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

[kidfresh512]

Damn another Earthquake in Turkey
Those poor people can't get a break.

[AnakinFlair]

So... Marjorie Taylor Green is basically calling for a civil war.

I, like the majority of real American's, don't want a civil war. But at this point, if Texas and Florida want to secede, I say let them, and all of the crazies can move there.

[Mister Mets]

Major embarrassment for New Mexico Prosecutors, victory for Alec Baldwin's lawyers.

Alec Baldwin Manslaughter Charges from ‘Rust’ Shooting Downgraded



This is first semester law school: Laws do not work retroactively.

If that was the reason the charges were dropped, that is astoundingly stupid of the prosecutors.

So... Marjorie Taylor Green is basically calling for a civil war.

I, like the majority of real American's, don't want a civil war. But at this point, if Texas and Florida want to secede, I say let them, and all of the crazies can move there.

We shouldn't split up the country. Texas and Florida have much to offer.

One further reason Greene's views, which she chose to share on a patriotic holiday, are stupid is that Georgia voted for Biden in 2020, and has two Democratic Senators.

I know most of “woke nonsense” stories tend to be exaggerated.

So I’m hoping reports of Puffin (book publishers) carrying out a “sensitivity analysis” on their Roald Dahl stories turns out not to be true. (Claimed potential revisions include making the Ompah Lumpahs gender neutral, and replacing “face went white” with “face went pale”.)

Just feel that if they don’t like the way Roald wrote they can always stop publishing the books.

Sorry mate, this story isn't exxagerated.

Salman Rushie's not a fan of the move.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...alman-rushdie/

If the publishers don't like his writing, they should let it go into the public domain.

Absolutely. It's just that some people think that the whole "metaphor" was there from the start or that the comic was conceived that way and that really wasn't the case.

To Lee and Kirby's credit, it's there in the Sentinels story in the original run.

But Silver Age Magneto remained a generic supervillain.

Yup. Biden is there.

That was a great move.

It sends a key message to Russia about America's seriousness.

[thwhtGuardian]

Trump's comments were dumb but in a different direction. He was musing about taking extreme steps to prevent transmission, and it wasn't meant to have the force of law.

Please.

If you seriously can't connect the dots between that idiocy to the proposed bill in question then you need some glasses. It's a very straight line from one to the other and it's lit by neon lights.

Let's stop pretending here, it's okay to say that you don't care that the Republican party is anti-science and that the fact that it didn't handle the pandemic well doesn't concern you and that you continue to identify as Republican because policies x,y and z align with your opinions. But pretending that the kind of lunacy presented by that bill isn't the norm for the party is just silly.

[Mister Mets]

Not to downplay your feelings but that kind of comment seems like something that you shouldn't take too seriously -- like I tell kids when someone says something they don't like: if it's not true then call it out or don't worry about it.

I respect your perspective on the issue but ultimately a lot of these problems could be avoided if you just used facts to back up your opinions rather than complaining or deflecting from the topic.

I'll leave that as my final advice on the matter -- it's really up to you to make those choices, which in the long run would make for much more productive engagment.

From my perspective though it gets tiring providing dozens of links worth of evidence only to have someone repeatedly find ways not to address them directly -- so I'm done with it.

It's not about my feelings, but whether it's worth trying to engage in a discussion on sensitive issues with a group of people. And if the argument is that I shouldn't take them too seriously, what's the point of any discussion if people aren't supposed to taken at their word? I understand that some people are doing something else like signaling that they're on the right side, although when people are saying stuff that should not be taken literally, I'll point that out. It also suggests they don't take the topic seriously if it's just a partisan cudgel.

I do think I defend my opinions with facts. I'm likely to quote sources. If I respond to a point, I'm often looking at the full context and will include relevant links.

One fundamental difference which I'm sure we've argued about before, is that I go narrower, while you're more big picture. By focusing on the specifics of a situation, it's easier for me to have all the relevant facts at hand. The bigger the question, the greater the number of relevant facts (which may necessitate more research), to say nothing of potential differing first principles, where it's no longer a matter of facts, but about areas where reasonable people can disagree.

Please.

