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

[Malvolio]

Book burning is apparently once again not just a metaphor.

https://www.cbr.com/tennessee-book-b...tter-twilight/



The bolding is mine - I am especially concerned about this entitled attitude that religious belief is above the law. I hope they at least had some firemen present. It's not like we can annualy see what damage a fire can cause.

Any bets what books are next, once they move from the popular fantasy?

If they had their way, firemen would have the job they had in Fahrenheit 451.

[Kirby101]

But is it not the courts that decide if their lawsuits have merit and rule as they see just? PILF doesn't have the power to change voter rolls, they file lawsuits on behalf of clients and the courts decide. And in this case four voters in NYC came to them and they agreed to represent them. I don't know the political affiliation of these voters but I don't think it matters with what they're arguing.
They're stating that approximately 1 million voters were added to the electorate overnight, and approximately 831,000 at least are not black, thus further diluting their voting power. I don't think it's an unreasonable argument at all.

My point is this group is very far from advocates for "election fairness", they are an anti-voting organization. They help Republicans purge legitimate voters from the rolls and they erroneously claim voter fraud is wide spread.
I understand the argument about the new voters laws, but maybe they shouldn't ask for help from a group that tries so hard to stop Black People from voting. When you lies down with wolves...

[JB]

My point is this group is very far from advocates for "election fairness", they are an anti-voting organization. They help Republicans purge legitimate voters from the rolls and they erroneously claim voter fraud is wide spread.
I understand the argument about the new voters laws, but maybe they shouldn't ask for help from a group that tries so hard to stop Black People from voting. When you lies down with wolves...

And that's a whole other topic but I totally get what you're saying. For whatever reason these voters feel this organization will help them and I'm curious to see where this goes.

[Kirby101]

And that's a whole other topic but I totally get what you're saying. For whatever reason these voters feel this organization will help them and I'm curious to see where this goes.

My guess, PILF sought out voters it could use to bring this suit. They are not good guys.

[Tendrin]

My guess, PILF sought out voters it could use to bring this suit. They are not good guys.

This, almost assuredly, is it.

[InformationGeek]

With all the book burnings, purging, or attempts at it recently, here's something with a more positive news bent.

Soatok, who asked to be identified by his online handle, was referring to the news that Mayor Gene McGee of Ridgeland, Mississippi, was withholding $110,000 of funding from the Madison Country Library System. Library officials told the Mississippi Free Press that the mayor had demanded they purge their collection of LGBTQ+ books, which he called “homosexual materials,” before his office would release the money.

Tonja Johnson, the executive director of the county’s library system, told VICE News that the withholding of this money even temporarily would have a “significant impact on services that are available” and potentially affect their ability to pay library employees.

This is where the furries come in. Soatak is a security engineer at a large tech company, but he’s also a furry

In an attempt to assist this Mississippi library, the furry community has launched a fundraising frenzy over the past few days, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. While book banning, or attempted book banning, has recently become something of a theme around the country, this small-town mayor seems to have inadvertently picked a fight with the wrong crowd.

Though Soatok doesn’t have a large Twitter following, his post was quickly amplified by popular furry accounts. Within hours, the goal of $2,500 had been reached. The next morning, Soatok tweeted a new screenshot: The library’s fundraising page had reached just over $9,000. And over the weekend, the donations continued to pour in.

At the time of writing, the fundraiser is at just over $44,000— slowly creeping toward the halfway point of the $110,000 that McGee is denying the library.

[Robotman]

G.O.P. Declares Jan. 6 Attack ‘Legitimate Political Discourse’

No words.

Actually tons of words, but they’ll get me banned from the site.

[MajorHoy]

G.O.P. Declares Jan. 6 Attack ‘Legitimate Political Discourse’

No words.

Actually tons of words, but they’ll get me banned from the site.

Couldn't read the article (it wants me to register / log in before it will let me do so), but was that the G.O.P. in general or specifically the RNC (Republican National Committee)? I seemed to recall reading that not all Republicans (like Mitt Romney) are backing the RNC on this and questioning why the RNC is censuring Cheney and Kinzinger for taking part in the Congressional January 6th investigation.

And I question the RNC's moves, too.

[Tami]

Couldn't read the article (it wants me to register / log in before it will let me do so), but was that the G.O.P. in general or specifically the RNC (Republican National Committee)? I seemed to recall reading that not all Republicans (like Mitt Romney) are backing the RNC on this and questioning why the RNC is censuring Cheney and Kinzinger for taking part in the Congressional January 6th investigation.

And I question the RNC's moves, too.

It was the RNC:

WASHINGTON — The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it “legitimate political discourse,” and rebuked two lawmakers in the party who have been most outspoken in condemning the deadly riot and the role of Donald J. Trump in spreading the election lies that fueled it.

The Republican National Committee’s voice vote to censure Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois at its winter meeting in Salt Lake City culminated more than a year of vacillation, which started with party leaders condemning the Capitol attack and Mr. Trump’s conduct, then shifted to downplaying and denying it.

