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

[Catlady in training]

Russia is now using some very scary type of missile:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60806151

I don't like the combination that it can carry a nuclear warhead, can hit a target up to 2 000 km and as I read elsewhere, apparently there is no effective defence against it.

[Dalak]

given that I openly opposed Gulf War II, am pro-choice, pro death penalty, and don't consider LGBT people to be a big problem... I'm not sure I could be called "conservative".

I'm definitely parodying -some- liberals, though. the truth is, I hate both mainstream parties.

I had some total stranger, a white lady, threaten to kill me because I was wearing a black leather jacket, a black t-shirt and red jeans... they just assumed that because I had shaved my head recently that I MUST be a skinhead racist. "I'll blow your brains out you racist motherf***er! you won't even see it coming!"

I was standing in an elevator when another person looked at me and shook his head and pouted with his face in a corner like a four-year old child. his partner chuckled and said, "what are you doing, honey?" he said, "I'm making a political statement".

I found myself thinking, "you don't know a damned thing about me. I shave my head because it's a cheap, and I don't make a lot of money. I'm already balding, so it makes sense. I'm not wearing red pants because I'm a Republican.... I just happen to like wearing them. my Dad used to wear red jeans back in the 70s... so, it's partly my way of honoring his memory."

for all of the talk about conservatives being shallow and judgmental... I've found plenty of those on the Left as well.

I get frustrated when the idea is put forth conservatives have no empathy or reason, and we should just be our snarky rational selves to drive them away in sheer terror. that's not a real solution to dealing with those sorts of people. it's like saying, "yes, by all means be flippant and condescending to people you've known your entire life... because they're Trump supporters... and they deserve it."

and it honestly bothers me that people can seriously believe that, because they're Democrats or "Liberal" that they're essentially immune to being awful people.

one of my co-workers likes to ACT like he's a good educated liberal... but then he'll admit that he's kicked his wife's friends out of the house because they voted for Trump. or the fact that he fired a co-worker (woman of color) because he couldn't figure out how to his control his fiery subordinate. the firing is made even more appalling when his four predecessors found ways to deal with her. (granted, his predecessors actually liked her ideas, didn't feel the least bit threatened by her, and gave her promotions and pay raises for her internal critiques)

it's like this guy was afraid to confront her and so just decided to fire one of the most conscientious and hardest working members of the company. I even asked my boss, "why did she get fired? she's one of our best people. sure, she's a handful... but that's because she knows what she's doing and cares about the quality of work." I got told "she did something that was grounds for immediate termination."

I was so bothered by this I talked to one of the salty old veterans, a vice president, of the company and asked him, "why DID they fire her? she's one of our best people; easily worth two or three of the other people we've hired in the last five years." he said, "they haven't told me why they fired her. I think there was probably a personality conflict... but, I agree, she was a real go-getter and I would have liked to have kept her around. I've already told them that. some people just don't know how to deal with strong-willed people like her, though."

so, if self-professed liberals do something stupid or unethical, it bugs me.

like when Lorena Gonzalez voted to slash the Seattle Police budget an obscene amount "because of George Floyd". damnit! we shouldn't make serious long-range policy decisions like that based on an emotional response to a single event. that's a terrible way to make decisions. besides, Seattle had just spent millions of dollars and several years trying to rebuild the police department to have more asian, blacks, and latin police officers. and now, because of how the seniority system works, those will be the first people kicked out. I was pretty pleased when Harrell defeated Gonzalez for the mayoral election. I almost registered to vote because I found her so frustrating. (I haven't voted in over 20 years!)

the general trend on this thread has been that only conservatives are capable of being evil. and I wish that were true. but being a creep, or a fool, is something that transcends political lines.

the only reason I'm still awake is because my allergies are so bad that I can't sleep.

Strangely I've never seen a pair of red jeans for sale, must be a specialty item or sold in niche shops I've never been in before in Texas or Tampa.