If you seriously can't connect the dots between that idiocy to the proposed bill in question then you need some glasses. It's a very straight line from one to the other and it's lit by neon lights.

Let's stop pretending here, it's okay to say that you don't care that the Republican party is anti-science and that the fact that it didn't handle the pandemic well doesn't concern you and that you continue to identify as Republican because policies x,y and z align with your opinions. But pretending that the kind of lunacy presented by that bill isn't the norm for the party is just silly.

If a majority of Republicans in a legislature pass a bill that stupid, I'll agree that the kind of lunacy is the norm for the party.
That's not the case right now. We're looking at backbenchers in a state legislature.

[thwhtGuardian]

I know most of “woke nonsense” stories tend to be exaggerated.

So I’m hoping reports of Puffin (book publishers) carrying out a “sensitivity analysis” on their Roald Dahl stories turns out not to be true. (Claimed potential revisions include making the Ompah Lumpahs gender neutral, and replacing “face went white” with “face went pale”.)

Just feel that if they don’t like the way Roald wrote they can always stop publishing the books.

The changes come at the urging of the Roald Dahl Story Company, which as far as I can tell is managed by his family so if this is their wish and the rights are theirs then I don't really see it as a big issue.

The exact quote from them is, "When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout. Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.”

It's also not unprecedented as Dahl himself made changes through out his own life, the copy of James and the Giant Peach that I had at home as a kid which originally belonged to my mother was from the 60's and there were whole passages which differed from the version I checked out of the library in the late 80's.

[thwhtGuardian]

It's not about my feelings, but whether it's worth trying to engage in a discussion on sensitive issues with a group of people. And if the argument is that I shouldn't take them too seriously, what's the point of any discussion if people aren't supposed to taken at their word? I understand that some people are doing something else like signaling that they're on the right side, although when people are saying stuff that should not be taken literally, I'll point that out. It also suggests they don't take the topic seriously if it's just a partisan cudgel.

I do think I defend my opinions with facts. I'm likely to quote sources. If I respond to a point, I'm often looking at the full context and will include relevant links.

One fundamental difference which I'm sure we've argued about before, is that I go narrower, while you're more big picture. By focusing on the specifics of a situation, it's easier for me to have all the relevant facts at hand. The bigger the question, the greater the number of relevant facts (which may necessitate more research), to say nothing of potential differing first principles, where it's no longer a matter of facts, but about areas where reasonable people can disagree.





If a majority of Republicans in a legislature pass a bill that stupid, I'll agree that the kind of lunacy is the norm for the party.
That's not the case right now. We're looking at backbenchers in a state legislature.

It's not just that it would pass (it won't) it's that it would be put forward at all, and that impetus matches the general anti-science attitude of the party. This isn't something that came out of no where, it's the kind of thing that is bred by the general tone of the party as a whole.

[aja_christopher]

It's not about my feelings, but whether it's worth trying to engage in a discussion on sensitive issues with a group of people. And if the argument is that I shouldn't take them too seriously, what's the point of any discussion if people aren't supposed to taken at their word? I understand that some people are doing something else like signaling that they're on the right side, although when people are saying stuff that should not be taken literally, I'll point that out. It also suggests they don't take the topic seriously if it's just a partisan cudgel.

If someone suggests you should "get therapy" for expressing an opinion -- no, you should not take that seriously.

Threats and harassment: yes. Facts and evidence: yes. Someone suggesting that you see a therapist because you have a different viewpoint: no.

Again, there is no "argument" because I'm done with my part in this -- if you feel that you can't have a "sensitive" dialogue without getting offended then don't.

Everyone here has already made plenty of "civil" suggestions on how you can improve the situation but the repeated complaints -- rather than compromise or evidence -- make it clear that's not your objective.

You're still not utilizing facts to back up your statements -- just complaining and apparently trying to get others in trouble -- and that's a waste of time given the seriousness of these issues.

The fact that you still claim people are "signaling that they're on the right side" rather than expressing their honest perspective shows that you aren't taking their views seriously regardless.

Not to be offensive but I'm going to go back to the "ignore" function with regards to our conversations because I am getting nothing out of them and apparently you aren't either.

