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

[Mister Mets]

For those reading along at home, Mets has provided many older (and some recent) examples of what happens when someone posts things he doesn't want to address, as those have been his responses to his own posts and mine used as evidence proving his misinterpretations and lies were just that. To be clear, the behavior involves describing the argument in a different way that he'd rather respond to instead of what the post he's replying to clearly laid out - the Mischaracterization of Arguments which has the most people upset that I've noticed. It involves ignoring the evidence of the post he's quoting, as well as pretending not to understand what the problem is when called on it (Playing Dumb).

But if we take a look at one of the "annoying memes" I posted:


If you click the included link and look up at the previous 2 posts, you'll notice why, with this bit in particular standing out:


That bolded bit at the end lets us know he's misinterpreting the math specifically to be obnoxious as he knew what I meant and posted that way deliberately instead of there being genuine confusion or misunderstanding. That behavior hasn't changed as recent examples have shown.

So here I am reposting the same old quote to respond to the same behavior from years ago still on display, and it becomes more true the more Mets tries to inject false ambiguity into another situation:



To explain to others: Using genderless information to make a transphobic lie specifically about a certain gender (Like Abigail Shrier's book with the subtitle "The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters") is ignoring how much Trans Women have increased how they openly identify as well. The fact that any increase was likely due to the relaxing in bigotry against Trans people was not only pointed out to Mets at the time but he replied to it, so it is a convenient thing to ignore when bringing up older arguments - Like nullifying the agency of those who specifically said they weren't listed.
And finally:

Is this what it's about?

You selectively quoted here, and I don't know if it's because you're lying or because this is where there was a major misunderstanding.

Incidentally, when I said I get where you're coming from, that doesn't mean that I understood it before.

In Math, 0.3% of 4.2% would be 0.3% multiplied by 4.2% rather than 0.3% as a share of 4.2%, which would get the wrong number, although I do get where you're coming from.

When have I said that the only people who count as trans are those who identify specifically as trans men and trans women?

You did quote me talking about "females who seek those services" although I thought it would be widely understood that people who identify as nonbinary can still get services. For example, the comic book writer ND Stevenson who identifies as nonbinary, did a comic about their experience with top surgery an year ago.

https://boingboing.net/2021/01/04/re...mberjanes.html

A few hours ago you quoted me saying back in April that the figures for trans people includes those who are genderqueer, genderfluid or nonbinary. So I've been quite consistent on this. That also seems to be the definition of various LGBTQ friendly organizations, which would certainly mean that a reporter isn't lying for going with that definition (unless they specially and unambiguously referred to trans men).

At this point, I thought you were gatekeeping on who counts as trans, suggesting that only trans men count as trans students who were raised as girls (When excluding cis men and trans women, we could figure that about 0.5% of students identified as girls count as trans.)

The rest of my post was about how people who are nonbinary can count as trans, so it was still based on that understanding of your comments. And I wasn't the only one who saw things that way.

There is no indication that students who are chromosomal males are more likely to identify as genderfluid, agender, nonbinary, etc. I did post the results of a different study suggesting that students identified as girls were twice as likely to identify in those ways.

Your main argument was that a reporter didn't have the evidence at the time to assume a particular level of increase, but that could have been a mistake rather than a lie and it remains possible that the reporter did basic due diligence and double-checked with the people familiar with a study about the ways results were different based on gender assigned at birth, especially since other studies didn't contradict that idea.

You made a comparison earlier with the Nex Benedict tragedy, but a difference is that people saying that she was beaten to death ended up being wrong on the facts. It's a different argument to say that someone came to the correct conclusion too early.

I think one reason for the misunderstandings is the difficulty with nomenclature. For example, "nonbinary" is a gender. It's not an example of something genderless, which is the term you used. But it's hard to describe the thing you're grasping for (gender identities outside the traditional binary; this is especially complicated since the terms that would make the most sense like nonbinary are their own distinct gender identities.)

[Catlady in training]

I'm left handed. My mom wasn't "allowed" to be left handed when she was a kid.

