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

[Gray Lensman]

Yeah, no, at least not if you actually look at the science.

They can make a good appearance of being on the side of science to those who aren't educated on the subject, though, and that's good enough to tilt some elections.

[Panfoot]

They can make a good appearance of being on the side of science to those who aren't educated on the subject, though, and that's good enough to tilt some elections.

Sadly you are correct

[Tendrin]

Sadly you are correct

Which is why we have keep talking about it. Mardukas is not incorrect that most people have never met a trans person. It makes them *very susceptible to demagogery, and worse, being talked oven even by 'allies'.

[achilles]

Ah, tennis star Boris Becker has double faulted, and was sentenced to spend the next 2.5 years in what I presume to be a tennis jail. His offense was some tax thing, but I shall pretend he was caught trying to control the weather.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I'm sure they'll claim it, they're obviously lying but that's to be expected at this point.

That’s what I hate most, the lying. Anyone who hasn’t drank the Qpublican Kool-Aid knows this isn’t about protecting the unborn, but controlling women and what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. I’d have a tiny measure of respect for the GQP if they came right out and publicly admitted their goal was to control women like possessions, yet they hide behind phony morality as they make themselves out to be crusaders protecting those poor, defenseless zygotes. Talk about bullshit!

[Panfoot]

Which is why we have keep talking about it. Mardukas is not incorrect that most people have never met a trans person. It makes them *very susceptible to demagogery, and worse, being talked oven even by 'allies'.

Very true, can't let that **** slide.

[Malvolio]

Which is why we have keep talking about it. Mardukas is not incorrect that most people have never met a trans person that they know of. It makes them *very susceptible to demagogery, and worse, being talked oven even by 'allies'.

Plenty of people know trans people without knowing that they're trans. And they're sometimes shocked when they find out.

[JackDaw]

Plenty of people know trans people without knowing that they're trans. And they're sometimes shocked when they find out.

Years ago at work a colleague we’d all known for years and never for a second doubted was a woman was revealed on death to have been born a man.

That was a surprise. But can’t remember anybody being shocked, think near universal reaction was one of admiration.

[Tendrin]

Plenty of people know trans people without knowing that they're trans. And they're sometimes shocked when they find out.

Yeah, I did mean out trans people that they were aware of. Fair correction, but let's remember that most estimates still have them at 0.6% of the populace.

[mathew101281]

Sometimes I wonder how much history would have changed if Colin Powell had run for President. Would he have won? What path would of race relations took if the first black President was a Republican rather then a Democrats?

[Dalak]

Sometimes I wonder how much history would have changed if Colin Powell had run for President. Would he have won? What path would of race relations took if the first black President was a Republican rather then a Democrats?

Considering how tied he was to the Iraq War, No he wouldn't have won.

[JackDaw]

Ah, tennis star Boris Becker has double faulted, and was sentenced to spend the next 2.5 years in what I presume to be a tennis jail. His offense was some tax thing, but I shall pretend he was caught trying to control the weather.

No..the latest trial wasn’t about tax dodging (though he’s been found guilty of that in the past) but about him declaring himself bankrupt, then hiding considering wealth that could have been used to pay off his debts.

Basically he borrowed loads of money from various people, then tried to cheat them. I like Boris as a tennis player and commentator, but he’s pretty amoral.

Assume you were joking about tennis jail, basically he’ll do time in a low security normal jail.

[Mister Mets]

So both studies seem to show that the 1-in-20 number is a gross exaggeration? Good to know! It also doesn't show a big jump in trans men compared to trans women, so that's good to see as well, even if one is also on UK folks.

But the studies don't show that the 1 in 20 figure was a gross exaggeration. The percentage of students who are trans men, trans women, genderqueer, non-binary, agender, genderfluid or who do not have a listed identity is 4.2%. It's not a gross exaggeration to put that at 1 in 20 (5%) females, especially as the numbers are a bit different between the two sexes.

There are more trans men than trans women at the college, although there are also more women than men. However, there is a big increase in the level trans men compared to any increase in trans women, as trans women used to outnumber trans men by quite a lot.

Are you claiming that the number of students using "That's gay" is anywhere near what it was 10 years ago? I'd say that was well on the way to being settled and now I doubt that it will be. As for sexual deviance, bringing it up alongside LGBT isn't kosher as it seems you are conflating the 2 like so many conservatives who do the same with bestiality, pedophilia, and more. Whether anything is OK behind closed doors doesn't enter into it.

I can't make any comparison about the number of students using "gay" now as compared to ten years ago. The context of the word is complicated as some kids are using it ironically (IE- students who identify as LGBTQ+ throwing it around.)

I'm pretty sure that Pete Buttigieg's love for his husband is deeper and purer than David Vitter's love of getting spanked by prostitutes while he's wearing diapers, but when it comes to deviance, it is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the stuff you mention doesn't involve consenting adults, so it's not comparable.

Actually it applies to all politicians, and thus if far more of one side fail the smell test than the other it's not the same even if folks on both sides do fail. It's not about holding one side to a higher standard and letting the other wallow in filth without consequences.

But that's besides the point of finding actual named republicans that you support with your vote and/or donations.

It depends on the argument you're making. If you're trying to convince people who believe Democrats are mistaken politically that they still deserve votes because of superior morals Democrats need significantly superior morals.

I don't donate much to politicians. The last time was probably to Joe Lhota, Republican nominee for mayor of New York City in 2013 (he lost.) I live in Queens so there aren't many Republican officeholders, or much reason to remember who I voted for due to a lack of competitive elections.