[Dalak]

It's not just that it would pass (it won't) it's that it would be put forward at all, and that impetus matches the general anti-science attitude of the party. This isn't something that came out of no where, it's the kind of thing that is bred by the general tone of the party as a whole.

It doesn't matter if it did pass, he'd deny for another reason like he'll deny the GoP is Anti-Trans despite lots of obviously bigoted legislation passed across the country. Like he denied how much the GoP lies more than the Dems, and how he'd deny that many GoP support domestic terrorists, and anything else necessary to carry on as he has been. In current posts and past ones he's clearly shown that he'll stand by false/bad evidence and ignore any that disagrees if it's convenient time after time.

If someone suggests you should "get therapy" -- no, you should not take that seriously.

Threats and harassment: yes. Facts and evidence: yes. Someone suggesting that you see a therapist because you have a different viewpoint: no. That just seems basic.

Again, there is no "argument" because I'm done with this.

You're still not utilizing facts to back up your statements -- just complaining and apparently trying to get others in trouble -- and that's a waste of time given the seriousness of these issues.

The fact that you still claim people are "signaling that they're on the right side" rather than expressing their honest perspective shows that you aren't taking others seriously regardless.

Everyone here has already made plenty of "civil" suggestions on how you can improve dialogue but the repeated complaints -- rather than compromise -- make it clear that's not your objective.

Yes you are right, thank you for another example of why not to respond to Mets seriously. I really shouldn't but sometimes I backslide.

[aja_christopher]

Yes you are right, thank you for another example of why not to respond to Mets seriously. I really shouldn't but sometimes I backslide.

I think it's fine to respond to him seriously but my experience in doing so -- with facts and evidence -- shows that it does little but breed contempt.

It rarely if ever has resulted in him admitting Republican fault or doing anything to curb the abhorrent behavior of his party so outside of that it serves little to no purpose other than to enlighten others.

[Mister Mets]

If you read one article this weekend, make it The Onion's brutal takedown of the media's treatment of trans people.

This seems to be in solidarity with the New York Times staff who wrote the open letter criticizing recent articles.

Jonathan Chait had a good response to that, noting that it's based on the provably false claim that nothing has changed on the issue, when there are demonstrable changes.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023...ntability.html

On Wednesday, a large collection of progressive journalists launched a public campaign, including a letter and a coordinated in-person demonstration by GLAAD, to protest the New York Times’s coverage of youth gender care. The letter claims the Times’s coverage is excessive, and it raises a couple attribution complaints about sources in a few of the stories to suggest the overall tenor is biased toward criticism.

The letter’s key premise is that the Times is whipping up public concern over a nonexistent phenomenon. “Puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and gender⁠-⁠affirming surgeries have been standard forms of care for cis and trans people alike for decades,” explains the letter. Since nothing especially new is occurring medically (“This is not a cultural emergency”), it follows that reporters have no reason to give the matter any new attention.

But this is simply not true. Reporting in the Times, and in the other publications noted above, all show clearly that the field has undergone dramatic changes in the last decade or so. The old practice asked medical providers to diagnose gender dysphoria only in children who expressed persistent belief that they had the wrong gender identity. Many medical providers have adopted the view advocated by activists that children’s professed identity needs to be taken at face value almost immediately, with significantly less medical gatekeeping.

“I think what we’ve seen historically in trans care is an overfocus on assessing identity,” Colt St. Amand, a family-medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic told the Times. “People are who they say they are, and they may develop and change, and all are normal and okay. So I am less concerned with certainty around identity, and more concerned with hearing the person’s embodiment goals.” This is a candid description of the new theory sweeping through clinics across the country: Stop the “overfocus” on assessing the gender identity of kids, and instead take their statement at face value and proceed to helping them actualize what they say they want.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) last year dropped its age guidelines for hormone use and surgeries. Some clinicians have expressed concern over the new practices. “It went so quickly that not even centers but individual clinicians, people who were not knowledgeable, were just giving this kind of treatment,” said Dr. Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, a Dutch psychologist who worked at the clinic that pioneered treatment for transgender youth, in another story in the Times. Many American gender clinics, Reuters found, prescribe puberty blockers “on the first visit, depending on the age of the child.”

