All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Dalak]

It fell on Easter once so far by pure chance, are you saying no holidays should fall in late March and most of April just because the rare year where they'll overlap? Please...

Oh, they get it. It's just too useful to pretend otherwise.

Yes, it's far too useful to pretend otherwise in so many different situations. This is not the type of pretending that Fred Rogers encouraged, and it's not healthy to engage in besides that.

Very happy to hear that Erdogan's party got a shellacking in municipal elections in Turkey yesterday. They had hoped to regain the capital Ankara and the largest city, Istanbul. Instead, the secular opposition held on to both those mayors and won contests across the country. 15 AKP mayors gone.

I hope that all authoritarians lose what power they have as well as the capability to gain more, so this is a good sign.

J K Rowling seems determined to get arrested on her return to Scotland ( under the terms of the new act that has just been passed by Scottish Parliament that makes misgendering people a hate crime in some circumstances) .

So, just to be clear. Is your argument that when a person does her best to intentionally break he law, it is the fault of the people who created the law that they didn't give her enough room to be bigoted?

No, nothing like that (not sure how you could interpret what I actually wrote that way.)

My main concern is that the Scottish Parliament has not given sufficient thought to the wording of the law, in particular the best way to maintain a good balance between free speech and preventing speech deliberately calculated to harm others.

When the minister concerned cannot say definitively whether what Rowling has done constitutes a crime or not (under the new law) it suggests to me the law has not been well thought through.

But in case of Rowling, we know she is doing it to hurt others. You admitted that she seems determined to get arrested, so no matter how worded it would be, she will probably say something that deliberately falls under that definition.

With so many important, actual injustices in the world, picking personal pronouns as her hill to die on just seems so ridiculous.

I actually disagree with you on the first point (that her motive is to deliberately hurt others). I think her driving force has been fear…the fear of women’s only spaces being compromised. I think her actions are misguided, but if you look at earlier impact of poorly worded legislation by the Scottish Parliament you might have some glimmer of sympathy for her behaviour.

I think she is certainly willing to be arrested for what she’s already said, partly because she does not accept it is “hate speech”. My own guess is she will not say anything that makes her arrest a complete formality (she will want to have a defendable case if it ever comes to court).

I believe that if your fear causes you to engage in hateful behavior which others find hurtful, that counts as hate speech and is hateful behavior regardless of however noble-sounding the excuse given.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv26l9RuhtA

STOP THE ATTACK ON HBCUs: National Mass Press Conference

These attacks are a way to combine bigotries against black americans and schooling that might expose students to aspects of life that conservatives would rather pretend don't exist.

Wait until comments about Israel-Palestine end up tied up in this dumb law.

I don't see how they would get caught up in this unless the people making them are being hateful otherwise.

So, the Trump Media stock is sliding down fast (not quite free fall, but was down 25% shortly after markets opened, 35 percent over the past 5 business days), after it was revealed that Truth Social posted a loss of 58 million in 2023...

Unless it tanks enough to make it worthless to Trump I'm not going to feel better about it.

[Kirby101]

How so?

This Holiday didn't fall on Easter by pure chance.

The date was selected so as not to be close to pride month.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/30/12415...andall-crocker

If you can choose the date, it makes sense to avoid days that could be Easter Sunday, especially if there's an effort to persuade ordinary people to be political allies.

So don't do anything to offend the bigots. Don't fly pride flags, don't talk about BLM. Don't irritate the anti trans. Let the bigots set the agenda.

What you don't see is this date will offend them whenever it is.

[Dalak]

What I see is humoring Mets when he nitpicks definitions/terminology or brings up outside studies/math/interpretations (As shown in innumerable quotes, including what he just quoted) gets used as evidence that one is being dishonest when convenient.

Mets has proved this even more true, considering whenever someone clicks the links he posted they can see the date at which each original post was made and compare it to the last time Mets replied to a post laying out the problems showing his ignorance isn't genuine, his habit of ignoring most of the content of posts in his replies, and his refusing to post the evidence he's been asked to provide (supporting his theories & assumptions regarding The Week's reporter in this case). I maintain this is part of a set of deliberate disingenuous behaviors that are frequently used to disrupt discussion of many topics on these boards. This last week has proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind, and I'd assume more than a few others.

