing the racial purpose of the law and engaged in conduct that demonstrated a racial purpose behind the proposal to allow foreign citizens to vote.

Sponsors spoke in favor of giving the right to vote to racial groups as opposed to merely noncitizens. The complaint also alleges that Census data demonstrate that foreigners voting will harm the voting strength of African Americans in New York City, and that the sponsors knew this ahead of time. The sponsors of the bill are aware of this racial composition and passed the bill with the intent to strengthen the power of Hispanic and Asian powers and reduce the power of other racial groups. Of the approximately 1 million foreign nationals in New York City, approximately 488,000 are Hispanic and 343,000 are Asian.

[skyvolt2000]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/al...ewsntp&pc=U531

Alabama Superintendent Eric Mackey told members of the state House Education Policy Committee that people have voiced complaints about CRT teachings in schools, but investigations from state officials that follow found no evidence of such lessons, according to AL.com.

"I had two calls in the last week that they're having a Black History Month program and they consider having a Black history program CRT," Mackey said. "Having a Black history program is not CRT."

"There are people out there who don't understand what CRT is. And so in their misunderstanding of it, they make a report but it's not actually CRT," he added.

For those in the back....

"I can tell you what's in the state curriculum," Mackey said. "I can tell you what's in our textbooks, and CRT is not in there."

Every single TEXT BOOK at your kid's school has 2 levels of approval.

State level where educators and parents are encouraged to look at the text books before they are approved at the state level by that state. FYI generally the book publishers offer the other states the approved books from Texas.

Local school level-parents and teachers again are encouraged to look over the text books from the approved publishers before the local school board votes on which to take.

NO parent can say they don't know. They have had published shots to review. These are not kept secret. It's REQUIRED.

[Mister Mets]

Then why did you disrespect my time by answering in a way you knew was clearly disingenuous? That seems much more insulting than being offended by being disrespected thusly and responding to a point you brought up independently.



I would agree to the point in-that you could have added an insulting statement to accentuate it and elevate the response to Trolling. Otherwise, it's pretty much a deliberate cop out answer and you know it, thus this aggrieved stance you are taking on.



Weak Argument? It was a one sentence question that was clearly not asking about just a 6 word subtitle to a book rather than about the book itself, as was pointed out. What argument is there in a one sentence question? Why should I be upset at people not responding to me in these ways as opposed to when you are responding to me like that? (Not each example you provided)



When I made a separate post clearly replying to someone directly about you, with your name Quoted in it on top of that, it's more reasonable to assume that someone who reads the thread would read it than assume they would respond in a way which was clearly not intended, respectful, or in good faith. No one expected you to 'make up' anything, and acting as if that's the case here is continuing to be disingenuous.



You cannot be this oblivious and be a teacher when we are discussing a best-selling book and the author of it which you bring up by name.



My point was that 'More Moderate than some' isn't a good argument in the world we live in, and that isn't changed by this. America isn't the world, and I even clarified to a popular GoP anti-trans opinion which this book can enflame.



And I specifically asked you about the book, not the person. Conversations evolve and you will be asked questions that don't have to do with things you've already specifically said, that shouldn't be a surprise or an impediment to communication.



When you compare what a person says to what a person does, I believe what they do is far more revealing than what they say. I consider this when dealing with people in my personal life and when thinking about more public figures.

When comparing what Shrier says in a speech after she was called out to what she actually published, what do you think is more representative of her true opinions? Remember that she hasn't said anything she published was wrong, nor did she acknowledge the valid criticisms brought up in the link you posted to defend her before you answer.

I didn't think my answer was disingenuous. You appeared to literally ask about the nuance in a subtitle. It's valid to respond with a counterpoint that subtitles are not where we would determine if an author is nuanced. Typically, if someone asks about the contents of a book, they would refer to it by its title, rather than its subtitle.

Is our main misunderstanding that I thought you were saying that the subtitle indicates a lack of nuance, while you were referring to the book by its subtitle, and wanted my opinion about the book?

I'll note that like everyone else talking about it on this thread, I haven't read the book. I have not said that I read the book. I figure that if she had a different tone in the book than in interviews, speeches or articles, the people who think the book is disgusting would point that out. Likewise, they would point out if she has a different attitude prior to the publication of the book than in subsequent media appearances.

I wasn't sure if you were claiming that I was trying to come across as a subject matter expert, so that was where my confusion came in on that one. Shrier doesn't claim to be a subject matter expert. She says that the main reason she wrote the book is that it was a compelling question that no one else wanted to touch.

