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

[hyped78]

I am taking my own advice and moving ion from this, Too many pages and too many days on this. Catlady posted some great links on Ukraine and Russia and they got lost because of this nonsense debate.

Everyone needs to go read them.

Ukraine looks, unfortunately, like something that will drag on and on, the latest remarks from Lavrov make for a grim outlook.

[Farealmer]

olympic level athletes who dedicate all their lives to it since childhood (how much of it is even consensual, since they are initially pushed into it by their parents is a separate other topic).

I wonder how many people for this are against pre 18 transitioning or are "groomer" fearmongers.

[CSTowle]

It's interesting because:
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/11074...ransition-poll

"The NPR/Ipsos poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) are opposed to allowing transgender women and girls to compete on teams that align with their gender identity, while 24% overall support that."

"Among Democrats, opinion is fairly split: a plurality, 46%, support trans female athletes' right to compete on women's and girls sports teams, while 41% oppose it."
41% of democrats are "bigots!" Almost half!

"Independent voters oppose trans female athletes right to compete by 3:1 (21% support; 63% oppose)."
63% of independents are "bigots!" Almost two thirds!

(and obviously all Republicans are "bigots!")


https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelin...ts-poll-finds/
"Only 3 In 10 Americans Support Trans Athletes’ Participation In Female Sports"
70% of Americans are "bigots!"


My takeaway: a clear and sizeable majority of US citizens are "bigots!". I would change countries...

Public opinion is often behind the times when it comes to social change and acceptance of things outside of the current "norm". Look at polling on interracial marriage, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. before it was implemented and then 10-20 years after once they see it in action and realize it's not the end of the world or even a fraction of the deal opponents swore up and down that it would be. Public servants are tasked with many things, but one of the most important is realizing what needs to be done despite popular opinion then having the courage to do it.

I believe the media is in large part at fault for the sweeping characterizations that each party accuses the other of having. I haven't seen much mention of this:

A Record Number of Black Republicans Are Running for Office. They're Revolutionizing the GOP
https://www.newsweek.com/record-numb...pinion-1715061



Is it possible that these 81 African American candidates support far-right policies? That they're all brainwashed? Sure it's possible but I think it's much more nuanced than that. Perhaps we're looking at people of the party trying to change it from within. The problem is that this kind of news is largely unknown/ignored. Most media outlets thrive on emotion-stirring so they're not going to dig into these new developments, allowing people to continue to believe that the GOP is a party only for white, Christian men. That everyone in the party thinks exactly the same.

Those trying to make a change have to be recognized in order for change to happen, not ignored.

Prayers for a speeding recovery to Biden.

Whatever the current numbers I've always said Republicans should stop chasing a shrinking white base and reach out more to latino and black communities because they tend to be more conservative and (key) more religious than white leftists as a whole. Part of that is because we're looking at the groups as a whole rather than dividing them as "left/right" like the white population, which is still (for now) the majority. But the abortion issue is real. There's a reason we don't hear much from Martin Luther King's family, as they vote and advocate for Republicans on the abortion issue. Immigration is a concern for working class black folks and native latinos. I'm glad they're not reaching out, or only doing so as much as they feel they need to in order to have human shields from the racism charge, but if they'd pull their heads out of their rears Democrats might start losing some popular votes in the Presidential.

Trump is 76 and overweight, I don't think he runs in 2024 (yes, I know Biden is older)

He's running, if only for money and attention. I'm a broken record, but I think he finds a way to get as much glow of the crowd and ill-gotten monetary gain as possible before finding a reason to bow out and whine some more for attention (and perhaps more donations for a legal fund or further venture/scam). I don't think he wants to actually serve.

If he doesn't run he sure took a lot of his supporters money for years. Won't be surprised if some of that goes to other accounts.

I would bet everything I own and put my limbs as collateral that it's going to happen.

They're some the same people who were crying about "THEY MADE ROBIN AND SUPERMAN GAAAAAAAY"...while acting like it was Clark Kent and Dick Grayson. And INSISTING it was 'gay' and not 'bisexual'.
They're not even going to try to get the details right when all they're on air for is spreading the hatred.