I don't think anyone here has acted that every person who identifies as liberal is some sort of saint like you seem to be implying (We still have those bitching about Hillary or Bernie occasionally), nor everyone in the country. The flip side is that when conservatives who say they don't support Trump or certain policies still support those who do and defend them and continue to support them when the harm and problems are pointed out, they get offended when you explain why that's wrong and dig in deeper. Those who still strongly support him to the point of ignoring all objective reality are another matter. The only reason I've cut off people for being Trump supporters is when they can't stop parroting the disinformation and lies. If they can not see the truth when it's provided in multiple different ways and continue to believe harmful and hateful lies that influence their decisions, then they are not people that I feel I should be around. I try my best not to be confrontational with them, but I will not accept "The Steal" or other clear BS as gospel.

It should bug you when ANYONE does illegal and unethical things however, because I know it bugs me. Hypocrisy is one of my biggest hangups, and while politicians of all stripes can embrace it there seems to be a clear preponderance of it on one side. Still, there are assholes who are in every group or believe BLANK and always will be. As long as they aren't constantly defended and promoted by the group they are in I won't hold it against them.

[Mister Mets]

I have also noticed some comments that are frighteningly similar to Russia's talking points. I don't think either that there are any professional trolls here (except for the one poster who's name begins with "X", I wouldn't be so sure there), but the problem is that Russia's propaganda gets spread not only by professional trolls, but by many people who genuinely believe that and spread it further, especially thorough facebook. It' like cancer. It has been ignored for too long and now there's no effective way to go against it, because even reasonably people will scream about freedom of speech, underestimating how dangerous some of that misinformation is, as if we didn't see for the past two years the effects it had on the fight against the pandemic.

Professional propagandists would also be able to recognize the most persuasive arguments, and do their best to amplify those.

There could be a long argument against this kind of garbage thinking, but I will shorten it for you: euthanasia =/= suicide.


I really hope this is supposed to be a joke comment and that no one actually thinks this way, but I am realistic enough to see that's just wishful thinking.

While euthanasia is not suicide, it is sometimes used for people who aren't yet suffering from a physical disease.

It is legal in the Netherlands to allow euthanasia for those suffering from depression.

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45117163

That's because there is nothing there worth keeping, there is zero reason to target the trans community and make their lives harder. I don't get why that's hard to understand, especially from someone who just said that they think trans people deserve to be protected by the same rights as everyone else. Again, you can't have it both ways so pick one.

You can parrot the talking points of the Right and defend (and by doing so support) their poor treatment of the trans community, or you can be a decent human and say, "Hey, I'm a conservative not a monster, and what's going on in my party in regards to trans identifying people is categorically wrong."

It's an easy choice.

There are serious restrictions on what minors can do. This applies to all sorts of things, not just particular kinds of hormone therapy.

[thwhtGuardian]

Professional propagandists would also be able to recognize the most persuasive arguments, and do their best to amplify those.

While euthanasia is not suicide, it is sometimes used for people who aren't yet suffering from a physical disease.

It is legal in the Netherlands to allow euthanasia for those suffering from depression.

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45117163

There are serious restrictions on what minors can do. This applies to all sorts of things, not just particular kinds of hormone therapy.

And those restrictions, when it comes to health, are up the parents and their doctors to decide. You're not going to get your kids taken away from you if you decide to follow a doctor's recommendation to begin chemo-therapy. Or anti-depressants. The list goes on, but the meaning is the same: caring for your child isn't wrong.

There's zero middle ground here Mets, you need to realize that...unless you are a bigot and you just don't like the sound of the word.

And all these attempts to rationalize these policies, well they really are pointing to that latter part and not your statement of seeing the trans-community as being your equal and deserving of the same rights and protections afforded to every other citizen. So again, you need to decide, do you want to parrot right-wing talking points and be a monster or do you want to be a decent human being and say that these policies don't reflect your values and don't belong in your party.

