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

[numberthirty]

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.

Politely...

Anyone putting together an even remotely sensible plan to do something like that would not waste the time on a handful of folks in one seriously obscure corner of the interwebs or the handful of folks who actually post in this thread.

It sounds like an incredibly dumb idea the minute you even start to say it out loud,

[Mister Mets]

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.

I think we have very different views on the American public, if you think these are the exact same groups.
.
An essay "You are still crying wolf" is probably the best take I've seen on what percentage of Americans are white nationalists. His guess is three percent.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/1...l-crying-wolf/

Meanwhile, 62 percent of Americans are against transgender athletes playing on teams that match their gender identity.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350174/...er-issues.aspx

Pluralities of Americans are against trans people using the restrooms or changing rooms of their preferred gender.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/life...sgender-survey

If progressives and Democrats act like these issues are the equivalent of white supremacy, they're going to get their asses kicked when it's election time. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the political climate.

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.

It's important to consider whether the things that are currently legal fights are going to have limited effects.

It's a small percentage of trans people who are interested in joining school-based gender-segregated sports teams. The questions about whether to limit hormone therapies to adults are also less meaningful than the bigger question about whether hormone therapy should be allowed at all (this seems to be a relatively popular position so it's a win worth celebrating) and other factors are going to have more of an effect on quality of life. I can understand the view that if legal institutions aren't wholeheartedly in favor of affirmation, it gives moral permission to ordinary people to be disrespectful, but there is a lot of focus on these legal fights where the effects appear to be minimal.

As for rationalizing marginalization, it is relevant to consider why positions are unpopular if you're making an effort to persuade people.

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 appears to me that a blanket ban on hormone therapy for minors in Texas would still be opposed by the people against the current order, so it's worth considering that controversy.

[numberthirty]

Past that...

Does anyone have to "Create..." anything like that when the guy is already polling the way that he is all on his own?

[thwhtGuardian]

Again, who cares if equal rights for the trans-population is unpopular with a bunch of mouth breathers(and that's all people who don't support them are)? When has that mattered? In 1965, 61% of people in the South thought the Civil Rights push by the government was going too fast. Should we have listened and acted more moderately to appease them? Hell no, and it's good that they weren't listened to and why should it be different now? Ignorance is not a virtue and deserves no tolerance.

Right is right and trying to pretend that exercising caution about trans-rights makes you less bigoted doesn't actually make you not a bigot. Again, either you accept you're a bigot own it completely and be honest about it...or realize that everything you're saying is wrong, and that you're on the wrong side of this issue. It happens, we all make mistakes, you just have to realize this is one you've made.

[Panfoot]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and constantly defends bigoted polices and can't come up with anything better than deflection or whataboutisms...

[Dalak]

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.

It clearly indicated I meant more than a subtitle.

BTW When you post:

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.

describing how you felt when you responded, I think a simple mad is better than the pissed off you used.

-----

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.

If this was more than an internet forum and a classroom some might pick their words better, but everyone on the planet is biased in their point of view and you'll hardly ever get a completely un-loaded question or answer. So it's easy to use that as an excuse to dodge practically anything.

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."

No, you said that people might have been influenced by it but gave no hint of how administrators of grade schools that have been there since before CRT was sensationalized would have studied it in order for it to influence their opinions, let alone anything else other than a theory you had that made it the majority of teachers. You could give no numbers, give no hint that anything done was due to CRT as opposed to being a moral person, and gave no hint that you took the question seriously by doing so.

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.

And you said the harm came from it being done badly but gave no hint that you had even read about it being done wrong once. Nor did you try to guess how often such harm came or in what percentage compared to the non-harmful variety, just asserted that there was harm caused without proof.

"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.

If someone is going to ban something and declare it is child abuse you can bet the burden of proof is on them, and if someone was going to support such actions when they're already been exposed to many links about how it's not in a prolonged argument about a scandalous book they should surely have something to back it up. As has been shown the CPS across the country has been investigating these situations for years and if any story had arrived of parents forcing their children to transition had merit the conservative media would be crowing about it day in and day out. Thus we don't need time for long term studies to be concluded for such news to be disseminated.

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

Yes, ignoring the reason why it was brought up in the first place which was to show that supporting the GOP who support Trump and his policies is supporting Trump and his policies.

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.

No, facts would not sway this crowd. We have evidence of that needing to me mentioned by a Mod every few days in regards to The Steal.

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.

I think that convincing the apathetic to care is a losing game, as if they don't care by now there's nothing going to stir them. If COVID isn't going to get them voting after blatant child abuse of asylum seekers, then child abuse of transgender youth isn't going to sway them.