A pet peeve of mine is perceived disrespect in arguments. If someone goes after me personally, I'm going to focus on that. One aspect is that I try not to insult others, and to keep conversations on what was said, so I get pissed off if I'm not treated the way I treat others.

These are also process questions that remain important outside of the topic, since it would be a red flag is someone's mistaken when insulting people. It would suggest they shouldn't be taken very seriously, and that if they're on the right side of an issue, it's mostly by accident. It's also bad for persuading others to make attacks on their character that are the toxic combination of obnoxious and wrong.

[Mister Mets]

One party's supporters are trying to end gerrymandering, and have tried to do so at a local and federal level. Republicans have overturned their efforts at every level as best they can.

I WONDER WHY THAT IS.

Democrats are trying to do what advantages their party, replacing control by elected officials (which tends to favor Republicans a little bit on net) with unaccountable boards that lack clear standards, and that they have made efforts to manipulate.

Their reasons for being against gerrymandering is that they think alternatives help them better, and it's a way to motivate the base.

That anyone claiming about "both sides" is disingenuous, and providing their latest bad faith argument.

I'm sure you know that, on some level. Looking to justify injustices and atrocities with absurdities, and all that.

I understand the argument that people have to pick a side, and can't criticize their side. It doesn't make them trustworthy.

I was curious to see how long it would take before legal action was taken against the new law.

PILF sues NYC Board of Elections over law allowing foreign citizens to vote
Lawsuit alleges foreign citizens voting violates the Fifteenth Amendment and that the law was passed with an illegal racial intent to hurt the power of African American voters and change the racial composition of the New York City electorate.
https://publicinterestlegal.org/pres...izens-to-vote/

Interesting counterargument.

[worstblogever]

In House Oversight Committee news... today former employees of Washington R******s/WFT/Commanders owner Daniel Snyder testified before Congress about a culture of sexual harassment and exploitation that the NFL has buried their investigation of.

Some Republicans openly mocked the victims, whining that they couldn't address what talking points they wanted, including South Carolina Congressman who told them, "You know what's going to come of this? NOTHING."

As a party, they only support the rich, and care nothing about women. Revolting.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

In House Oversight Committee news... today former employees of Washington R******s/WFT/Commanders owner Daniel Snyder testified before Congress about a culture of sexual harassment and exploitation that the NFL has buried their investigation of.

Some Republicans openly mocked the victims, whining that they couldn't address what talking points they wanted, including South Carolina Congressman who told them, "You know what's going to come of this? NOTHING."

As a party, they only support the rich, and care nothing about women. Revolting.

I disagree. The GQP only cares about women when they’re pregnant because the party is obsessed with controlling what women do with their bodies.

[worstblogever]

The 11 Arizonan false electors literally made a videotape of themselves committing fraud and forgery, even falsely declaring they were "duly elected" to certify the election in it.

Looking forward to these idiots getting charged with crimes.

[CSTowle]

I was curious to see how long it would take before legal action was taken against the new law.

PILF sues NYC Board of Elections over law allowing foreign citizens to vote
Lawsuit alleges foreign citizens voting violates the Fifteenth Amendment and that the law was passed with an illegal racial intent to hurt the power of African American voters and change the racial composition of the New York City electorate.
https://publicinterestlegal.org/pres...izens-to-vote/

Yes, clearly this was an attempt to disenfranchise black voters in NYC. Funny we don't see as much concern trolling about actual attempts to disenfranchise black voters across the country with fewer polling places and suppression of mail-in ballots.

[Tendrin]

https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/02/...otify-podcast/

Joe Rogan continues to use his Spotify-hosted podcast to spread anti-transgender rhetoric — this time claiming that acceptance of trans people will lead to societal collapse.

The comedian is already under fire for using his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, to spread COVID-19 misinformation. Spotify, which exclusively hosts Rogan’s podcast, has refused to censor him — leading multiple artists to pull their catalogs from the streaming audio service in response.

But in a recent episode, Rogan once again turned his attention to transgender people, after previous episodes in which he and his guests have compared being trans to having anorexia, have pushed debunked claims about medical procedures on trans youth, and decried that they can’t use anti-trans slurs.

Hey, remember when people on this forum were like 'Hey, Bernie boosting Joe Rogan was no big deal'? I do.

Speaking to former psychology professor and right-wing provocateur Jordan Peterson on Jan. 25, Rogan suggested that trans acceptance was a sign of “civilizations collapsing.”

