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

[Adam Allen]

https://www.kcur.org/politics-electi...er-legislation

As is pointed out in the article, we are in the midst of a moral panic over trans people primarily driven by conservatives looking for a wedge with which to their evangelical voters, especially in light of the issue with abortion that the right is presently grappling. As I pointed out, trans rights were the wedge. Unshockingly, the people who assured us that trans rights (for adults, of course) were totally fine and gay rights were fine were ... you know... wrong.

Just speaking for myself, the Jamie Reed one really is a place where our local conservative could win some minor credit for contact with reality, just by acknowledging this person was no "whistleblower".

In a true whistleblower case, legal or at least ethical wrongs are clearly exposed, journalists tend to have a feeding frenzy about the corruption and questions of consequence, powerful people lose positions ... in specific in this case, if Jamie's Reed's allegations were true, careers should have been ruined all over the place, the clinic probably shut down, legal proceedings against individual practitioners for wrongdoing and likely the university for having concealed the wrong doing ... I mean, she alleged that a major trusted institution was permanently and severely damaging many children. Had already done so.

Yes, MO conservatives used her lies to create laws that hurt the clinic. But, that's all. Beyond their "moral outrage", there was no impact from anything she claimed, because the vast majority of it simply was not true. No legal proceedings, no careers impacted, the clinic is still there.

Why persist in calling her a whistleblower? What aspect of "truth" do you think she actually exposed?

[Zelena]

My objection to Israel’s actions stems PURELY from a ‘genocide is bad, no matter what’ perspective. If the roles were reversed? If, say, Iran he invaded Israel and was repeatedly accused of, caught in the act of, ‘questionable actions’ that they justify by blaming the dead victims, the way we have seen Israel do to Palestinians? I would be just as incensed and unwilling to simply accept the governmental response to criminal behavior by the government.

In practise, though, the Israeli government can be accused of “ethnic cleansing” as they destroy the Gazan houses and force the population towards the boundaries of the country.

[CaptainEurope]

Let's just consider immediate company for a moment?

Do we have elite left-wingers? Because it seems like support for trans rights and concern for loss of the same is nearly a consensus, here. I mean, it's only one small population sample -- and please, can we not dismiss everyone here by saying the forum is "dominated by leftists" or something like that? A general interest in comics and the self-selection of participating in the thread are the only givens.

Just suggesting ... maybe it's not only "elite left-wingers" who see anti-trans hate and bigotry as a problem?

Like, you are completely free of course to be fine and dandy with the state of things, if that's how you feel. But can we not try to distort the narrative?

thwhtGuardian is right, our society has in general evolved enough that the majority are not on board for outright bigotry, against any minority. That's not some ultra-left wing stance, is it?

Personally, I am not elite, but I am premium.

[Totoro Man]

You have zero trust in Israel’s government and that’s fine, you’re entitled to that. But do you have trust in Hamas and their version of events?

I am just saying that, like in the Al-Ahli hospital bombing (where Israel said the truth even when most folks didn’t believe them), let’s wait for the investigations that are already underway and determine exactly what happened… instead of blindly relying on Turkish propaganda.

And it may well turn out that indeed the IDF acted wrongly. Or not. Let’s wait and see.

Not defending this Israeli government (I hope the government gets replaced quickly), but if they really wanted to eradicate Gazans they could do that at any time. They have the means to do that and Gazans are sitting ducks, and have been for a long time.

Turkey benefits from this - because they have their own laundry list of human rights abuses and accusations as well. as hyped78 says, people are entitled to dislike and distrust Israel. but we can't blindly trust Hamas either. this is the same party that won because people were fed up with Fatah's corruption. it didn't take long for Hamas to start wiping out their political rivals and adversaries. Hamas launched their attacks KNOWING that Israel would respond with disproportionate force. I can't let Hamas off the hook for that. they EXPECTED civilians to die and did it anyways because they knew it would end up as a political victory for them regardless of what response Israel had. if Israel failed to respond. they could prepare for larger follow up attacks. if Israel responded with detective work, police round ups, and assassinations they could spin that into a political victory. if Israel responded with massive military action in a violent and brief campaign... they could play that up as the literal definition of overkill. there is literally nothing Israel could have done (or not done) in response to Hamas that would not have been manipulated by Hamas into a public relations victory.

as a reminder to those who don't remember: Israel did not initiate the Six Day War. several nations attacked Israel and failed. Yom Kippur also started with an Arab coalition of multiple nations launching an invasion of Israel.

