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

[Mister Mets]

I've only read a few of her since deleted tweets...but they didn't paint a very good picture of her. On top of that it seems she lied about the award as well, it wasn't a cash prize she lost out on, she was selected to be included in a category with no cash prize, and it wasn't as if it was a slam dunk there either as it was just a nomination so no guarantee she would have won anyway.

She seems to have acknowledged that she was a finalist, and that the main thing about the prize is the publicity.

https://laurenhough.substack.com/p/a...a-literary?s=r

The Lambda Prize exists because when someone like me, which is to say, a queer person, manages to publish a book with queer themes, those books are often ignored by mainstream prize committees. Prizes get media attention. Prizes create name recognition and bring in new readers. Prizes sell books. Prizes like the Lambda also come with a check. It would’ve nice if my book had won a prize, but it won’t.

There is a small check involved.

https://lambdaliterary.org/2021/01/c...Lamar%20Wilson.

What's the lie?

She wasn't even nominated. She was submitted for nomination, and Lamba didn't nominate her.



https://twitter.com/morrigan2k/statu...42678887665673

This is just another 'cancel culture' fabrication. Hough is a talented writer but an *enormous* asshole, who does things like bully book reviewers who give her four stars instead of five.

And all this, because trans people had the right to criticize a friend of her's gendercide book where trans women are lumped in with men to literally be 'tortured in hell by demons for all eternity' because the book posits that evil is 'contained in the Y chromosone' and yet also includes a violent sexual assault of a trans man.

It would be a major error for the Times to just say she only submitted herself for nomination, and not correct it.

She posted the email saying she was a finalist for an award, which asked her to not leak the news until the nominations were made.

She later got an email saying that her online comments were why she was no longer nominated.

The co-producers of the Lambda prize were also explicit about this, making a joint statement and telling the Times why she was no longer .

Lambda Literary, which for more than 30 years has administered the Lammys, confirmed that Hough had been removed from contention for the award.

“In a series of now-deleted tweets, Lauren Hough exhibited what we believed to be a troubling hostility toward transgender critics and trans-allies and used her substantial platform — due in part to her excellent book — to harmfully engage with readers and critics,” Cleopatra Acquaye and Maxwell Scales, Lambda Literary’s interim co-executive directors, said in a joint statement Monday. “As an L.G.B.T.Q. organization, we cannot knowingly reward individuals who exhibit disdain and disrespect for the autonomy of an entire segment of the community we have committed ourselves to supporting.”

Acquaye and Scales said in a joint interview that an independent judging panel and Lambda Literary had both contributed to the decision to withdraw the book from contention, and said that the organization had not taken a position on “The Men.”

As a result of Hough’s posts, Scales said in the interview, “many trans folks felt like they couldn’t, they were not allowed to be in these conversations.” Acquaye said that the posts “did not uplift other queer people and these voices.”

The Twitter narrative is contradicted by the emails and the official statements of the interim directors of the literary organization.

It was a pretty clear fabrication from the article itself, it was so one sided and didn't even attempt to quote the tweets. When an article doesn't even try to present the other side of such an argument you know it's likely pushing a narrative.

The people behind the Lambda prize made a statement that her tweets represented disrespect and disdain for trans people. They could could provide examples of what those tweets are, but chose not to.

[thwhtGuardian]

She seems to have acknowledged that she was a finalist, and that the main thing about the prize is the publicity.

https://laurenhough.substack.com/p/a...a-literary?s=r



There is a small check involved.

https://lambdaliterary.org/2021/01/c...Lamar%20Wilson.

What's the lie?

It would be a major error for the Times to just say she only submitted herself for nomination, and not correct it.

She posted the email saying she was a finalist for an award, which asked her to not leak the news until the nominations were made.

She later got an email saying that her online comments were why she was no longer nominated.

The co-producers of the Lambda prize were also explicit about this, making a joint statement and telling the Times why she was no longer .





The Twitter narrative is contradicted by the emails and the official statements of the interim directors of the literary organization.


The people behind the Lambda prize made a statement that her tweets represented disrespect and disdain for trans people. They could could provide examples of what those tweets are, but chose not to.

They don't have to provide quotes of her tweets as theirs was a simple press release, where as the Times piece was an actual piece of journalism that failed to actually report the whole story...the difference is pretty clear. But hey, I get it, that doesn't fit the narrative you were looking to present so let's all ignore that right?

The whole narrative itself is funny, it's trying to spin this issue as "Cancel culture is so crazy now that the liberals are canceling themselves!" ...which when you break it down just points to the fact that "cancel culture" isn't really a thing but is just a case of actions having consequences.

As to the award, it does appear I mispoke, I had seen it posted elsewhere that the award she was nominated for was a non-cash one which appears to be untrue.

See, it's not hard to admit you were misinformed.