Rogan’s comments came while he and Peterson discussed what causes a person to be transgender, Media Matters reports.

Peterson, who is no stranger to anti-transgender sentiments, claimed that it was a “sociological contagion” akin to the “satanic ritual abuse accusations that emerged in daycares in the 1980s” — referencing the “satanic panic” of the ’80s and ’90s in which false allegations were made of occult child abuse in day care centers.

He added that he was opposed to Canada’s federal Bill C-16, which added gender identity to the country’s human rights protections.

“I knew full well as a clinician that as soon as we messed with fundamental sex categories and changed the terminology, we would fatally confuse thousand of young girls,” Peterson said. “I knew that because I knew the literature on sociological contagion.”

Hey, look. More transphobia, talking about how 'confused' young girls might get. Why does this sound familiar? Oh right, I know...

Rogan responded by pointing to anti-transgender author Abigail Shrier, who previously appeared on his podcast in July 2020.

He referenced Shrier’s claims of so-called “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” a false concept derived from a study — since corrected — by Brown University’s Dr. Lisa Littman, who claimed that trans youth were rapidly identifying as transgender due to “social and peer contagion.”

The study, Media Matters noted, has been described as “below scientific standards” and its results were derived from survey responses by parents who had visited anti-transgender websites.

Rogan went on to suggest that transgender people who didn’t transition “eventually wound up becoming gay men,” without citing his source.

Later in the episode, Rogan claimed that accepting transgender people was a sign of “civilizations collapsing.”

Again he was referencing a prior episode of his podcast, in which he spoke with right-wing author and commentator Douglas Murray. Murray had claimed that transgender rights “will be seen to be a late-empire, a bad sign of things falling apart.”

Rogan has repeated Murray’s claim in multiple episodes of his podcast since speaking to him in Sept. 2020.

Hey, look! turns out it was transphobia all along!

Trans people are the cause of civilizational collapse, folks! You heard it hear on the Joe Rogan podcast, and it's rooted in the discussion of a book that some people (one person) on this forum thinks has 'valid points' despite the obvious deeply damaging impact it's having as its lies are still being spread to 11 million weekly listeners!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ds-transgender

But, yeah, sure, let's pretend Shrier has 'valid points'. Even if that were true (it is not in fact true), you would *still* be wafting through layers of debunked, inaccurate science and transphobia to get some generic thoughts like 'trans issues need more research so we can have a more sophisticated model for helping them', and we owe neither debt nor plaudits to the writer of an inflammatory, anti-gay, anti-trans propaganda tract like Abigail Shrier for that. Anyone who comes away believing 'Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria' after reading her book maybe might want to ask themselves why it is they were so easily duped and what biases they have themselves that might lead them to that position.

[JB]

Yes, clearly this was an attempt to disenfranchise black voters in NYC. Funny we don't see as much concern trolling about actual attempts to disenfranchise black voters across the country with fewer polling places and suppression of mail-in ballots.

I think there has been a lot of shown concern as the voting rights bill was in direct response to the concerns of voters. But what do you mean by concern trolling? I personally think they have a valid argument with this lawsuit because the inclusion of non-citizens, in NYC specifically, does indeed shrink the percentage of black voting power in the city overnight. It has greatly changed the racial composition and their argument is that it was done with disregard to said composition, and that it violated current statutes. I'm now interested in hearing how the city responds.

[CaptainEurope]

South Florida seniors alarmed after political party was unknowingly changed to Republican

My hypothesis here is that the Florida GOP is laying the foundation for another Big Lie. If Democratic candidates win in areas that had previously seen a shift towards the GOP in registration, they will use that as evidence of foul play. Never mind the real foul play was them changing people's registration.

[CaptainEurope]

Things go from bad to worse to much worse for Boris Johnson…it’s sadly got to point that the old joke about politicians lying patently applies to him (“How do you tell he’s lying? Simple…check whether his lips are moving.”)

The latest episode is one of his chief aides resigning because Boris made obviously untrue and slanderous remarks about Sir Keir Starmer in Parliament…remarks which would result in Boris paying massive damages if he repeated them outside Parliament. Once Boris was exposed…as usual it was everybody else’s fault for misunderstanding what he said, etc, etc.

It’s got to point where you wonder how any Conservative mp with integrity can really want him as leader. I suppose if he was a genius leader in other respects you might hold your nose, and soldier on with him in charge…but basically he’s pretty useless all round.