Israel's Arab neighbors have tried, on multiple occasions, to wipe Israel off the map. and when people tired of the bloodshed and signed treaties (like Anwar Sadat) they got killed.

the West Bank and the Gaza strip are, from any long term economic or military perspective, non-viable entities. I'm not going to overlook the fact that Palestinian refugees receive only slightly better treatment from all of their Arab neighbors. they continue to live in poverty and are denied access to many of the benefits of regular citizens in those countries. Jordan annexed the West Bank back in 1950... and there's a reason why Israel is so ferociously skeptical and defensive about what happens there. if Jordan, or other nations, used it as a staging ground for a military campaign, they could cut Israel in half and then try to destroy it in detail with follow-up campaigns. Americans tend to have really short memories and be ignorant of history.

again, multiple Arab coalitions have tried several times to liberate Palestine from Israeli rule... and, to put it bluntly, they have failed.

I know a lot of people have been chanting that Israel is this vile colonial oppressor... and that would be true from an Arab and Palestinian view. most of the world condemns Israel (except the US and Great Britain, because they are primarily responsible for Israel existing... in spite of many of the local British administrators in Palestine supporting the Arabs and being blatantly antisemitic in the years leading up to the Arab Israeli War of 1948). Britain is on the hook for Israel existing in its present form... so, it makes sense that they would abstain.

but I think it's preposterous for people to believe that merely by condemning Israel as colonizers that this actually transforms the situation in any meaningful way. even when Palestine was indisputably in the hands of the Ottoman Empire or the Roman Empire it was still a hotbed of conflict. even when Jerusalem was controlled by one Islamic caliphate another would lay siege to the city as a means of spreading their control.
(Jerusalem Besieged: Eric Cline)

the very first recorded battle in the history of the world took place at Megiddo when Pharaoh Thumose III conquered a Canaanite coalition that rebelled against his rule... y'know, the ones that Palestinians like to pretend they are the direct descendants of.

Palestine has been occupied, or a vassal state of other nations, for most of its recorded history. the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, multiple Caliphates, France, Great Britain... I don't say this as an argument that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. I say this as a reminder that Palestine is a victim of geography. for whatever reason, it has been considered valuable land worth fighting over for as long as people have been writing history. it is guaranteed to happen again. in 30 years maybe Iraq or Turkey will decide that it's their turn to rule Palestine again.

when I read about college professors and students marching and condemning Israel as a colonizer... in a way it's brilliant on the part of Hamas. the conduct a few limited asymmetrical warfare attacks (ie killing civilians, kidnapping people, raiding convoys, etc) and then launch a relentless media campaign and win through the death of 1000 cuts by using propaganda and "lawfare" to gradually erode support for their most hated enemy. they have already murdered all of their most serious Palestinian political rivals and threats. however, Hamas can not achieve their goal of the reinstatement of the Mandatory of Palestine without utterly conquering Israel by every military and political means necessary. maybe I've lost track... maybe they don't want to destroy Israel and exile all of the Israeli citizens out of Palestine... but, as inhuman as Israel is. Hamas, in theory, wants something that is arguably even more appalling.

when the leader of Turkey said that Israel will make you miss Hitler... that was darkly amusing... given that Turkey refused to break off relations with Nazi Germany until it was indisputably clear that the Nazis would lose. some far-right members of Turkey even speculated about invading the Caucasus in order to gain lost Ottoman Empire territory lost to Russia after WW1. (they probably would have loved to get their hands on the Baku-Tuapse oil pipeline). it wasn't until the Ploesti Raid in 1943 that demonstrated Allied bombers could fly into Romania in broad daylight and inflict catastrophic damage in broad in spite of the German and Romanian air forces that Turkey began to realize how foolish it would be to actively side with the Nazis. if elite German and battle-hardened Romanian aces had trouble stopping Allied carpet bombing... what would Turkey's tiny air force be able to do? Inonu, as dictator, had just spent several years crushing the Dersim Rebellion and wasn't anxious to get involved in more fighting. so, he bought weapons from the Nazis and placated Stalinist Russia. eventually he caved in to international pressure from the Allies he declared war on Germany in August of 1944 after the Soviets had effectively conquered both Bulgaria and Romania.

back to Hamas: I can't get behind an organization that had 160 kids die while they forced them to dig tunnels. I'm not prepared to give those sorts of people any sort of political win. in other words... I believe giving Hamas any concessions at all is allowing them to win. so, I can't really condemn Israel for refusing to bargain with them.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...terror-tunnels
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...d-rubble-ruins

this part of the world has been filled with cruelty, violence, and suffering for as long as people have been writing history. we can't expect changes to happen overnight. if Israel continues to feel threatened, they're not going to back down. the Palestinians are still getting treated like trash by pretty much everyone in the Middle East... even by many of the people and nations that CLAIM to be fighting on their behalf. a cursory web search of Palestinian refugees by country name will demonstrate that nobody wants them. that's why they tried to destroy Israel, or the possibility thereof, multiple times.

I don't see this as a matter of "good guys" vs "bad guys". I just see it as a never-ending cycle of violence.

[Totoro Man]

thwhtGuardian is right, our society has in general evolved enough that the majority are not on board for outright bigotry, against any minority. That's not some ultra-left wing stance, is it?