Yeah, my uncle used to be beaten by his mother and had his left hand tied in order to learn writing "properly". This would have been in the 50's, small village, conservative people. When one of his daughters turned out to be left-handed as well, he just let her be.

[ed2962]

As far as I am aware, that was fake news and the picture that's been going around showed a Ukrainian who last worked on the ship in 2016. The current crew was South Asian.

Crap...I fell for it! However, there's still online folks trying to somehow blame the mayor for this.

[ed2962]

If people are right wing or right leaning conspiracy theorists and antivaxers they already have their dream candidate in Trump. There would be little point in switching to RFK Jr.

I think the concern is that an uneducated voter who only knows that they don’t like Biden, will see the name KENNEDY and take a chance on that.

I think Biden will win the popular vote but RFK Jr. could definitely siphon off votes in swing states. The electoral college will screw us again.

Kennedy’s pick for running mate is an odd choice. Though she is an antivaxxer so she’s got that box checked off.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/liv...ml?ref=mc.news

In her remarks Tuesday in Oakland, California, Shanahan called for further research into “every possible cause of the chronic disease epidemic” while questioning the “cumulative impact” of prescriptions and vaccines on children’s health.

I think Biden's biggest challenge is people who would have otherwise voted democrat staying home because they are disappointed in the economy or are angry at his handling of the Israel/Gaza conflict.

[JackDaw]

I think most of his supporters don't believe it. They know it's lies, just as if you catch their hand near your pocket, they'll say it's innocent.

I remember a piece about how many of the people who support Putin are in a culture where they think hard work is done by suckers, and their goal is to live as well as possible while doing as little as possible. We see it in the shamelessness of the Russian media and the apologists.

One weird thing I've noticed in conversations about Russia and Ukraine is how Russian apologists try to invent their own arguments rather than going with what the Russians claim. I remember Tucker Carlson on a podcast with Lex Friedman (which I recommend as an example of how platforming a bad person can allow them to show how gross and stupid they are) ignoring Putin's claims of denazification and focusing on arguments Russia wasn't making, which still wouldn't justify starting a war.

You and the guy from the UK may be talking past one another if you're looking at the willingness of some politicians to say gross things, and he's looking at legislation.

Yes. Of course, a fair number of UK politicians say gross and unpleasant things. But for me, the ultimate test is the legislation passed, the way it’s enforced, and the general climate in society.

The fact is that the Conservative Party hasn’t made a determined effort to pass less tolerant legislation. And…to remove any doubt on my personal bias..I routinely vote Labour.

On most social issues there isn’t the enormous gap between British Conservatives and Labour seen in the US between Republicans and Democrats.

[Dalak]

As everyone can see, the "trouble with nomenclature" is that someone keeps using it as an excuse to avoid acknowledging that he understands Addition, Subtraction, and what "The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters" refers to. This is not being honest, respectful, or arguing in good faith. To review again:

3 Trans woman 0.2
4 Trans man 0.3
5 Genderqueer 0.5
6 My identity is not listed 0.5
7 Agender 0.3
8 Genderfluid 0.5
9 Non-binary 1.9
10 Intersex 0.0
Valid responses = 12

can you tell me if they were brought up as boys/girls? Can you tell me how they were assigned at birth? Can you tell me anything other than they were anonymous students who said they were Genderfluid/etc?

As it is impossible to do so from the data provided, you know exactly how The Week inflated their numbers in order to make the transphobic lie quoted here:

Everything else is used to disguise that fact & how you refuse to admit it,

Oh, and a visitor from the past wants to chime in on arguing about the semantics excusing how reporting a spike among Trans Individuals coming from those AFAB is something to worry about, but a slightly smaller spike in AMAB identifying as Trans isn't worth reporting.

since we're not arguing about the difference between 1 in 40 and 1 in 20, but whether it counts as a surge from 1 in 2,000- I think in this context 1 in 100 would count as a surge, although it did seem the numbers were higher in this particular setting.