In fairness the companies themselves are doing this in part for the attention and controversy clickbait headlines like "Superman gay!" are going to bring. It's good for business.

I know I'm late to this conversation, but the media is way too fascinated by Black Republicans, just because they don't get it. Biden captured twice as high a percentage of white evangelical protestant voters (18%) as Trump did Black voters (10%). Biden got more of white evangelicals than Hillary (+2-pts). And yet, I don't see anyone being curious about "Democrats increasing popularity with white evangelicals" or even acknowledging those white evangelical Biden voters, including them in panels, etc. No group is monolithic, so of course there are Black Republicans, but 10% is a really tiny number considering the news coverage they get.

In fairness, Republicans can use those black candidates as a shield against racism charges and it looks good in group photos (same as corporations do). No real gains for Democrats for gaining Evangelical votes.

That's where I'm from and it's best summarized as: The response to russian war in Ukraine has been the first time ever that I was proud of our government. Of course, it didn't last long, because domestic issues didn't take a pause.



Do you not understand that it's much harder to go through transition once you are post puberty???

This is my concern. I get the other side (and here's where I may be dogpiled on) being concerned that making a choice to do so at a prepubescent age is an enormous and irrevocable decision, but if you wait until adulthood there are going to be drawbacks to transitioning.

[scourge]

In fairness the companies themselves are doing this in part for the attention and controversy clickbait headlines like "Superman gay!" are going to bring. It's good for business.

Oh DC most definitely is. At least for Jon.
But its still irritating that people can't read the actual stories instead of just reacting to the headline or the people stoking phobic hate.

[Mister Mets]

Man, come on...

Your average person posting on this board?

They, rightly, probably do not care one bit about this thread and the fact that it even exists.

Would not be much of a point in instituting a press gang just to get some other opinions into the mix.

I agree that most posters at CBR don't care about this thread. But it could very well get more and a greater variety of commentary if it was more appealing to people to the right of Barack Obama.

[CaptainEurope]

I am taking my own advice and moving ion from this, Too many pages and too many days on this. Catlady posted some great links on Ukraine and Russia and they got lost because of this nonsense debate.

Everyone needs to go read them.

I read that one issue Russians have is that they use maps from the 60s.

Why do they actually have to use paper maps, anyway?

[JackDaw]

I read that one issue Russians have is that they use maps from the 60s.

Why do they actually have to use paper maps, anyway?

Lol!

I’d guess because of lack of investment in equipment.

I do a fair amount of walking, and do nearly always still take a paper map…but really nowadays for just one reason, that if you need to replan overall route, it’s easier to look at a very large area at a glance than on electronic GPS devices I’ve got, all of which have fairly small screens.

(There are plenty of areas once you get away from towns and cities where you can’t get wi fI, but very few areas where you can’t get a GPS signal, so you just need to be sure you’ve downloaded any maps you need before you venture out.)

[numberthirty]

Lol!

I’d guess because of lack of investment in equipment.

I do a fair amount of walking, and do nearly always still take a paper map…but really nowadays for just one reason, that if you need to replan overall route, it’s easier to look at a very large area at a glance than on electronic GPS devices I’ve got, all of which have fairly small screens.

(There are plenty of areas once you get away from towns and cities where you can’t get wi fI, but very few areas where you can’t get a GPS signal, so you just need to be sure you’ve downloaded any maps you need before you venture out.)

Post of the year.

By a mile...

[CaptainEurope]

Post of the year.

By a mile...

Dang, this map is in kilometers.

[Gray Lensman]

This is my concern. I get the other side (and here's where I may be dogpiled on) being concerned that making a choice to do so at a prepubescent age is an enormous and irrevocable decision, but if you wait until adulthood there are going to be drawbacks to transitioning.

This is actually a good argument in favor of puberty blockers. If someone thinks a minor should be forced to wait a little while, puberty blockers allow that time while pushing back the drawbacks associated with transitioning after puberty has set in.

[Tendrin]

This is actually a good argument in favor of puberty blockers. If someone thinks a minor should be forced to wait a little while, puberty blockers allow that time while pushing back the drawbacks associated with transitioning after puberty has set in.