Derrick Bell, Frank B Wilderson III, and Charles W. Mills might disagree with you on that. sure, the outright bigotry is frowned upon. but implicit bigotry has never gone away. it also exists at a cultural level. it is not the prerogative of one political party. to suggest otherwise seems extremely naive at best, and dishonest at worst.

distorting the narrative might not be a bad idea... if the narrative is a falsely reassuring one. it would be fun to pretend the only thing we have to fear are conservatives and religious people. but I refuse to believe it is that simple.

if 96% of all white people surveyed are opposed to race-based reparations does that mean that the only people who were asked were Republicans? or does this mean that ALL white people are interested in preserving their current economic status at the expense of all minorities?

Malcolm X compared conservatives to wolves, who openly attack and intimidate minorities. he compared liberals to foxes, which lure their victims into a false sense of security before striking. he argued that all white people are canine predators. does that sound racist and paranoid? kinda... but, based on his embodied cognition and the historical legacy of how blacks were treated in America... it make sense.

although this statement was not made in reference to the transgender rights movement... I think the comparison is still valid. it's easy enough to virtue signal for the crowds in an online forum. but the real test is in how you actually treat people. I don't agree with the transgender right's movement. I believe it is NOT an innate human right, but a privilege of opportunity to be sought after as one so desires. it absolutely cannot be compared to more basic human needs/rights like food, shelter, water and safety or inescapable aspects of humanity such as race.

the movement, in its current form, is a fad in my opinion. how many people would willingly pursue a transgender person and engage in sexual relations with them knowing fully that they are transgender? it is one thing to proclaim: "I affirm their right to exist". but if you have no interest in fully embracing their sexuality this seems like a ceremonial gesture. a friendly handshake immediately followed by turning your back on them. I don't dispute the right of transgender people to exist. but I also don't plan on compelling other people to accept them or love them either.

I worked at a daycare where the director wanted to encourage children between the ages of 10 months and 6 years old that we should accept all forms of sexuality. I argued, "we are caretakers of other people's children. why don't we just get them to stop biting each other and punching each other in the face over toys? teach them to be kind and respectful to all people, first and foremost. we have to trust that this will carry over as they get older. we can't try to explain to a tiny child that if a girl loves a girl that must make her a lesbian, or if a boy loves a boy that makes him gay. children don't understand sexual love as a concept yet. not under the age of 5... and if they do, well, something has gone horribly wrong! let's respect the parents' wishes, implicitly, and not embark on a supererogatory moral campaign that I'm pretty sure half of our customers would be infuriated by... even if they are good urbanite liberals." [suffice to say, I didn't last long at that daycare. all of the kids and teachers liked me, so there's that.]

all of my direct experiences with transgender people were amiable enough. I didn't have a problem with them. but when I hear of a friend of a friend getting impregnated by their husbands who then decide that they are transgender women and abandon them; who then complain about paying child support, accuse their own child to their face of giving them COVID, and lament of having to take care of the child on weekends when they could be partying... that's not a good look for the movement. yes, I support the liberty and privilege of people to change their gender if they are legally an adult. but that doesn't mean that everybody who chooses this path is a good person.

when I hear of friends where their daughter wants to transition into becoming a man because she is attracted to women.... I think "why don't you try being a lesbian first? see what you think before making a radical change." this young woman eventually started dating another like-minded woman who ALSO wants to get a sex change. and I scratch my head. "why don't you try being a happy lesbian couple for a year or two before you both commit to surgery? you might find you really like this and could use that money to buy a house or something."

I respect the idea of people being kept safe from others. but, from my observations, transgender people often hurt others as much as they are hurt themselves. that seems to make them an ordinary part of the human condition.

just because I am prepared to tolerate transgender people and be polite to them in public... doesn't mean that I have to endorse or support their lifestyle choices. sometimes they do and say things that I consider morally reprehensible. again, I'm not condoning violence against transexuals. but, on this forum, the general pattern is that they absolutely deserve our unconditional support and protection as a basic human right.

sure. they shouldn't get beaten, killed, etc. but that guy who abandoned his wife and daughter to become a woman? that selfish creep had better keep making her child support payments and her parental visits... otherwise, you might get the impression that she hates her own daughter because she reminds him of the man he used to be. guilt tripping your own child because you want to have a girl's night out party and you can't go because you have COVID and parental duties to worry about? wow. I wish I was making this up. jerks come in all shapes, sizes, religions, and political affiliations.

if, for example, religious people are fools and lying to themselves for believing in things that are untrue. shouldn't we be equally suspicious and unforgiving towards people who cherish beliefs about their own bodies that are equally untrue? I would argue 'no. we shouldn't condemn people for believing things we consider to be untrue.' this is why I am fairly tolerant of, but not always agreeable to, a variety of religions and the transgender rights movement.