[Tendrin]

Here's a pretty good thread on the whole thing. Anyway, Hough's a piece of shit, and Mets is as par for him as of late going to bat over transphobic BS.

https://twitter.com/BadWritingTakes/...48541021642760

Hough has a history of being a nasty piece of work, a bully, and now she's taking up for transphobic literature from an author who's already been correctly pointed out for not exactly being sensitive towards minorities before (and no, she's not canceled either).

Seems I was incorrect about the award, I had heard she wasn't nominated, and I'm hardly going to give much credit to the New York 'let's do our fifth cancel culture article in three days' times.

[babyblob]

There is already eh "Diversity at the Oscars." BS talk happening with the racist idiots because of the Will Smith Chris Rock nonsense.

[thwhtGuardian]

Here's a pretty good thread on the whole thing. Anyway, Hough's a piece of shit, and Mets is as par for him as of late going to bat over transphobic BS.

https://twitter.com/BadWritingTakes/...48541021642760

Hough has a history of being a nasty piece of work, a bully, and now she's taking up for transphobic literature from an author who's already been correctly pointed out for not exactly being sensitive towards minorities before (and no, she's not canceled either).

Seems I was incorrect about the award, I had heard she wasn't nominated, and I'm hardly going to give much credit to the New York 'let's do our fifth cancel culture article in three days' times.

Yeah, she was only on my radar at all because last year she launched a whole crusade against Goodreads saying it was a community of homophobes...because she was "only" getting four star reviews...out of five possible stars. She was super abusive of the reviewers there, posting screenshots of their writing and calling them "retards" and in one case suggesting that the person "go kill themself" so yeah, for that past issue alone I probably wouldn't have held her up as a good example of the gay community, never mind the comments she made this go around.

[Tendrin]

Yeah, she was only on my radar at all because last year she launched a whole crusade against Goodreads saying it was a community of homophobes...because she was "only" getting four star reviews...out of five possible stars. She was super abusive of the reviewers there, posting screenshots of their writing and calling them "retards" and in one case suggesting that the person "go kill themself" so yeah, for that past issue alone I probably wouldn't have held her up as a good example of the gay community, never mind the comments she made this go around.

I mean, on the positive side, she did once tell Dick Cheney off.

[CaptainEurope]

I mean, on the positive side, she did once tell Dick Cheney off.

That's a pretty low bar.

[Tendrin]

That's a pretty low bar.

She did it in Dick Cheney's house.

[thwhtGuardian]

Dick Cheney is sort of an interesting subject.

If you had told me just ten years ago that I'd read his name and think, "Meh, he's not that bad as far as conservatives go." I would have asked you what you were smoking...but now that's very much the case, though that has less to do with his policies and more to do with just how batshit insane a number of other conservatives have become in the years since Cheney was part of the mainstream conservative establishment.

This isn't to excuse his war profiteering or any number of other poor choices, but in comparison to the likes of President Trum, Rubio or Cruz, he comes off decidedly better contextually.

[CaptainEurope]

She did it in Dick Cheney's house.

Oh. That's different. Is she a friend of Mary's?

[Tendrin]

Oh. That's different. Is she a friend of Mary's?

She was there as a cable repair lady, and they were having difficulties. She told one of his household people that it would take a few days to fix. Cheney was right there, and I recall the story goes something like the guy tried to tell her to do it because 'you know who this is right?' and she said, "What's he gonna do, waterboard me?"

[CaptainEurope]

She was there as a cable repair lady, and they were having difficulties. She told one of his household people that it would take a few days to fix. Cheney was right there, and I recall the story goes something like the guy tried to tell her to do it because 'you know who this is right?' and she said, "What's he gonna do, waterboard me?"

Weaponizing her assholeness for good, in that case.

[thwhtGuardian]

She was there as a cable repair lady, and they were having difficulties. She told one of his household people that it would take a few days to fix. Cheney was right there, and I recall the story goes something like the guy tried to tell her to do it because 'you know who this is right?' and she said, "What's he gonna do, waterboard me?"

That's legitimately funny.

[AnakinFlair]

However, we'll have to deal with the costs as well. Russia is a nuclear power with massive resources, international naval and military capabilities and a land mass that stretches from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean. From the Arctic to China. This will potentially be a pariah nation worse than any the world has ever dealt with - Iran, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya combined wouldn't match this.

That is a decision our governments are facing and will have to make, so whatever the principles involved are, we would have to be ready to face the consequences as the fallout will affect not only us but the next generation as well.

Real question- how good is Russia's Navy these days? I recall their Navy really started to fall apart after the fall of the Soviet Union- not enough funds to maintain their ships, or crews to man them. And looking at Russia's Army in Ukraine, you start to get the impression that the only thing about them you need to fear are the numbers, not how well trained they are (or aren't). Frankly, it seems that the biggest worry about Russia is their nukes- which is a large and legitimate fear.

I really wish Biden would call a press conference, come out and say:



... and walk out again.