In the last two elections, I have posted my preferences for candidates in key elections.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...37#post3979337
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ns#post5194070

Actually it seems that if more people dealt with actual facts about how many identify as Trans we'd have less of an outrage going on right now. People accepting facts as they are parceled out without doing more digging seems to result in that, especially in todays age of deliberate misinformation aka Blatant Lies.

If you have better readily available facts go ahead. One thing I am picking up is that it may seem that people are arguing past one another, for example if one person's definition of trans includes everyone who identifies as something other than the gender they were assigned at birth (this is the definition used by the Human Rights Campaign), and another who limits it only to people who explicitly identify as trans men or women.

And my point was that if we don't do more to strongly distinguish what we actually believe it will be used as support by people that we don't. Bringing forward a stance of others (Most schools are affected by CRT) as something you can agree with as technically correct even when you don't agree that it is genuinely correct makes that harder instead of easier.

If something is technically correct, it is correct. If you want to argue that something else is genuinely correct, or more practical, or more considerate of important context, fine. That argument can be made explicitly.

Director Andrew Stanton had a great term in an interview: "the note behind the note." His point was that studio notes that seem ridiculous are often based on a legitimate underlying concern, and that writers and directors will make better work when they realize what those are. It's a reminder that someone who may have a weird view on things may be trying to articulate something else. This is important to keep in mind, though my takeaway is the importance of articulating things effectively. Given the wide array of political views, and potential problems with different sources of information, frames of reference and priorities, it doesn't work to expect anyone else to figure out exactly what you're trying to say. It's one thing for a filmmaker who has to deal with producers to get funding to go through the effort of determining their unarticulated concerns. It would be another to expect it of strangers online. One person may be informed by a viral video and that becomes a context for his comments. Another may be unfamiliar with the video and its argument, or may have seen it convincingly rebutted, so she won't immediately consider that.

I disagree that it is up to the voters, as someone who's going to cause their beliefs to be forced on others breaks the 1st amendment. Someone who shows they can't abide by the constitution should not be allowed to govern. I know not many agree with me on that, but it's something I believe in as strongly as any lies by those taking government $ should be punished severely enough to make them think before talking about something they aren't sure of.

Politicians are able to vote based on their religious understandings. Religion tends to be associated with right-wing politicians, but someone on the left can believe that God wants them to make sure the poor are taken care of, the death penalty is abolished, and that the moral case against Donald Trump is spread wide and far. I also don't trust anyone to determine that a politician is obviously wrong and the only potential reason for their decision is their religious faith.

I agree that there should be ways to punish politicians who lie. I am concerned about the mechanisms. Anything that gives Democrats the power to punish Marjorie Taylor Greene for lying would give Republicans the power to punish any Democrat who exaggerates the moment the party is able to take unified control.

The best approach may be for some kind of private group giving its seal of approval to politicians who meet neutral standards. But this group needs to be pretty damn perfect to avoid the inevitable disagreements.

Another possibility would be for a major party to set clear rules on what politicians can do in order to have access to funding, endorsements, legislative committees, etc. But that's likely to lead to some internal conflicts, especially if there's a sense that is used selectively to punish one faction.

[Mister Mets]

What Elon Musk’s polarization graph gets wrong

Musk's tweet was a joke about how some people feel, who don't think they've changed, but now find themselves criticized as right wingers.

The DW-Nominate score is uniquely terrible in this context. It measures party line votes, which doesn't take into account whether a party has shifted. If you don't think Democrats are to the left of where they were during earlier administrations, is there any indication they're pushing for less spending (We can take into account inflation and population growth) than before? Are there any existing laws on behalf of protected classes that Democrats want to remove?

The DW-Nominate score also doesn't take into account reasons for a politician's actions, so some extreme candidates are often moderate on this scale because they vote against things most members of their party support, and the stuff they want will never be allowed to come to a vote.

That you think there should be reevaluations and compromise on abortion and trans rights is pretty telling.

He may prefer it to an increased chance of another Trump term.

That's been their defense for it, despite them never giving any sort of lip service to women's sports before, all while stripping women's rights state by state the entire time. It also doubles as them getting to ingrain the message of transwomen as not "real" women, Republicans are masters of bigotry.

There are a variety of Republican and moderate views on this topic. One observation I heard is that the argument is meaningful to fathers of daughters who had recently been persuaded of the value of girl's sports.

I've noticed a tendency to make everything binary, and realized a connection to some recent discussions about coalition politics. I'll likely go into more depth on that later, but it seems to encourage all or nothing thinking. The basic view would be that left-wing activists understand sensitive topics best, so the strongest policy results come from making different activists by by giving them what they want, which would also net political wins. From this perspective, opposition to compromise makes sense.

Sometimes I wonder how much history would have changed if Colin Powell had run for President. Would he have won? What path would of race relations took if the first black President was a Republican rather then a Democrats?

His moderation is also important. It would be different for Republicans to win with Colin Powell than Clarence Thomas.

Considering how tied he was to the Iraq War, No he wouldn't have won.

He was considered a potential contender for the nomination in 1996.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/doc...amp/powell.htm

[worstblogever]

Former Idaho GOP state legislator Aaron von Ehlinger found guilty of raping a 19 year old intern, headed to prison.

Just a reminder that more than one Republican within the Idaho state legislature were trying to force the accuser's identity to be public from the jump.

It's a cult. They'll circle the ranks around anyone, no matter how irredeemable their actions might be.