I always found it strange that kirby101 could torment people on a daily basis on this forum for believing in Judaism or Christianity because these beliefs were absurd and cruel falsehoods... but then turn around and champion transgender rights. on the face of it, if one religious fool believes in the lies of religion... how is this somehow worse than a transgender identifying person trying to impose their private body image on to every other person they meet? you could argue that both people are making false claims of reality and trying to get everybody else to acknowledge their warped views of reality as the only viable truth.

if he wants to say that this is a double standard he's prepared to live with... great.

I've already explained (before the forum reboot) that I don't believe human beings evolve morally. the people we see now are no better than the ones who fought and killed each other 16,000 years ago at Megiddo. we will have to struggle with tyranny, class discrimination, race discrimination, ethnocentrism, fat shaming, pretty privilege, hated, poverty, and whatever other social ill you can think of until humanity is extinct. it launches itself all over again with each new generation being born. to invoke Linton Kwesi Johnson: this is an "Unfinished Revolution". sometimes our very solutions to making life better (see fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine, cell phones, and the internet) simply open up new avenues for self-destruction. (global warming, pollution, human trafficking, etc. are all enabled exponentially as secondary effects by technological advances). we do have to keep trying our best to make the world a better place to live. the real source of conflict is that not everybody has the same definition of "better" and "live".

I do not share Jonathon Haidt's optimistic assessment of "moral evolution". (yes, it is one thing for Russian scientists to domestic a breed of wild foxes inside of 30 years through careful breeding practices... but we don't enjoy that same level of control over human behavior... and if we did, it could only be done through the worst sort of tyranny). as it turns out these foxes are only sort-of domesticated!

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...-terrible-pets

[Adam Allen]

[comictimes]

Yes, investigation. Instead of doing what you’re doing, relying - and posting - Turkish state propaganda and saying that on social media people are posting bla bla. You’re doing the equivalent of a right winger posting Fox News videos about Biden.

Investigations like these will give a clearer picture in the next few days:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68445973

Again, going back to the Al-Ahli hospital, a couple of posters on this forum/thread were quick to post Turkish propaganda as well, saying that Israel had bombed the hospital and it turned out to be completely fake a few days later, after investigations:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters...pital-00122197

You’re basically doing the same, before we actually have certainty on what happened. Bear in mind that, according to your posts, you are currently believing the version of events as described by Hamas and by Turkish propaganda TRT World. “You are known by the company you keep”

I haven't cited Hamas, have I? As for what "Turkish propaganda" claims, it's not much different from what other "no propaganda" media are saying, BBC included. The basic story is the same: trucks, crowd, gunfire, stampede, death. If you want to focus on a particular detail to cry "exaggeration or fake" go ahead. BTW, firing a missile on people at a hospital parking lot full of them and doing it on a hospital should not be treated differently, just confer what the coverage was about the bombing of the Mariupol Hospital No 3. The only difference is that in that case, the only fatality was a pregnant girl who miraculously made a full recovery.

No, there won't be any investigation, or there will be one which bears no fruits, like we're used to.

[CaptainEurope]

Nicaragua files case at World Court against Germany for aiding Israel

Nicaragua asked the ICJ, also known as the World Court, to issue emergency measures requiring Berlin to stop its military aid to Israel. The court usually sets a date for a hearing on any requested emergency measures within weeks of a case being filed.

According to Nicaragua's claim Germany is violating the 1948 genocide convention and the 1949 Geneva convention on the laws of war in the 'occupied' Palestinian territories.

Considering the court has not even said it's a genocide so far, I think their chances or winning this are slim.

[comictimes]

Turkey benefits from this - because they have their own laundry list of human rights abuses and accusations as well. as hyped78 says, people are entitled to dislike and distrust Israel. but we can't blindly trust Hamas either. this is the same party that won because people were fed up with Fatah's corruption. it didn't take long for Hamas to start wiping out their political rivals and adversaries. Hamas launched their attacks KNOWING that Israel would respond with disproportionate force. I can't let Hamas off the hook for that. they EXPECTED civilians to die and did it anyways because they knew it would end up as a political victory for them regardless of what response Israel had. if Israel failed to respond. they could prepare for larger follow up attacks. if Israel responded with detective work, police round ups, and assassinations they could spin that into a political victory. if Israel responded with massive military action in a violent and brief campaign... they could play that up as the literal definition of overkill. there is literally nothing Israel could have done (or not done) in response to Hamas that would not have been manipulated by Hamas into a public relations victory.

as a reminder to those who don't remember: Israel did not initiate the Six Day War. several nations attacked Israel and failed. Yom Kippur also started with an Arab coalition of multiple nations launching an invasion of Israel.