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.

Laws shouldn't be used to restrict peoples rights to which bathroom they use, or restrict anyone's right to anything based on bigotry. The fact that you are trying to make this about laws making others respect others in responce is telling. BTW, that you are still talking about the 'proven advantages to being born male' means you should go back and read the many links I mentioned. There was a long running discussion involving it between a few liberal posters that I'm sure you couldn't have missed even if you didn't read the links, but TL;DR trans girls are far less effective in sports than you and others might think.

-----

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.

It appears to me that a blanket ban on hormone therapy for minors in Texas would still be opposed by the people against the current order, so it's worth considering that controversy.

This deserved 2 different responses?

Bottom line: If it wasn't classified as Child Abuse there's no reason to go after anyone. A ban on anything requires a reason, and if it wasn't Child Abuse it would be something just as outrageous, clearly disingenous, and based in bigotry.

[Tami]

Slovakia starts deploying Patriot air defence system

PRAGUE, March 20 (Reuters) - The Patriot air defence system has started arriving in Slovakia from NATO partner countries and the deployment will continue in the coming days, Slovakia's defence minister said on Sunday.

The system will be operated by German and Dutch troops and will initially be deployed at the Sliac airport in central Slovakia to help reinforce the defence of NATO's eastern flank.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has prompted the alliance to bolster its defences.

"I am happy to confirm that the first units in charge of deploying the Patriot air defence system are gradually arriving to Slovakia," Defence Minister Jaroslav Nad said on Facebook.

Nad said the Patriot system will be a complement and not a replacement of the Soviet-era S-300 system that Slovakia operates.

"Temporarily, the system will be deployed at the Sliac air force base, further deployment areas are being consulted ... so that the security umbrella covers the largest possible part of Slovak territory," Nad said.

The minister said last week that Slovakia is willing to give the S-300 to Ukraine if and when it gets a proper replacement.

[Jack Dracula]

Politely...

Anyone putting together an even remotely sensible plan to do something like that would not waste the time on a handful of folks in one seriously obscure corner of the interwebs or the handful of folks who actually post in this thread.

It sounds like an incredibly dumb idea the minute you even start to say it out loud,

I'm not saying there's an organized movement. I'm talking about individuals seizing any opportunity they can to throw shade on whatever platforms they may frequent with the idea that "every little bit helps".
In the past, I've addressed the argument that nobody pays attention to what's posted here. I'd argue that in many cases everyone who frequents this thread and the forums, in general, comes here with opinions and ideas they've picked up elsewhere intending to share them in one form or another. To assume people aren't picking up opinions here and sharing them elsewhere wouldn't be rational.

[numberthirty]

I'm not saying there's an organized movement. I'm talking about individuals seizing any opportunity they can to throw shade on whatever platforms they may frequent with the idea that "every little bit helps".
In the past, I've addressed the argument that nobody pays attention to what's posted here. I'd argue that in many cases everyone who frequents this thread and the forums, in general, comes here with opinions and ideas they've picked up elsewhere intending to share them in one form or another. To assume people aren't picking up opinions here and sharing them elsewhere wouldn't be rational.

To assume that the entirety of that multiplied by one hundred amounts to so much as a hill of beans would be even less rational...

First, you'd have to get real with yourself about the folks that actually even post in this thread. If it breaks forty people total? I'd be stunned.

Second, you'd have to assume that many folks past that even look through this thread. Never mind actually bother with forming an opinion based on what is in it. Again, long shot.

Never mind the actual reality of the thing.

If one is worried about more progressive folks being the issue in the next election and not that Republicans will likely have a reasonable shot at just winning it straight up?

It's like worrying about an eviction notice on your apartment door when there is smoke coming out from underneath it.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Ukraine war: Western agents seek to get inside Putin's head

Russia's leader Vladimir Putin is trapped in a closed world of his own making, Western spies believe. And that worries them.

For years they have sought to get inside Mr Putin's mind, to better understand his intentions.

With Russian troops seemingly bogged down in Ukraine, the need to do so has become all the more necessary as they try to work out how he will react under pressure.

Understanding his state of mind will be vital to avoid escalating the crisis into even more dangerous territory.

[Jack Dracula]

To assume that the entirety of that multiplied by one hundred amounts to so much as a hill of beans would be even less rational...

First, you'd have to get real with yourself about the folks that actually even post in this thread. If it breaks forty people total? I'd be stunned.

Second, you'd have to assume that many folks past that even look through this thread. Never mind actually bother with forming an opinion based on what is in it. Again, long shot.