It would seem like an easy decision to me, in fact it's one I already made as its why I'm not a member of the Republican party anymore. It's something I've said before but I just don't get how one can hold a view, look around you and see that the other people holding that view are also screaming "white power!" or wearing nazi arm bands...and not think,"Ah, maybe I'm on the wrong side here."

[Catlady in training]

Professional propagandists would also be able to recognize the most persuasive arguments, and do their best to amplify those.

Without a doubt. And just like with lying in general, it is most effective when there is an element of truth in it somewhere, no matter how small.

While euthanasia is not suicide, it is sometimes used for people who aren't yet suffering from a physical disease.

It is legal in the Netherlands to allow euthanasia for those suffering from depression.

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45117163

So? Mental ilness can be as hard for a person suffering from it as physical, people who have no experience with it just like to downplay it. I don't think that those who have no experience with how horrific such a thing can be for the person suffering from it should judge anyone for their decisions in how to cope.

[Dalak]

Is the main issue with the CPS portion of Abbott's executive order?

My impression of the discussion is that the same people would be against it if he said they shouldn't go after parents acting on the advice of doctors but kept the other stuff.

I'll certainly agree that they should change the order (I'm not sure the word law is accurate as this wasn't passed by a legislature) to not go after parents acting in good faith, but while that would reduce the heat of the issue somewhat, it wouldn't satisfy anyone.

I'm pretty sure the issue is classifying gender affirming care as Abuse, not just going after parents along with doctors. There even are parents in NY that have to keep files of appointments, testimonials, and such to assure officials called on them that they are not abusing their child according to this story, and considering conservatives around the country who are emboldened by folks like Abbott and 'educated' by folks like Shrier I don't doubt that for a minute. These files have been mentioned before in this thread as well.

It seems like Child Protective Services in Texas has actually been investigating the parents of trans kids for years, like, it’s been something families of trans kids have even had to prepare for. What’s it been like if you have a trans kid in Texas?

I would expand this actually past Texas. I think this applies to anybody in the U.S. who has a trans kid. I’ve talked to parents in New York City who have had Child Protective Services called on them by a neighbor or a relative over affirming their child’s gender. So I want to be clear, this is not just a Texas issue. One of the really heartbreaking things that I hear any time I report on trans families or families with trans kids is that the parents have to prepare what they call a girl folder.

What’s that?

That’s basically a folder that documents this child’s entire life as a trans kid. It’s doctor’s appointments. It’s statements from psychologists or statements from doctors all saying, “Yes, this child is actually trans. This is not abuse.” The families have it on hand, expecting to have some stranger or acquaintance who does not approve of trans identity calling the government on them and their families.

[Tami]

Latest from Twitter, Oligarchs and the FSB are plotting to overthrow Putin in order to reestablish ties to the west and go back to living like rich people again.

Ukrainians are still being forcibly loaded up on transports and taken to Russia against their will.

Oh, and I saw a picture of a Russian Booster from a rocket take out someone's kitchen sink.

[Mister Mets]

It's disrespectful to be snarky in answering what you assume to be a bad question in a flippant way. It's unreasonable to accuse someone else of asking a bad question when you didn't read the clarification. It's more unreasonable to get mad when this is pointed out instead of acknowledging the mistake, and even more to assume that someone would feel respected by such behavior.

The fact that I have to type this after carefully explaining that just missing that it was a subtitle wasn't the problem is exasperating and could be the point for all I know.

I read the clarification. It didn't indicate that you were referring to a book by a subtitle, rather than making a point about the subtitle.

Once you made that clear, I accepted it. The main disagreement is about what I should say about earlier posts. My comment "I don't think the subtitle is nuanced, although I wouldn't really look for nuance in a subtitle.:

I don't think I've gotten mad. I haven't reported posts, insulted you personally, or sent you angry (or any) private messages. I also didn't bring up earlier disagreements.