E: I also think that discouraging others to check into the veracity of news stories they view is about as far from wanting to focus on facts & specifics as one can get.

[JackDaw]

I believe that if your fear causes you to engage in hateful behavior which others find hurtful, that counts as hate speech and is hateful behavior regardless of however noble-sounding the excuse given.

The main thrust of my posts were not intended to defend Rowling but to try to explain why I feel that a law that is well intended will run into difficulties, certainly if she is prosecuted under it.

[Dalak]

The main thrust of my posts were not intended to defend Rowling but to try to explain why I feel that a law that is well intended will run into difficulties, certainly if she is prosecuted under it.

I understand that. As there are a rainbow's worth of different colors of bigotry being indulged by conservatives in the US & abroad and they are usually excused with something noble like protecting children, I tried to make my statement a bit broad as I think it's important that this isn't just about one woman and her bizarre quest.

In her case it doesn't matter what she thinks she's protecting/championing/whatever by being hateful and going to get arrested, she's still being hateful and still was hateful. It's sad that there is a culture that defends and encourages that sort of hate, which emboldens people to indulge in it from the lowest levels to people like Trump & Musk.

[Tami]

So, the Trump Media stock is sliding down fast (not quite free fall, but was down 25% shortly after markets opened, 35 percent over the past 5 business days), after it was revealed that Truth Social posted a loss of 58 million in 2023...

Trump Media auditor warns that losses 'raise substantial doubt' about company's ability to continue

An auditor has raised doubts about the ability of Donald Trump's publicly traded company to stay in business, according to a new regulatory filing.

Trump Media and Technology Group, which operates the Truth Social platform, reported it lost $58.2 million in 2023 while generating total revenues of $4.1 million, according to the Monday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Trump Media listed its largest expense for the year as interest payments totaling more than $39 million.

The filing includes a note from an independent accounting firm, Colorado-based BF Borgers CPA PC, warning that Trump Media's "operating losses raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." The firm has worked with Trump Media since 2022.

In the filing, the company acknowledged that it expects to operate at a loss for the "foreseeable future" as it works to expand Truth Social's user base and attract more advertisers. It said it would be "premature" to predict when it will attain profitability and positive cash flows from its operations. It said it would need bridge funding of between $5 million and $60 million.

[The Cool Thatguy]

"It said it would need bridge funding of between $5 million and $60 million."

Wonder what idiot is gonna pony that up. Sure won't be Trump.

[Kirby101]

"It said it would need bridge funding of between $5 million and $60 million."

Wonder what idiot is gonna pony that up. Sure won't be Trump.

[Powerboy]

J K Rowling seems determined to get arrested on her return to Scotland ( under the terms of the new act that has just been passed by Scottish Parliament that makes misgendering people a hate crime in some circumstances) .

I don't know anything about Scotland's constitution but I would think it's either about challenging the constitutionality of the law or continuing to portray herself as the victim of the situation, which she has done from the start. Bad stuff happened to her (being severely beaten by her first husband) which, for bigots, justifies her bigotry towards trans women.

[thwhtGuardian]

Yeah, I don't necessarily think she should be jailed but that string of posts on Twitter was ugly and small minded. I mean, if I were to make a similar post about terrible crimes that cis-women committed I think I'd rightly be called out as a sexist pig for trying to paint all women that way so why is it any different here with what JK is doing?

[Tuck]

I don't see how they would get caught up in this unless the people making them are being hateful otherwise.

There are posts in this thread about Christians that arguably would violate the law if posted from Scotland.

And the arguments online about what "from the river to the see" means and whether Israeli military commanders were referring to just Hamas or Palestinians in general when referring to them as "animals". I don't know if the authorities would have to investigate any complaints made to them, but plenty of fodder there for reporting.

End of the day, hate speech laws function the same as blasphemy laws.

And good luck to Scotland if by some weird turn of events someone from UKIP gets to make determinations on how that law is applied.