Israel's Arab neighbors have tried, on multiple occasions, to wipe Israel off the map. and when people tired of the bloodshed and signed treaties (like Anwar Sadat) they got killed.

the West Bank and the Gaza strip are, from any long term economic or military perspective, non-viable entities. I'm not going to overlook the fact that Palestinian refugees receive only slightly better treatment from all of their Arab neighbors. they continue to live in poverty and are denied access to many of the benefits of regular citizens in those countries. Jordan annexed the West Bank back in 1950... and there's a reason why Israel is so ferociously skeptical and defensive about what happens there. if Jordan, or other nations, used it as a staging ground for a military campaign, they could cut Israel in half and then try to destroy it in detail with follow-up campaigns. Americans tend to have really short memories and be ignorant of history.

again, multiple Arab coalitions have tried several times to liberate Palestine from Israeli rule... and, to put it bluntly, they have failed.

I know a lot of people have been chanting that Israel is this vile colonial oppressor... and that would be true from an Arab and Palestinian view. most of the world condemns Israel (except the US and Great Britain, because they are primarily responsible for Israel existing... in spite of many of the local British administrators in Palestine supporting the Arabs and being blatantly antisemitic in the years leading up to the Arab Israeli War of 1948). Britain is on the hook for Israel existing in its present form... so, it makes sense that they would abstain.

but I think it's preposterous for people to believe that merely by condemning Israel as colonizers that this actually transforms the situation in any meaningful way. even when Palestine was indisputably in the hands of the Ottoman Empire or the Roman Empire it was still a hotbed of conflict. even when Jerusalem was controlled by one Islamic caliphate another would lay siege to the city as a means of spreading their control.
(Jerusalem Besieged: Eric Cline)

the very first recorded battle in the history of the world took place at Megiddo when Pharaoh Thumose III conquered a Canaanite coalition that rebelled against his rule... y'know, the ones that Palestinians like to pretend they are the direct descendants of.

Palestine has been occupied, or a vassal state of other nations, for most of its recorded history. the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, multiple Caliphates, France, Great Britain... I don't say this as an argument that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. I say this as a reminder that Palestine is a victim of geography. for whatever reason, it has been considered valuable land worth fighting over for as long as people have been writing history. it is guaranteed to happen again. in 30 years maybe Iraq or Turkey will decide that it's their turn to rule Palestine again.

when I read about college professors and students marching and condemning Israel as a colonizer... in a way it's brilliant on the part of Hamas. the conduct a few limited asymmetrical warfare attacks (ie killing civilians, kidnapping people, raiding convoys, etc) and then launch a relentless media campaign and win through the death of 1000 cuts by using propaganda and "lawfare" to gradually erode support for their most hated enemy. they have already murdered all of their most serious Palestinian political rivals and threats. however, Hamas can not achieve their goal of the reinstatement of the Mandatory of Palestine without utterly conquering Israel by every military and political means necessary. maybe I've lost track... maybe they don't want to destroy Israel and exile all of the Israeli citizens out of Palestine... but, as inhuman as Israel is. Hamas, in theory, wants something that is arguably even more appalling.

when the leader of Turkey said that Israel will make you miss Hitler... that was darkly amusing... given that Turkey refused to break off relations with Nazi Germany until it was indisputably clear that the Nazis would lose. some far-right members of Turkey even speculated about invading the Caucasus in order to gain lost Ottoman Empire territory lost to Russia after WW1. (they probably would have loved to get their hands on the Baku-Tuapse oil pipeline). it wasn't until the Ploesti Raid in 1943 that demonstrated Allied bombers could fly into Romania in broad daylight and inflict catastrophic damage in broad in spite of the German and Romanian air forces that Turkey began to realize how foolish it would be to actively side with the Nazis. if elite German and battle-hardened Romanian aces had trouble stopping Allied carpet bombing... what would Turkey's tiny air force be able to do? Inonu, as dictator, had just spent several years crushing the Dersim Rebellion and wasn't anxious to get involved in more fighting. so, he bought weapons from the Nazis and placated Stalinist Russia. eventually he caved in to international pressure from the Allies he declared war on Germany in August of 1944 after the Soviets had effectively conquered both Bulgaria and Romania.

back to Hamas: I can't get behind an organization that had 160 kids die while they forced them to dig tunnels. I'm not prepared to give those sorts of people any sort of political win. in other words... I believe giving Hamas any concessions at all is allowing them to win. so, I can't really condemn Israel for refusing to bargain with them.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...terror-tunnels
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...d-rubble-ruins

this part of the world has been filled with cruelty, violence, and suffering for as long as people have been writing history. we can't expect changes to happen overnight. if Israel continues to feel threatened, they're not going to back down. the Palestinians are still getting treated like trash by pretty much everyone in the Middle East... even by many of the people and nations that CLAIM to be fighting on their behalf. a cursory web search of Palestinian refugees by country name will demonstrate that nobody wants them. that's why they tried to destroy Israel, or the possibility thereof, multiple times.

I don't see this as a matter of "good guys" vs "bad guys". I just see it as a never-ending cycle of violence.

Your post certainly reads that way.