However, you sometimes say things that I believe to be unreasonable/ untrue, and I will point that out.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like you classify any question you don't like as loaded and respond however you choose after that. Considering media and politicians from Trump to Biden it's not uncommon but highly disrespectful and looked down on by most. However whether you want to believe it I ask questions to try and understand, not to load them so I can win an argument. You are defending horrible people enacting horrible policies you sometimes say you disagree with, which seems unreasonable, so it is more than fair to ask you questions to find out why. Then when you don't answer them but say you will answer any non-loaded question, it seems even more unreasonable and disrespectful.

This is more evident when you ask your own loaded questions like "What rights?" considering your answers below.

Whether a question is loaded should be evaluated honestly and objectively. We could determine with any question whether there's a premise that someone may reasonably disagree with. If I'm asking questions seriously, I do try to avoid that, although I may err on occasion.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a typical loaded question, assuming an objectionable premise.

I'll note when I ask people about the legal rationale for saying particular rights are at stake, this is in response to comments that suggest some kind of understanding that rights are violated, so they should be able to articulate that.

I appreciate that in political discussions a lot of people will just go with their preferred policy, and graft it to whatever else they're talking about, although this should be called out.

I did answer "How often has CRT affected grade schools? By that I mean by teachers and administrators who have explicitly studied CRT or are influenced by it rather than doing things based on racial equality and other things that can be lumped into CRT by being well meaning moral person." I also answered "How much harm is caused by informing people at work not to be insensitive because racist stuff happened and it affects how others see what you do in the present day." That one is a bit loaded in that it suggests that's the reason for the controversy.

"How many reports with proof have come out of Texas of parents forcing their children to transition against their will?" isn't about anything I've said. It assumes where the burden of proof should be, that we should expect major long-term studies at this point, and that there's a robust enough free speech culture within academia that uncomfortable news would be covered.

No argument, however you shouldn't use the fact that they didn't get elected to excuse supporting policies and people you say you don't

I wasn't making an argument there. I was responding to a factual point.

Technically correct, but they are allowed to own and shoot guns before age 10 which has resulted in more than one death and actual injury, so the question about harm comes up again. This answer also ignores the lengths that the parents and medical officials go to in order to make sure this isn't some fad they are dealing with

There should be more focus on the lengths parents and medical officers go through in order to make sure this isn't some fad.

It might resolve some of the conflicts to demonstrate that there are already requirements in place to prevent many of the things conservatives are worried about.

So the fact that apathetic voters don't care about people being harmed (Immigrants/Minorities/Undesirables) means it's ok to allow it go on? I strongly disagree.
I also disagree that specific rights have to be granted to people for them to be respected as fellow human beings in the USA, even if I acknowledge that when they are supposed to have been granted they are still often ignored by bigots in positions of power. However the basic rights this country stands for (Life, Liberty, Happiness) still apply. As long as you only believe something as opposed to having proof and evidence of it, your belief should not be forced on others.

I also realize you are trying to restrict this to minors here, but don't forget the bigoted Anti-Trans Bathroom bills affect all ages. And just with minors (Considering the the studies pointed out many times in this thread) the restrictions on Trans Girls in sports are also clearly based on hate, fear, and misunderstanding.

I think the best approach would be to persuade the apathetic voters to be on your side.

The current approach is to sidestep them, which sets a bad precedent in other areas.

When it comes to rights, the main question is what the law should do. So it's important to figure out where rights have been granted in order to know what the people who have to enforce the law can and should do.

This hasn't come up in the back and forth, but I think a lot of the problems for trans people are not about what the law can do. The law can't make bigots accept trans family members, or moviegoers to go watch a film with a trans lead.

Sports bills are a bit messy. Athletic scholarships are in play, and there are proven advantages to being born male. You can have someone who understands the issue, and doesn't hate or fear trans women who would still think it's inappropriate to have trans athletes in standard competitions, just as it would be inappropriate to allow a heavyweight to fight against a middleweight.

[JB]

'Where have these rights been established'? Good fucking god. This just seems a variation of the 'no special rights' nonsense. Minors already access gender-affirming care all the time. It's just considered okay because they're not trans minors.