On Friday, the party went further in a resolution slamming Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger for taking part in the House investigation of the assault, saying they were participating in “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

After the vote, party leaders rushed to clarify that language, saying it was never meant to apply to rioters who violently stormed the Capitol in Mr. Trump’s name.

[Mister Mets]

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.

Joe Rogan's audience seems to have declined while he's been exclusively on Spotify, so anyone trying to get him removed from the service (which will likely result in a massive payout) might actually help him expand his reach.

https://www.theverge.com/22632213/jo...audience-reach

So he probably isn't more popular than he was when Sanders went on.

The main argument for a Democratic politician going on Rogan's show is to persuade people who aren't guaranteed to vote for the Democratic party that they should vote for Sanders, or for the people he supports. The 2020 election was rather close, which shows the necessity of these efforts.

There was an argument on a left-wing podcast that covered the Rogan Neil Young flap that one of the problems with the show is that he doesn't invite enough serious people. On the other hand, if serious people face criticism for the left from being on the show, they're less likely to want to be on it, which means a heterodox audience is not going to hear their perspective.

[Dalak]

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.

First I'd like to sum up what you've said about your position and please correct me if I'm wrong: You haven't read the book, and based only on a few reviews and speeches you assumed she was more nuanced than her detractors and claimed she and her book wasn't as bad as they were being made out. When challenged on it here you posted links to a review that mentions how she based many of her positions on flawed and debunked science without mentioning this to her readers and a speech by her that questions the integrity of most of those who have tried to interview her as pretending to care in the first sentence.

Direct Question: Am I correct that you are continuing to defend her despite the fact that she's not even an expert on top of the lies she published? (Replace Lies with Misinformation, Misleading Statements, Omissions or whatever suits you if necessary, to me Lies are Lies)

Now on to your behavior. By your own words you saw a single sentence question that you assumed asked about a subtitle instead of the book, and wanted to point out a 'weak argument' rather than ask for clarification as you do to the troll who posts misinformation and advocates for more political violence when you interact with them. You probably hit the Multi-Quote and then continued reading the thread, where you say you happened to miss the next posts that referenced you by name, and then put out a snarky and rude response (Whether you meant it that way or no) thinking I was asking about 6 words instead of a book instead of asking if that was the case. When I responded saying that you had avoided answering my question and do seem to have a habit of it (Which you admit when you said you don't answer what you consider loaded questions) you get upset at me for what you think is insulting to you and say we have to respect each other's time (When you obviously didn't respect mine even if I was just asking about a subtitle) and blamed me for not making it any clearer than I did using Steelman for the first time I've ever seen in these threads. You've continually denied any real accountability for what you said and haven't even seemed sorry that you did so. You've also continued to avoid direct questions the entire time, hiding it under this like some sort of smokescreen. EX: You haven't said if you think Shrier's actions (In what she does/supports/publishes) matter compared to what she says afterwards in speeches or interviews. Considering I've often seen you assume the best of intentions for GOP members in elected positions when they pass hurtful laws and block ones designed to help while questioning the motives of Dems, this sort of question is important to me being able to understand why. That's the root of why I wanted to know what kind of nuance you saw in the book.

I want to understand why so many conservatives go to bat for despicable people doing repugnant things, and while you haven't sunk to the depths that some have you are the only one I felt I can attempt to approach as you seem reasonable, but instead stuff like this happens and it makes me wonder why I keep lurking here for the most part. I already feel shitty enough having asked many of these people for money to help me and my Mom keep our home a few years ago only for us to still lose it. My Mom's back in Texas on Section 8 while I'm rooming with a friend in Tampa FL trying to rebuild my life while watching the friend group I moved down here shatter over infidelity, so it's been hard to build up the want to interact much in what little free time I have.

Looking back at the paragraph above I know I should delete it but if I felt the need to type it out I'm going to leave it, but it's really getting away from what I wanted to get at so I'm just going to stop and get dinner started.

[Mister Mets]

First I'd like to sum up what you've said about your position and please correct me if I'm wrong: You haven't read the book, and based only on a few reviews and speeches you assumed she was more nuanced than her detractors and claimed she and her book wasn't as bad as they were being made out. When challenged on it here you posted links to a review that mentions how she based many of her positions on flawed and debunked science without mentioning this to her readers and a speech by her that questions the integrity of most of those who have tried to interview her as pretending to care in the first sentence.