Never mind the actual reality of the thing.

If one is worried about more progressive folks being the issue in the next election and not that Republicans will likely have a reasonable shot at just winning it straight up?

It's like worrying about an eviction notice on your apartment door when there is smoke coming out from underneath it.

I've explained my position on this subject several times in detail now with you and others here. I'm getting pretty tired of it.

Every bit of negativity hurts our chances in 2024. While people continue to spread it here, I'll continue to point that fact out.

[numberthirty]

I've explained my position on this subject several times in detail now with you and others here. I'm getting pretty tired of it.

Every bit of negativity hurts our chances in 2024. While people continue to spread it here, I'll continue to point that fact out.

Here's the obvious issue...

Your "Negativity..."?

Out in the real world?

Most folks call that just being honest with one's self about what is happening and exactly what the odds are that you find yourself up against.

Right now, March is two-thirds of the way done in a mid-term election year. In addition to that BBB/Meaningful police reform/Voting rights protections probably won't happen before that mid-term?

I haven't really seen any pitch for why Dems should hold onto what they have in Congress. Never mind make gains.

If someone is insisting on not being realistic about those facts because "Negativity..." could hurt chances?

Again, it's like refusing to be "Negative..." when Mike Tyson was eating Cheetos by the bagful and not bothering to train for the Douglas fight.

Refusing to be negative was exactly what lost him that fight.

[JackDaw]

Again, who cares if equal rights for the trans-population is unpopular with a bunch of mouth breathers(and that's all people who don't support them are)? When has that mattered? In 1965, 61% of people in the South thought the Civil Rights push by the government was going too fast. Should we have listened and acted more moderately to appease them? Hell no, and it's good that they weren't listened to and why should it be different now? Ignorance is not a virtue and deserves no tolerance.

Right is right and trying to pretend that exercising caution about trans-rights makes you less bigoted doesn't actually make you not a bigot. Again, either you accept you're a bigot own it completely and be honest about it...or realize that everything you're saying is wrong, and that you're on the wrong side of this issue. It happens, we all make mistakes, you just have to realize this is one you've made.

What counts as caution?

I know obviously UK set-up is very different to US, but I will give 2 examples where I think a very heavy majority of Brits across a wide spectrum would say: “not sure, need to go slowly.”

First is participation in elite womens athletic events, where I think most people would be resistant to idea of trans people competing except in areas where there was a reasonable amount of evidence to establish essentially fair competition.

Second I think there is widespread scepticism about the proposal recently put forward by Scottish Parliament to effectively allow gender change by individual just by self declaration, potentially allowing say a convicted male sex offender to declare himself a woman, and then serve time in a womens prison. (Put it this way, in a recent Daily Mail article, the paper assembled a panel of 12 women prominently associated with feminist movement, and 10 were categorically against it. The Mail is patently right wing by UK standards, of course, but the 12 were all named and essentially humane liberalists in most cases.)

If issues like that can not be discussed without people being categorised as extremists, then my own view is that overall progress is slowed rather than accelerated.

[thwhtGuardian]

What counts as caution?

I know obviously UK set-up is very different to US, but I will give 2 examples where I think a very heavy majority of Brits across a wide spectrum would say: “not sure, need to go slowly.”

First is participation in elite womens athletic events, where I think most people would be resistant to idea of trans people competing except in areas where there was a reasonable amount of evidence to establish essentially fair competition.

Second I think there is widespread scepticism about the proposal recently put forward by Scottish Parliament to effectively allow gender change by individual just by self declaration, potentially allowing say a convicted male sex offender to declare himself a woman, and then serve time in a womens prison. (Put it this way, in a recent Daily Mail article, the paper assembled a panel of 12 women prominently associated with feminist movement, and 10 were categorically against it. The Mail is patently right wing by UK standards, of course, but the 12 were all named and essentially humane liberalists in most cases.)

If issues like that can not be discussed without people being categorised as extremists, then my own view is that overall progress is slowed rather than accelerated.

Neither of those are issues that are being legislated against in the US, we're talking proposals for separating children from their parents just because their parents were giving them the care they needed. There's zero reason to defend or rationalize that kind of policy.

[JackDaw]

Neither of those are issues that are being legislated against in the US, we're talking proposals for separating children from their parents just because their parents were giving them the care they needed. There's zero reason to defend or rationalize that kind of policy.

So actually your earlier statements weren’t about the totality of trans rights, but purely restricted to a particular issue? (A lot of statements you have made are phrased in a way that don’t make that readily apparent.)