Very fair point.
And I googled "trans broken arm syndrome" as you suggested and it is is extremely sad and frightening.

Exactly. Much of what he adds to this thread is from sensationalist sources.

Often, if he mentions something I had not heard of, I look for it on social media and rightwing twitter is talking about nothing else, but few other sources are.

And yet I highlighted the correct story about the 13 Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island, which were reported as fact by the Guardian to have been killed. Clearly they got it very wrong and after 3 days of the incorrect story making headlines everywhere, they corrected the record. One could argue their original story was sensational because they obviously did not confirm whether these soldiers were alive or not. But this is what happens with wartime news and I've said before that I believe it's best to wait for the dust to settle before taking anything as fact.
I try to post articles that have official statements from government officials rather than analysis/opinion pieces.

In any case, this will be the last that I respond to your interpretations of my intentions because they're not consequential.

[thwhtGuardian]

I read the clarification. It didn't indicate that you were referring to a book by a subtitle, rather than making a point about the subtitle.

Once you made that clear, I accepted it. The main disagreement is about what I should say about earlier posts. My comment "I don't think the subtitle is nuanced, although I wouldn't really look for nuance in a subtitle.:

I don't think I've gotten mad. I haven't reported posts, insulted you personally, or sent you angry (or any) private messages. I also didn't bring up earlier disagreements.

However, you sometimes say things that I believe to be unreasonable/ untrue, and I will point that out.

Whether a question is loaded should be evaluated honestly and objectively. We could determine with any question whether there's a premise that someone may reasonably disagree with. If I'm asking questions seriously, I do try to avoid that, although I may err on occasion.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a typical loaded question, assuming an objectionable premise.

I'll note when I ask people about the legal rationale for saying particular rights are at stake, this is in response to comments that suggest some kind of understanding that rights are violated, so they should be able to articulate that.

I appreciate that in political discussions a lot of people will just go with their preferred policy, and graft it to whatever else they're talking about, although this should be called out.

I did answer "How often has CRT affected grade schools? By that I mean by teachers and administrators who have explicitly studied CRT or are influenced by it rather than doing things based on racial equality and other things that can be lumped into CRT by being well meaning moral person." I also answered "How much harm is caused by informing people at work not to be insensitive because racist stuff happened and it affects how others see what you do in the present day." That one is a bit loaded in that it suggests that's the reason for the controversy.

"How many reports with proof have come out of Texas of parents forcing their children to transition against their will?" isn't about anything I've said. It assumes where the burden of proof should be, that we should expect major long-term studies at this point, and that there's a robust enough free speech culture within academia that uncomfortable news would be covered.

I wasn't making an argument there. I was responding to a factual point.

There should be more focus on the lengths parents and medical officers go through in order to make sure this isn't some fad.

It might resolve some of the conflicts to demonstrate that there are already requirements in place to prevent many of the things conservatives are worried about.

I think the best approach would be to persuade the apathetic voters to be on your side.

The current approach is to sidestep them, which sets a bad precedent in other areas.

When it comes to rights, the main question is what the law should do. So it's important to figure out where rights have been granted in order to know what the people who have to enforce the law can and should do.

This hasn't come up in the back and forth, but I think a lot of the problems for trans people are not about what the law can do. The law can't make bigots accept trans family members, or moviegoers to go watch a film with a trans lead.

Sports bills are a bit messy. Athletic scholarships are in play, and there are proven advantages to being born male. You can have someone who understands the issue, and doesn't hate or fear trans women who would still think it's inappropriate to have trans athletes in standard competitions, just as it would be inappropriate to allow a heavyweight to fight against a middleweight.

Who's asking for the bold part? All people are saying is don't make laws that make their lives harder. It's very simple.

This feels like more deflecting.

So let's cut it out.

Rationalizing the marginalization of the trans-community is wrong. It's cut and dry. If you can't refrain from that behavior just come out and admit that you don't truly support that community as pretending isn't helping your stance.