Direct Question: Am I correct that you are continuing to defend her despite the fact that she's not even an expert on top of the lies she published? (Replace Lies with Misinformation, Misleading Statements, Omissions or whatever suits you if necessary, to me Lies are Lies)

Now on to your behavior. By your own words you saw a single sentence question that you assumed asked about a subtitle instead of the book, and wanted to point out a 'weak argument' rather than ask for clarification as you do to the troll who posts misinformation and advocates for more political violence when you interact with them. You probably hit the Multi-Quote and then continued reading the thread, where you say you happened to miss the next posts that referenced you by name, and then put out a snarky and rude response (Whether you meant it that way or no) thinking I was asking about 6 words instead of a book instead of asking if that was the case. When I responded saying that you had avoided answering my question and do seem to have a habit of it (Which you admit when you said you don't answer what you consider loaded questions) you get upset at me for what you think is insulting to you and say we have to respect each other's time (When you obviously didn't respect mine even if I was just asking about a subtitle) and blamed me for not making it any clearer than I did using Steelman for the first time I've ever seen in these threads. You've continually denied any real accountability for what you said and haven't even seemed sorry that you did so. You've also continued to avoid direct questions the entire time, hiding it under this like some sort of smokescreen. EX: You haven't said if you think Shrier's actions (In what she does/supports/publishes) matter compared to what she says afterwards in speeches or interviews. Considering I've often seen you assume the best of intentions for GOP members in elected positions when they pass hurtful laws and block ones designed to help while questioning the motives of Dems, this sort of question is important to me being able to understand why. That's the root of why I wanted to know what kind of nuance you saw in the book.

I want to understand why so many conservatives go to bat for despicable people doing repugnant things, and while you haven't sunk to the depths that some have you are the only one I felt I can attempt to approach as you seem reasonable, but instead stuff like this happens and it makes me wonder why I keep lurking here for the most part. I already feel shitty enough having asked many of these people for money to help me and my Mom keep our home a few years ago only for us to still lose it. My Mom's back in Texas on Section 8 while I'm rooming with a friend in Tampa FL trying to rebuild my life while watching the friend group I moved down here shatter over infidelity, so it's been hard to build up the want to interact much in what little free time I have.

Looking back at the paragraph above I know I should delete it but if I felt the need to type it out I'm going to leave it, but it's really getting away from what I wanted to get at so I'm just going to stop and get dinner started.

The interviews I listened to are more than three hours total. As a minor explanation, I listen to a lot of podcasts on the drive to and from work, as well as during evening walks, so on a given week I'll listen to 7-10 hours of podcasts, and she seems to do a lot of long-form interviews.

She does appear to be different from the most extreme description from her detractors, and I also said that she seemed more nuanced than her most extreme detractors. Those are the specific goalposts. People who hate the book can argue that the consequences are so severe that this is a topic on which no nuance is acceptable, but that's a different argument.

I provided a link from Psychology Today, because someone else posted another link from the same website. The writer does say that there are some valid ideas in the book, so it's a serious omission to describe the review in a way that leaves out that part. I don't like the implication that it would be better to cherry-pick the most unambiguously positive reviews. I'm sure I could find those, but that's not really part of an honest discussion. I'll also note the goalposts may be different. The argument isn't about whether she's right, but about the efforts that should be made to limit her reach.

I don't think it's essential for a journalist to be an expert on a topic they write about. Any insistence that any journalist who writes a book on something be willing to describe themselves as an expert on that topic, and be judged accordingly, does not seem like a reasonable standard to apply in all cases.

If she lies, that's a problem. That has nothing to do with her being an expert or not.

It is unusual to refer to a book as a subtitle. I didn't ask for any clarification because I figured you were talking about the subtitle, with the potential implication of how can a book be nuanced if it has that kind of subtitle.

I don't think there's any hint of an obligation to respond to a comment someone makes in a response to someone else. We should respect one another and their time more than that.

The concept of steelman is a useful one, and a good way to consider contrary positions, but it doesn't quite apply to responses to comments someone makes directly.

If you pose a question directly in good faith, I'll do my best to answer. I don't think there's any obligation to answer loaded questions, since that's not a question asked in good faith. In those cases, I'll generally point out how a question assumes a premise that hasn't been established.

I think the what people do vs what they say argument doesn't quite work in this context. She's a writer. Most of what she could be said to do falls in the category of speech, so that's the main way to measure her.

The nuance I see in her description of the topic is that she's against doing major procedures quickly, especially for minors, but that she accepts it for adults who have had some time to truly consider the consequences.

I'm sorry to hear about your problems. I don't know the specifics, so I can't offer any advice, but I do wish you the best.

[ed2962]

Book burning is apparently once again not just a metaphor.

https://www.cbr.com/tennessee-book-b...tter-twilight/



The bolding is mine - I am especially concerned about this entitled attitude that religious belief is above the law. I hope they at least had some firemen present. It's not like we can annualy see what damage a fire can cause.

Any bets what books are next, once they move from the popular fantasy?

But, but, but ...CANCEL CULTURE! Some celebrity is being criticized on Twitter right now!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It was the RNC:

“Legitimate political discourse”. Alrighty then. Well, it’s pretty much official, the Republican Party is now the Trumpublican Party. There is absolutely NO denying that, not after this nonsense from the RNC, or rather, the TNC.

[numberthirty]

On Rogan...

He is like Maher.

He has an audience because those views already existed.

If a magic wand could be waved and Rogan went away?

The cherry would be removed from the top of an "Anti-..."(fill in the issue...) sundae. The whipped cream/chocolate syrup/ice cream/banana would not go anywhere.

Worldstarhiphop would still have anti-trans content.

Dude is an incredibly small part of the problem.