[Totoro Man]

LOL. I don't visit this thread and post nearly every day like a lot of you. so, sometimes I go on little writing binges to "catch up".

[Totoro Man]

because, yes, I do hold grudges sometimes:

Yeah, I'm really glad we have public healthcare and education. Doesn't mean it's ideal, far from it, but at least people's first thought when they get sick isn't whether they can even afford treatment.
But those don't make a country socialist, that just sounds like a Republican talking point to scare people from voting for Democrats, especially the descendants from immigrants who escaped from socialist regimes. I wish such fearmongering was called out more.

when I pointed out that every single nation in Europe that practices social democracy struggles with the exact same issues as the United States... the insinuation was that I was fearmongering. it was then suggested that I, among others, should get called out on it more. I don't typically practice fearmongering as a means of controlling others... as this quote might suggest. I am not here to discourage people from voting for Democrats. feel free to vote for anybody you like. I am, however, a deeply pessimistic person. as noble as social democracy might be, it doesn't eliminate the fundamental problem of a growing global population, resource scarcity and built-in inequality. just because European nations are held up as being LESS unequal than the United States shouldn't give us the false hope that inequality will be eradicated.

in a similar vein, the words "doesn't mean it's ideal, far from it..." are vexing to me. it's not unlike saying "my spouse isn't perfect... but you'll never meet a better person in the entire world!" if we don't talk about the problems inherent in the universal healthcare system how is this any different from denying that those problems exist? isn't this why people marched around with signs inscribed with the words "silence is violence"? to not speak of problems is, in some situations, to implicitly deny their very existence.

I would be more receptive to the idea of universal healthcare and free college for everyone in America if we abandoned any pretense of being "leader of the free world" or a "superpower". to put it bluntly NONE of the countries that offer these services have over 228,390 military personnel stationed in foreign countries as of September 2023, 168,571 of which were active-duty troops. many, many people have argued that the United States military is more of an instrument of colonial imperialism than a true organization of self-defense.

America, in my opinion, would need to give up on the idea of being an economic and military superpower in order to create the corresponding level of service provided by these other nations in education and healthcare. I don't have a problem with this. I don't think America is "great" anymore. and I don't think clinging to the idea of being a superpower helps anybody.

the money has to come from somewhere. American education generally costs more, doctors and nurses get paid more, real estate is more expensive, and pretty much the only way to make it cheaper would be to pay people less money or do some price controls. since we pride our free market... this seems unlikely. so, the only plausible solution I can think of is to sacrifice the military budget. (which still might not be enough if everybody wants service, and we don't invest in preventative medicine).

the vexing pattern on this forum is that people will sing and dance about universal healthcare and free college on multiple threads... and then never discuss what would most likely need to be sacrificed to make that happen. it just ends up being "well, it's really good for Europe... and I think it would be a good idea."

[aja_christopher]

As you can see, Mets would rather limit things to one joke rather than all the other important context just involving Carano, let alone Tendrin's history of posts. That doesn't seem like any sort of focus on specifics to me.

EX: "Employers need to say why they fire people" ignores how Disney told Carano what behavior was upsetting them and told her to stop it, and she chose to continue despite it.

Anyone who wants to engage in a mutually beneficial discussion would not intentionally avoid facts and evidence — there would be no need for specifically curated “non-loaded” questions, no intentional ignorance of relevant data, and no complaints that others won’t accept a false narrative unsupported by real evidence if the goal was real and honest dialogue, especially when the individual in question frequently violates the same restrictions that they try to place on others.

Instead one sees an authoritarian response to said challenges — ignorance and condescension.

That a company has the right to fire employees who continue to engage in harassment even after repeated warnings is self evident and everyone here knows an employer is not required to support bigotry within their ranks — only one person seems to be claiming it is acceptable for obvious reasons mentioned before: to normalize said behavior.

Ignoring the overt attacks by Republicans on others is a cynical and deceptive method of argumentation and it is being criticized accordingly despite the frequent protests of those who would play the false victim while ignoring the real suffering of those who have been harmed or even killed as a result of Republican policies: it is a rational choice, if not truly a respectable one.

The alternative is addressing Republican bigotry which is exactly what he seeks not to do.

Given said reality, the applied countermeasure is to ignore or dismiss facts — even when requested — and instead try to promote biased opinions not supported by evidence to back a fundamentally flawed partisan viewpoint, and then to double down on said flawed opinions while ignoring any relevant counter evidence that disputes their false narrative — as one clearly sees with regards to the issue of Nazis mingling at CPAC, DeSantis’ and Abbott’s plainly non-“moderate” anti-LGBT legislation, the repeated mistruths regarding “open borders” and immigration, Human Resources policies, and nearly every other topic.

This maintains the illusion of arguing from a position of power despite the lack of evidence.