HRT only begins at 16, typically, and hormone blockers are always a good idea for people who want to make that decision.

That said, let's remember that this 'enormous, irrevocable decision', isn't irrevocable in the first place *and* every scientific study for trans youth has shown that detransition is *exceedingly* rare, and usually because of social factors unrelated to the gender identity of the detransitioner. If you're more concerned about the tiny, tiny number of kids who may get it wrong, please ask yourself why your focus is on them and not the sheer number of kids who 'got it right' but are being left so unsupported that they detransition out of despair. Where's the concern about the for them?

[hyped78]

Public opinion is often behind the times when it comes to social change and acceptance of things outside of the current "norm". Look at polling on interracial marriage, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. before it was implemented and then 10-20 years after once they see it in action and realize it's not the end of the world or even a fraction of the deal opponents swore up and down that it would be. Public servants are tasked with many things, but one of the most important is realizing what needs to be done despite popular opinion then having the courage to do it.

That last sentence of yours almost fits what SCOTUS did on Wade vs. Roe, even if most Americans didn't want that change.

Social change is not linear - look at Iran now and before the Islamic revolution. All I wanted to show with that poll (and then the others as well) is that a clear majority of Americans believe that trans should not compete in women's sports - including almost half of Democrats and two thirds of Republicans. I hold that same view.

And to me it seems arrogant and foolish to say, like some folks have said, that everyone who has that opinion are "bigots". Are ~half of Democrats and 2/3s of Independents "bigots"? How out of touch is that assertion?

And, if you want to change their minds, starting the discussion with “bigots” is plain dumb.

[hyped78]

Oh DC most definitely is. At least for Jon.
But its still irritating that people can't read the actual stories instead of just reacting to the headline or the people stoking phobic hate.

But no one is forced to read, or not to read, this or that story, this or that comic book. You can't force people to read/ buy what they don't want to.

[hyped78]

This is actually a good argument in favor of puberty blockers. If someone thinks a minor should be forced to wait a little while, puberty blockers allow that time while pushing back the drawbacks associated with transitioning after puberty has set in.

That's how it works here. You can convert after you're 18 but you can take puberty blockers before that if your parents authorize (and there's some other pieces of criteria for eligibility for the medication etc.)

[Gray Lensman]

HRT only begins at 16, typically, and hormone blockers are always a good idea for people who want to make that decision.

That said, let's remember that this 'enormous, irrevocable decision', isn't irrevocable in the first place *and* every scientific study for trans youth has shown that detransition is *exceedingly* rare, and usually because of social factors unrelated to the gender identity of the detransitioner. If you're more concerned about the tiny, tiny number of kids who may get it wrong, please ask yourself why your focus is on them and not the sheer number of kids who 'got it right' but are being left so unsupported that they detransition out of despair. Where's the concern about the for them?

I'm not more concerned about the tiny number who might change their minds - but I grew up in a conservative household and still often frame arguments from that perspective. I took the same tac for marriage equality.

The issue with creating a new thing like marriage is all the rights that go along with it that people don't think about until they come up. Did you remember to specifically spell out all of those with civil unions? Did you remember to close the loopholes to prevent a corporation from forming a civil union with a parking lot for a tax break? You know what does both of those things, with a surefire guarantee to not screw anything up? Marriage, that's what. I thought conservatives were supposed to oppose creating new laws when the ones we have can handle things.

Same thing with transgender rights - if 'transition regret' is even a thing (and if it is it isn't a very big one) then puberty blockers seem like an already existing solution to the issue, with the added bonus that they make any eventual transition easier. Obviously not for everyone - if you only even begin to figure yourself out in your 40s it's obviously to late for puberty blockers to do you any good. But why should something that causes no harm when used as directed be a problem simply because it isn't for everyone. That would be like destroying the world supply of penicillin because of the people who can't take it.

Which gets back to my issue with puberty blockers - even if someone wholeheartedly believe that plenty of people change their minds after transitioning, the existence of something that allows one to wait on that decision before it is irreversible should be something you support, not oppose. That gives away the truth behind the dog whistle, that they don't care about the kids at all, they just want an excuse to hate those who are different.