At the same time as providers have sped up their protocols for transitioning children, the number of children requesting gender reassignment has risen dramatically. Within a few years, the number of young people identifying as transgender “nearly doubled,” and the number of pediatric gender clinics exploded from “a handful” to more than 60.

Unlike in past years, when “those assigned male at birth accounted for the majority,” a large majority of children questioning their gender now were assigned female at birth, reported Reuters. “Adolescents assigned female at birth initiate transgender care 2.5 to 7.1 times more frequently than those assigned male at birth,” according to WPATH. This is taking place in the context of a mental health crisis that is disproportionately affecting girls and LGBTQ+ teens. Properly assessing kids who question their gender is much more challenging when they are afflicted with serious mental health challenges. And so medical providers are diagnosing and treating kids much faster than before at a time when the patient population has become much harder to diagnose.

Whatever parallels the letter writers see to past practices — the letter cites episodes going back as far as 1394 — phenomena like a surgeon on TikTok telling teens to “Come to Miami to see me and the rest of the De Titty Committee,” as Reuters found, are new. One can defend the new practices, but it is preposterous to maintain that the field has merely continued “standard forms of care for cis and trans people alike for decades,” rather than having implemented a very sharp change.

[Mister Mets]

If someone suggests you should "get therapy" for expressing an opinion -- no, you should not take that seriously.

Threats and harassment: yes. Facts and evidence: yes. Someone suggesting that you see a therapist because you have a different viewpoint: no.

Again, there is no "argument" because I'm done with my part in this -- if you feel that you can't have a "sensitive" dialogue without getting offended then don't.

Everyone here has already made plenty of "civil" suggestions on how you can improve the situation but the repeated complaints -- rather than compromise or evidence -- make it clear that's not your objective.

You're still not utilizing facts to back up your statements -- just complaining and apparently trying to get others in trouble -- and that's a waste of time given the seriousness of these issues.

The fact that you still claim people are "signaling that they're on the right side" rather than expressing their honest perspective shows that you aren't taking their views seriously regardless.

Not to be offensive but I'm going to go back to the "ignore" function with regards to our conversations because I am getting nothing out of them and apparently you aren't either.

For the sake of anyone reading this exchange, if you say that people on your side should often not be taken seriously, that does suggest that they are signaling what side they're on rather than expressing their honest perspective.

And I do generally back up claims with evidence and sources. Anyone who disputes that is free to point to specific comments I've said.

I think it's fine to respond to him seriously but my experience in doing so -- with facts and evidence -- shows that it does little but breed contempt.

It rarely if ever has resulted in him admitting Republican fault or doing anything to curb the abhorrent behavior of his party so outside of that it serves little to no purpose other than to enlighten others.

There may be a problem in discussions if the expectation is that the other guy admits that you're right. You're not typically going to convince the people you disagree with that you're right about big questions on which reasonable people disagree.

That said, I do think looking at posts here will show that I'm much more likely to criticize Republicans from the center than the posters from this board are to criticize Democrats from the center.

[Ajax_X]

The changes come at the urging of the Roald Dahl Story Company,

The Roald Dahl Story Company was purchased by Netflix in 2021

[Spike-X]

The changes come at the urging of the Roald Dahl Story Company, which as far as I can tell is managed by his family so if this is their wish and the rights are theirs then I don't really see it as a big issue.

The exact quote from them is, "When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout. Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.”

It's also not unprecedented as Dahl himself made changes through out his own life, the copy of James and the Giant Peach that I had at home as a kid which originally belonged to my mother was from the 60's and there were whole passages which differed from the version I checked out of the library in the late 80's.

Nah, to hell with that. They can publish the books as they were written, or not at all. People can read the books as they were written, or not at all. An author making his own decisions and changes to his own work is a lot different than someone else coming along and hacking through it after he's dead.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

To that, I say....LEAVE! Hit the road! Adios! And the next time some terrible disaster strikes a red state, say like Florida or Texas, they can pull up their bootstraps and take care of things themselves without relying on all that sweet disaster aid from the federal government! Clearly Madam Howler Monkey doesn't think things through!