It was a good line from a great speech. Nobody here in Europe is clutching their pearls that he rightly said that Putin needs to go. The American media is so weird, and I wish the White House wasn't trying to walk it back.

America has a history of advocating regime change (and instigating it or supporting it at times, usually to the detriment of the people that would be directly impacted). So they probably don't want the country to think they are trying to do that again with Russia- especially when there are so many other things they want the government to be doing right now (like tackling inflation).

That said, it annoys me to know end how the Republicans are jumping on Biden for his remarks, when less than a month ago a sitting US Senator flat out called for Putin to be assassinated.

[Dalak]

Fair point on hypocrisy. I still don't think I was that disrespectful. I wonder how reflective others are on these types of questions. You advocating for yourself on this is completely appropriate.

Loaded questions may be a subset of biased questions, although we should be able to objectively measure whether there's a potentially controversial assumption within the question. It really shouldn't be that hard to get a nonloaded question, even on a controversial topic.

If there was any criticism of Rufo that would be relevant to the profile, it's possible it occurred in the last nine months after the publication.

I really have to push back against the idea that people in a field take political positions because of morality. This would suggest everyone is sui generis, coming to conclusions independent of anyone else, which just isn't the way it goes. Some people will be on the wrong side for the right reasons, and some people will be on the right side out of pure luck.

People of decent morals will come to very different conclusions and policy preferences than you, and it's not because they're better or worse people, but because they think something else will ultimately help more people.

Suggesting the people who aren't immediately on your side are morally inferior is a self-destructive approach. Telling people whose positions you don't understand that they have low morals will discourage them from being on your side, and serves mainly to help feel better when your side loses.

As far as I know, most of the elected Republicans I've voted for have been against the "Stop the Steal" rhetoric.

It would certainly make me less likely to vote for Republican candidates. There is a point where the efforts and rhetoric of "stop the steal" is so vile that I wouldn't be able to support the Republican, and in the event that the Democrat was terrible, I would back a third-party candidate.

Laws dealing with sensitive questions involving protected classes often get into questions of bigotry. This is hardly unique to the US.

The United States does not have a high birthrate. The idea that we should be cavalier about fertility is a toxic one. It's bad on the merits and really bad politically. It would not be a good idea for a Democrat running for reelection in New Hampshire, Georgia or Arizona to say that we shouldn't worry too much about it because the world is overpopulated and adoption is an option, especially when adoption is becoming increasingly controversial.

In the alternatives to capitalism, the unproductive are not embraced. It can be worse for them, because the people in charge depend on them. I get that this is going away from the original argument, but in any discussion on current events if you say something people may disagree with, there may be a response. We shouldn't assume we can make controversial asides and not have any pushback.

The links demonstrate that the advantages for athletes born male remain after transitioning. A trans woman doesn't become five inches shorter after transitioning.

Sometimes unreasonable people will think a policy represents unreasonable bias.

Braun says he was mistaken on the law. If it turns out that he secretly believes that it would be a good thing for white establishments to ban black patrons, I'm not going to be wrong because my statements reflect uncertainty. If he failed to articulate himself appropriately, his critics may be wrong.

People will have different opinions about what makes a question loaded or not, but refusing to answer questions is looked down on and it's something I object to every time I see a politician or influential individual dodge one.

In finding any story about Rufo you were likely to see at least a few about his own lies and misinformation. Also even 9 months ago there were a few issues reported according to Wikipedia.

Treating others as equals shouldn't be a political issue, it is in the constitution as one of the basics, so yes I can imagine that moral people will come to it on their own or if given a simple reminder.

Who specifically have you voted for lately other than Biden? It would allow everyone to see the kind of republican you specifically will support.

If someone is Trans and they regret not being able to have children later in life, they're far more likely going to regret not being able to have children as their transitioned gender not as their original one. I'm sure their future and children are brought up to them before they transition by doctors and their parents, and it shouldn't be a worry of others because the US or any country has a low birth rate. Do you really think a Trans Man is going to get pregnant even if they don't transition physically? Do you expect that at a certain age they'll just snap out of some sort of fad? That question is asked specifically as it is because you have defended a transphobe making transitioning out to be a fad.

If these advantages were so vast where are the many the Trans gold medalists or even one Trans dominated sport? That or maybe the science that says they lost the vast majority of that advantage is correct.

I'm not going to humor your anti-socialist rant as it's a distraction and sidesteps the points I made. Pushback to the fact that our society promotes selfishness shouldn't be an anti-socialist rant just because the word capitalism is involved.

Braun said the states should decide, not that he believes what you stated. Leaving it up to the states to decide not to be bigoted would have resulted in them never getting over it. From Jim Crow to Anti Sodomy laws and DADT reasonable people come to the conclusion that these laws are not worth keeping in the end. As I said before, we should just skip the middle man and not make these clearly hateful laws in the first place.