And then they have the nerve to sell the fact that aides resigned in disgust as BoJo "taking charge" and cleaning house. You cannot make this stuff up.

[JackDaw]

And then they have the nerve to sell the fact that aides resigned in disgust as BoJo "taking charge" and cleaning house. You cannot make this stuff up.

Yes, another senior aide resigned this morning.

And agree that the attempts to sell it as “BoJo clearing house” are pitiful. Think practically every one understands difference between “resigning” as opposed to “getting sacked”!

[CSTowle]

https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/02/...otify-podcast/



Hey, remember when people on this forum were like 'Hey, Bernie boosting Joe Rogan was no big deal'? I do.



Hey, look. More transphobia, talking about how 'confused' young girls might get. Why does this sound familiar? Oh right, I know...



Hey, look! turns out it was transphobia all along!

Trans people are the cause of civilizational collapse, folks! You heard it hear on the Joe Rogan podcast, and it's rooted in the discussion of a book that some people (one person) on this forum thinks has 'valid points' despite the obvious deeply damaging impact it's having as its lies are still being spread to 11 million weekly listeners!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ds-transgender

But, yeah, sure, let's pretend Shrier has 'valid points'. Even if that were true (it is not in fact true), you would *still* be wafting through layers of debunked, inaccurate science and transphobia to get some generic thoughts like 'trans issues need more research so we can have a more sophisticated model for helping them', and we owe neither debt nor plaudits to the writer of an inflammatory, anti-gay, anti-trans propaganda tract like Abigail Shrier for that. Anyone who comes away believing 'Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria' after reading her book maybe might want to ask themselves why it is they were so easily duped and what biases they have themselves that might lead them to that position.

On the bolded: do you think Hillary Clinton would have jumped at the chance if her people told her going on Joe Rogan's podcast would help her chances in '16? Do you think she'd do something like take a shot of Crown Royal to seem "relatable", or show off the bottle of hot sauce she carries with her everywhere she goes? "I do".

On the topic, given her long-time stance on marriage being between a man and a woman do you think she would have been a strong advocate for trans rights if she had won the Presidency? In fairness to her, I'm betting she held the views she did on marriage until they changed for the same reason she wouldn't have pushed for trans rights in office: because it didn't poll well. Luckily for us neither Bernie nor Hillary are going to be darkening the doorstep of a Presidential Primary again. So it's ok to do like the kids did after Gore was screwed: move on.

I think there has been a lot of shown concern as the voting rights bill was in direct response to the concerns of voters. But what do you mean by concern trolling? I personally think they have a valid argument with this lawsuit because the inclusion of non-citizens, in NYC specifically, does indeed shrink the percentage of black voting power in the city overnight. It has greatly changed the racial composition and their argument is that it was done with disregard to said composition, and that it violated current statutes. I'm now interested in hearing how the city responds.

They have a technically correct but clearly bad faith argument to try and dress up their opposition to voting rights for residents by painting them as a civil rights violation of a group they don't really care about. The type of people who are the most strongly opposed to non-citizens voting are also strongly opposed to any measure that would make it easier or more convenient for those black voters they're so "concerned" about to be able to vote themselves. If you pay as much attention to the news as you must to continuously post anti-Democratic/anti-Biden articles you probably already know this though.

[Tendrin]

On the bolded: do you think Hillary Clinton would have jumped at the chance if her people told her going on Joe Rogan's podcast would help her chances in '16? Do you think she'd do something like take a shot of Crown Royal to seem "relatable", or show off the bottle of hot sauce she carries with her everywhere she goes? "I do".

On the topic, given her long-time stance on marriage being between a man and a woman do you think she would have been a strong advocate for trans rights if she had won the Presidency? In fairness to her, I'm betting she held the views she did on marriage until they changed for the same reason she wouldn't have pushed for trans rights in office: because it didn't poll well. Luckily for us neither Bernie nor Hillary are going to be darkening the doorstep of a Presidential Primary again. So it's ok to do like the kids did after Gore was screwed: move on.

Joe Rogan endorsed Bernie in 2020, dude, and Bernie going on his show was a Big Deal. There was a big talk about it on this forum, and I pointed out *then* that Bernie was wrong for giving the time of day to a transphobic know nothing. It has nothing to do with Hillary, and Biden sure as hell didn't seek out his endorsement. And now we're living in a world where Joe Rogan has 11,000,000 listeners, given additional credibility by Saint Bernard, to spew transphobia and racism. I am pointing out that some people on this forum misjudged that moment.