Trump has made it crystal clear that the larger threat to society isn’t “liberalism” but fascism and bigotry and Republicans have to now pretend that they aren’t a party with a base of white nationalists being led by a fraudulent fascist criminal white supremacist by deflecting to whether individuals should be allowed to engage in bigotry without consequences — much like Trump himself.

The real slippery slope of course is not Carano’s self-inflicted termination but that said white nationalist leader is only one election away from being the leader of the free world while Republicans are trying to attack virtually any “liberal” target that they can to distract from their own vile, bigoted behavior.



As Tendrin notes — it’s nothing new but it still deserves to be called out given the consequences.

Personally, I am not elite, but I am premium.

Speaking out against bigotry isn’t elitist — it’s just the right thing to do.

[aja_christopher]

It's all very cut and dry and is a complete non-issue. It's just a sad example of political theater much like the war on Christmas.

It’s often projection — just as with the claims of “corruption” with Hillary and Biden.

The War on Drugs was created specifically to target, subjugate, and incarcerate liberals and people of color, while The War on Terror was based on lies and was a miscalculation so tragic that many Republicans pretend to have amnesia when discussing it.

From what I have read, not really. His humor is conservative friendly, but not conservative exclusive. Self effacing, poking fun at some differences between groups, but often with himself as the butt of the joke. He hasn't come out decrying cancel culture, or woke this or woke that, even though some extreme right wingers have been doing victory laps about his return to the show.

Much of the problem is that “conservative” humor often isn’t as funny — conservative characters are often played as the “straight” man with good reason and the humor is often in the conflict between their personal values and society at large.

There is also an inherent lack of humor in the rigid cynicism behind much of the current right-wing ideology which seems like little more than an expansion of the puerile misogynistic, racist and homophobic behavior that came of age during Gamergate.

Many conservatives don’t fit in with the “liberal” artists who permeate the entertainment industry yet they want to dictate to those same liberals that they persecute as to how they should run their affairs.

Because their ideas can’t compete in the marketplace, many capitalize on grievance instead.

the vexing pattern on this forum is that people will sing and dance about universal healthcare and free college on multiple threads... and then never discuss what would most likely need to be sacrificed to make that happen. it just ends up being "well, it's really good for Europe... and I think it would be a good idea."

It is not just singing and dancing when Democratic politicians actually introduce legislation which is then blocked by Republicans. There may be potential flaws in both the planning and the implementation of such policies but that is no reason not to address the obvious flaws in a system that clearly could be made more efficient by applying —and improving upon — what we’ve learned from other nations.

America has certainly already repeatedly witnessed the progressively destructive effects of Republican leadership under Reagan, Bush, and Trump — its more than ironic at this point to fear trying the alternative of embracing and encouraging a diverse nation with liberal values as opposed to a political party that is plainly headed down the pathway of incompetent autocracy.

[Panfoot]

That's a lot of time spent writing up transphobic garbage huh.

[Catlady in training]

because, yes, I do hold grudges sometimes:



when I pointed out that every single nation in Europe that practices social democracy struggles with the exact same issues as the United States... the insinuation was that I was fearmongering. it was then suggested that I, among others, should get called out on it more. I don't typically practice fearmongering as a means of controlling others... as this quote might suggest. I am not here to discourage people from voting for Democrats. feel free to vote for anybody you like. I am, however, a deeply pessimistic person. as noble as social democracy might be, it doesn't eliminate the fundamental problem of a growing global population, resource scarcity and built-in inequality. just because European nations are held up as being LESS unequal than the United States shouldn't give us the false hope that inequality will be eradicated.

in a similar vein, the words "doesn't mean it's ideal, far from it..." are vexing to me. it's not unlike saying "my spouse isn't perfect... but you'll never meet a better person in the entire world!" if we don't talk about the problems inherent in the universal healthcare system how is this any different from denying that those problems exist? isn't this why people marched around with signs inscribed with the words "silence is violence"? to not speak of problems is, in some situations, to implicitly deny their very existence.

(Quote cut because my post was too long to post)

You can let go of your month-long grudge against me, I wasn't talking about you in my comment.


This, however, WTF?

Derrick Bell, Frank B Wilderson III, and Charles W. Mills might disagree with you on that. sure, the outright bigotry is frowned upon. but implicit bigotry has never gone away. it also exists at a cultural level. it is not the prerogative of one political party. to suggest otherwise seems extremely naive at best, and dishonest at worst.

distorting the narrative might not be a bad idea... if the narrative is a falsely reassuring one. it would be fun to pretend the only thing we have to fear are conservatives and religious people. but I refuse to believe it is that simple.

if 96% of all white people surveyed are opposed to race-based reparations does that mean that the only people who were asked were Republicans? or does this mean that ALL white people are interested in preserving their current economic status at the expense of all minorities?