[Farealmer]

So, just to be clear. Is your argument that when a person does her best to intentionally break he law, it is the fault of the people who created the law that they didn't give her enough room to be bigoted?

Maybe she is a victim of cultural enrichment?

[Mister Mets]

But in case of Rowling, we know she is doing it to hurt others. You admitted that she seems determined to get arrested, so no matter how worded it would be, she will probably say something that deliberately falls under that definition.

I don't think she's doing it to hurt others.

JackDaw noted a key element of her motives (she is a victim of domestic violence and is concerned about compromising women's only spaces) but even in that context it's not about hurting anyone, as wanting the ability to speak her truth.

If she calls someone who came out as a trans woman after two convictions for rape a man, she's not doing it to hurt the person.

I actually disagree with you on the first point (that her motive is to deliberately hurt others). I think her driving force has been fear…the fear of women’s only spaces being compromised. I think her actions are misguided, but if you look at earlier impact of poorly worded legislation by the Scottish Parliament you might have some glimmer of sympathy for her behaviour.

I think she is certainly willing to be arrested for what she’s already said, partly because she does not accept it is “hate speech”. My own guess is she will not say anything that makes her arrest a complete formality (she will want to have a defendable case if it ever comes to court).

Is there any way she could be arrested for what she said outside of Scotland?

I wouldn't be surprised if she just repeats everything she said in a Q&A in Scotland, but I'm wondering if legally there's any hint that they could prosecute her for things she does outside her jurisdiction (Obviously anything she said before the law was passed was irrelevant because that would be ex post facto punishment.)

Yeah, I don't necessarily think she should be jailed but that string of posts on Twitter was ugly and small minded. I mean, if I were to make a similar post about terrible crimes that cis-women committed I think I'd rightly be called out as a sexist pig for trying to paint all women that way so why is it any different here with what JK is doing?

The legal argument is that she should be jailed.

This is the law Scotland passed. If you don't think she should be jailed, then the law is terrible and that is a much more important problem that a writer being wrong.

So don't do anything to offend the bigots. Don't fly pride flags, don't talk about BLM. Don't irritate the anti trans. Let the bigots set the agenda.

What you don't see is this date will offend them whenever it is.

It's an easier argument to make when you're not announcing that the second-biggest Christian Holiday is also Trans Day of Visibility this year.

Mets has proved this even more true, considering whenever someone clicks the links he posted they can see the date at which each original post was made and compare it to the last time Mets replied to a post laying out the problems showing his ignorance isn't genuine, his habit of ignoring most of the content of posts in his replies, and his refusing to post the evidence he's been asked to provide (supporting his theories & assumptions regarding The Week's reporter in this case). I maintain this is part of a set of deliberate disingenuous behaviors that are frequently used to disrupt discussion of many topics on these boards. This last week has proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind, and I'd assume more than a few others.

E: I also think that discouraging others to check into the veracity of news stories they view is about as far from wanting to focus on facts & specifics as one can get.

What evidence have I been asked to provide?

My claim is that we shouldn't assume the reporter is lying.

But I still don't know what you believe, because you didn't respond to my points.

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, but it's sketchy to make a quote about me and ignore my questions. Because I still do not know your objections to The Week article. And you can say what you want about when I posted something, but if you keep changing your mind, it will lead to contradictions.

And I'm not sure anyone else can confidently articulate your objections.

So, what is your argument that the article obviously lied? Because you have made different claims at different times. I am posting this again because I'm not sure; Perhaps somebody else can explain if it is so obvious.

Did the reporter lie because people who identify as genderqueer, nonbinary, etc. are not trans, so anyone informed about the topic would only include them in the umbrella term of trans is doing so for shock value? Even if this fits the Human Rights campaign definition.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...92#post6029692

Or did the reporter lie because they're not limiting the definition of trans to people who are going for specific types of gender affirming-medical care?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...42#post6385542

Did the reporter lie because they didn't include trans women and cis men when calculating percentages of students raised as girls (who are by definition not going to be trans women or cis men)?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...47#post6040947

Did the reporter lie because 4.2% rounds closer to 4%, so it's more accurate to say it was an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 25 (or to be more pedantic, an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 23.8, rather than an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 20?)
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...92#post6029692

Did the reporter lie because 0.5% of respondents did not have a listed identity in a selection that includes cis woman, trans woman, cis man, trans man, nonbinary, genderqueer, intersex and agender. It doesn't include terms like two-spirited, or various neo-pronouns.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...97#post6387397

Did the reporter lie because he or she should have assumed that males are more likely to identify in gender non-conforming ways?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...41#post6386141

It does appear that the data backs up what the reporter said about a spike in identification rates, so the whole point about doing your own research isn't relevant here. The research backs up the claim.