[Mister Mets]

And those restrictions, when it comes to health, are up the parents and their doctors to decide. You're not going to get your kids taken away from you if you decide to follow a doctor's recommendation to begin chemo-therapy. Or anti-depressants. The list goes on, but the meaning is the same: caring for your child isn't wrong.

There's zero middle ground here Mets, you need to realize that...unless you are a bigot and you just don't like the sound of the word.

And all these attempts to rationalize these policies, well they really are pointing to that latter part and not your statement of seeing the trans-community as being your equal and deserving of the same rights and protections afforded to every other citizen. So again, you need to decide, do you want to parrot right-wing talking points and be a monster or do you want to be a decent human being and say that these policies don't reflect your values and don't belong in your party.

It would seem like an easy decision to me, in fact it's one I already made as its why I'm not a member of the Republican party anymore. It's something I've said before but I just don't get how one can hold a view, look around you and see that the other people holding that view are also screaming "white power!" or wearing nazi arm bands...and not think,"Ah, maybe I'm on the wrong side here."

Among other things, very few people are screaming "white power!" or wearing nazi arm bands.

We have a two party system right now. I'll vote for stronger (which tend to be more moderate) Republican candidates in primaries. If the general election candidate is acceptable, I'll vote for a Republican. If not, I'll go for a Democrat.

Without a doubt. And just like with lying in general, it is most effective when there is an element of truth in it somewhere, no matter how small.



So? Mental ilness can be as hard for a person suffering from it as physical, people who have no experience with it just like to downplay it. I don't think that those who have no experience with how horrific such a thing can be for the person suffering from it should judge anyone for their decisions in how to cope.

It is a different argument when we're dealing with mental illness rather than physical pain or debilitation.

I'm pretty sure the issue is classifying gender affirming care as Abuse, not just going after parents along with doctors. There even are parents in NY that have to keep files of appointments, testimonials, and such to assure officials called on them that they are not abusing their child according to this story, and considering conservatives around the country who are emboldened by folks like Abbott and 'educated' by folks like Shrier I don't doubt that for a minute. These files have been mentioned before in this thread as well.

I can appreciate that people don't like that Abbott is classifying puberty blockers and hormone treatments as child abuse.

But if the executive order were just targeted at doctors, the same people pissed off about it now would still be pissed off. And likely doing the same things about it.

[thwhtGuardian]

Among other things, very few people are screaming "white power!" or wearing nazi arm bands.

We have a two party system right now. I'll vote for stronger (which tend to be more moderate) Republican candidates in primaries. If the general election candidate is acceptable, I'll vote for a Republican. If not, I'll go for a Democrat.

It is a different argument when we're dealing with mental illness rather than physical pain or debilitation.



I can appreciate that people don't like that Abbott is classifying puberty blockers and hormone treatments as child abuse.

But if the executive order were just targeted at doctors, the same people pissed off about it now would still be pissed off. And likely doing the same things about it.

Come on, the people who also think these policies against the trans and gay communities harder are those yelling white power...you can't be blind to that. Hatred likes company.

Stop the deflecting and either own up that you're a bigot for defending these policies or if you truly aren't take a deep look in the mirror and realize that defending and attempting to rationalize these policies is wrong and puts you on the opposite side of what your beliefs are.

[Tendrin]

Mets should stop digging further into this transphobic hole.

[thwhtGuardian]

Mets should stop digging further into this transphobic hole.

Or just be honest.
It's not hard.

[Jack Dracula]

Not if one was to take even five minutes, total, to take a look around over in the "X..." sub-forum.

While I get that this thread sees that sort of thing the way McCarthy used to see these supposed "Reds"?

Some of y'all need to seriously run a check.

For what it's worth I don't think anyone here is a Russian propagandist. I do think some posters here are hoping to create or reinforce anti-Biden opinions in hopes of helping a more progressive candidate get the Democratic party nomination in 2024. I see this happening fairly frequently on other platforms and it worries me they may actually be helping Trump get re-elected.