Malcolm X compared conservatives to wolves, who openly attack and intimidate minorities. he compared liberals to foxes, which lure their victims into a false sense of security before striking. he argued that all white people are canine predators. does that sound racist and paranoid? kinda... but, based on his embodied cognition and the historical legacy of how blacks were treated in America... it make sense.

although this statement was not made in reference to the transgender rights movement... I think the comparison is still valid. it's easy enough to virtue signal for the crowds in an online forum. but the real test is in how you actually treat people. I don't agree with the transgender right's movement. I believe it is NOT an innate human right, but a privilege of opportunity to be sought after as one so desires. it absolutely cannot be compared to more basic human needs/rights like food, shelter, water and safety or inescapable aspects of humanity such as race.

the movement, in its current form, is a fad in my opinion. how many people would willingly pursue a transgender person and engage in sexual relations with them knowing fully that they are transgender? it is one thing to proclaim: "I affirm their right to exist". but if you have no interest in fully embracing their sexuality this seems like a ceremonial gesture. a friendly handshake immediately followed by turning your back on them. I don't dispute the right of transgender people to exist. but I also don't plan on compelling other people to accept them or love them either.

I worked at a daycare where the director wanted to encourage children between the ages of 10 months and 6 years old that we should accept all forms of sexuality. I argued, "we are caretakers of other people's children. why don't we just get them to stop biting each other and punching each other in the face over toys? teach them to be kind and respectful to all people, first and foremost. we have to trust that this will carry over as they get older. we can't try to explain to a tiny child that if a girl loves a girl that must make her a lesbian, or if a boy loves a boy that makes him gay. children don't understand sexual love as a concept yet. not under the age of 5... and if they do, well, something has gone horribly wrong! let's respect the parents' wishes, implicitly, and not embark on a supererogatory moral campaign that I'm pretty sure half of our customers would be infuriated by... even if they are good urbanite liberals." [suffice to say, I didn't last long at that daycare. all of the kids and teachers liked me, so there's that.]

all of my direct experiences with transgender people were amiable enough. I didn't have a problem with them. but when I hear of a friend of a friend getting impregnated by their husbands who then decide that they are transgender women and abandon them; who then complain about paying child support, accuse their own child to their face of giving them COVID, and lament of having to take care of the child on weekends when they could be partying... that's not a good look for the movement. yes, I support the liberty and privilege of people to change their gender if they are legally an adult. but that doesn't mean that everybody who chooses this path is a good person.

when I hear of friends where their daughter wants to transition into becoming a man because she is attracted to women.... I think "why don't you try being a lesbian first? see what you think before making a radical change." this young woman eventually started dating another like-minded woman who ALSO wants to get a sex change. and I scratch my head. "why don't you try being a happy lesbian couple for a year or two before you both commit to surgery? you might find you really like this and could use that money to buy a house or something."

I respect the idea of people being kept safe from others. but, from my observations, transgender people often hurt others as much as they are hurt themselves. that seems to make them an ordinary part of the human condition.

just because I am prepared to tolerate transgender people and be polite to them in public... doesn't mean that I have to endorse or support their lifestyle choices. sometimes they do and say things that I consider morally reprehensible. again, I'm not condoning violence against transexuals. but, on this forum, the general pattern is that they absolutely deserve our unconditional support and protection as a basic human right.

sure. they shouldn't get beaten, killed, etc. but that guy who abandoned his wife and daughter to become a woman? that selfish creep had better keep making her child support payments and her parental visits... otherwise, you might get the impression that she hates her own daughter because she reminds him of the man he used to be. guilt tripping your own child because you want to have a girl's night out party and you can't go because you have COVID and parental duties to worry about? wow. I wish I was making this up. jerks come in all shapes, sizes, religions, and political affiliations.

if, for example, religious people are fools and lying to themselves for believing in things that are untrue. shouldn't we be equally suspicious and unforgiving towards people who cherish beliefs about their own bodies that are equally untrue? I would argue 'no. we shouldn't condemn people for believing things we consider to be untrue.' this is why I am fairly tolerant of, but not always agreeable to, a variety of religions and the transgender rights movement.

(Quote cut because my post was too long to post)

Why do you think it is ok to tell others what to do with their own lives and relationships? You are wrong with the bolded, that person is obviously not a lesbian, but a trans man. If you don't understand that, that is on you, you can buy a book written by a trans person like anyone else of us cis people who want to understand trans people more so that we won't make fools of ourselves on the internet.

Using your logic about the story you heard about one trans person second hand: try to imagine if someone here made a similar statement about any other community of people, because the one member of that community they know (apparently only from hearing) is not a nice person. Lol. This is what people mean when they say that transphobia is the most accepted form of discrimination right now. You would not even think about making such statement about anyone else, even if you think it.

If I used your logic of suggesting to strangers what they should do with their own lives as you do in the boded: Why do you live in the US? Why don't you come and live for a few years in various European countries and only then start talking about our (different per country) social systems? At least you might stop saying stuff like that there is less inequality (I have to laugh at that, I could only wish) or stop talking about the entire very diverse continent as one country.