And in general, people are better off trusting mainstream media sources like The Week than always doing their own research, both because it is time-consuming and can lead down weird rabbit holes. Skepticism all the time will backfire.

[thwhtGuardian]

I don't think she's doing it to hurt others.

JackDaw noted a key element of her motives (she is a victim of domestic violence and is concerned about compromising women's only spaces) but even in that context it's not about hurting anyone, as wanting the ability to speak her truth.

If she calls someone who came out as a trans woman after two convictions for rape a man, she's not doing it to hurt the person.

Is there any way she could be arrested for what she said outside of Scotland?

I wouldn't be surprised if she just repeats everything she said in a Q&A in Scotland, but I'm wondering if legally there's any hint that they could prosecute her for things she does outside her jurisdiction (Obviously anything she said before the law was passed was irrelevant because that would be ex post facto punishment.)

The legal argument is that she should be jailed.

This is the law Scotland passed. If you don't think she should be jailed, then the law is terrible and that is a much more important problem that a writer being wrong.

It's an easier argument to make when you're not announcing that the second-biggest Christian Holiday is also Trans Day of Visibility this year.

What evidence have I been asked to provide?

My claim is that we shouldn't assume the reporter is lying.

But I still don't know what you believe, because you didn't respond to my points.

It's perfectly fine to ignore me, but it's sketchy to make a quote about me and ignore my questions. Because I still do not know your objections to The Week article. And you can say what you want about when I posted something, but if you keep changing your mind, it will lead to contradictions.

And I'm not sure anyone else can confidently articulate your objections.

So, what is your argument that the article obviously lied? Because you have made different claims at different times. I am posting this again because I'm not sure; Perhaps somebody else can explain if it is so obvious.

Did the reporter lie because people who identify as genderqueer, nonbinary, etc. are not trans, so anyone informed about the topic would only include them in the umbrella term of trans is doing so for shock value? Even if this fits the Human Rights campaign definition.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...92#post6029692

Or did the reporter lie because they're not limiting the definition of trans to people who are going for specific types of gender affirming-medical care?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...42#post6385542

Did the reporter lie because they didn't include trans women and cis men when calculating percentages of students raised as girls (who are by definition not going to be trans women or cis men)?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...47#post6040947

Did the reporter lie because 4.2% rounds closer to 4%, so it's more accurate to say it was an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 25 (or to be more pedantic, an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 23.8, rather than an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 20?)
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...92#post6029692

Did the reporter lie because 0.5% of respondents did not have a listed identity in a selection that includes cis woman, trans woman, cis man, trans man, nonbinary, genderqueer, intersex and agender. It doesn't include terms like two-spirited, or various neo-pronouns.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...97#post6387397

Did the reporter lie because he or she should have assumed that males are more likely to identify in gender non-conforming ways?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...41#post6386141

It does appear that the data backs up what the reporter said about a spike in identification rates, so the whole point about doing your own research isn't relevant here. The research backs up the claim.

And in general, people are better off trusting mainstream media sources like The Week than always doing their own research, both because it is time-consuming and can lead down weird rabbit holes. Skepticism all the time will backfire.

Where did I say I was a fan of the law? I must have missed that.

[ed2962]

Chia Raichik I guess recently spoke at the University of Indiana. After going on about how "woke" was infecting every aspect of our lives, this guy asked her to define "woke" and she did a lot stammering. Congressman Jim Banks tried to save her by saying "woke" is anti-American values. Same dude asked if ISIS when they attack America are they woke? Jim doesn't answer.

https://twitter.com/TheGreeneBJ/stat...22002186350802