So it's clear that if there's a surge in anything it's ALL individuals identifying as Trans, which has been explained to you years ago and more recently thanks to our resident Catlady in training. Of course with the increasing Anti-Trans bigotry since that study came out those numbers will be going back down.

And lastly - When we were wrong about Nex we admitted it, while you are still floundering around years later doing everything to refuse to admit you were wrong about The Week. You persist in bringing up so many theories (WITHOUT EVIDENCE: Here's a direct request - Provide evidence for these claims or stop making them.) about possibilities that they didn't just lie to help support the Anti-Trans Bigotry that LOTT, Shrier, and so many others were building back then and they needed science that sounded true in order to avoid the rightful calls of bigotry they have earned. So are you going to post evidence to prove that the Reporter contacted the creators of the only study they cited about this specific aspect, checked anonymous respondents for their chromosonal status, or whatever wild theory you want to come up with next . . or will you continue refusing to?

And a call back to something I forgot to reference earlier - The Forum Rules & Guidelines make it unwelcoming to those who engage in bigoted hate speech and lie rather than accept the truth, which sadly fits your average Trump voter. Their behavior is what makes them unwelcome on these forums, just like it's your behavior that results in people discussing how it (And you who engage in it) is wrong . . which leads you to claim it's a personal attack since you can't admit that.

As always: The Week-

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Stroke of genius or just stroke?

Shame on Joe Buden who disinformates and misinformates! He's just damn EVIL!

[Tami]

Shame on Joe Buden who disinformates and misinformates! He's just damn EVIL!

And Trump can't read or spell worth a darn if his life depended on. It.

[Robotman]

I think Biden's biggest challenge is people who would have otherwise voted democrat staying home because they are disappointed in the economy or are angry at his handling of the Israel/Gaza conflict.

Yeah that’s what could really hurt him. We know that the 74 million racists fanatics who voted for their lord and savior Donald Trump in 2020 will come out again in 2024 (the ones that are still alive that is), but it’s seeming less likely that the same number of people who voted for Biden in 2020 will be motivated to get off their asses and vote again. I think he’ll still win the popular vote, maybe not by as much, but the electoral college is always a concern.

[CaptainEurope]

Yeah that’s what could really hurt him. We know that the 74 million racists fanatics who voted for their lord and savior Donald Trump in 2020 will come out again in 2024 (the ones that are still alive that is), but it’s seeming less likely that the same number of people who voted for Biden in 2020 will be motivated to get off their asses and vote again. I think he’ll still win the popular vote, maybe not by as much, but the electoral college is always a concern.

Then again, the effect might be exaggerated by social media accounts who claim "I was a lifelong Democrat but cannot vote for Genocide Joe" but then when you dig deeper, they never did anyway or might not even be US citizens.

[Malvolio]

I think Biden's biggest challenge is people who would have otherwise voted democrat staying home because they are disappointed in the economy or are angry at his handling of the Israel/Gaza conflict.

Not voting doesn't mean you're not in the game. Whoever is elected will still have an effect on you. But when you don't vote, you're really saying, I am okay with whoever the rest of you vote for.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Not voting doesn't mean you're not in the game. Whoever is elected will still have an effect on you. But when you don't vote, you're really saying, I am okay with whoever the rest of you vote for.

Agreed.

You'll pry my right to complain from my cold dead hands!

[Dalak]

Not voting doesn't mean you're not in the game. Whoever is elected will still have an effect on you. But when you don't vote, you're really saying, I am okay with whoever the rest of you vote for.

This is something I will try and remember to remind others of when this comes up in conversations some time down the line. Thanks!

[Mister Mets]

Seriously, if anyone is still questioning why is there an increase in transgender people recently ...

I'm well aware of this. I think I might be the first person on the forum to make that argument that this is a possible cause of an increase. But that's different from the question of whether there is an increase.

It also hasn't been demonstrated that 100% of the increase is due to people who would otherwise suffer being affirmed.

We've had this discussion before, there's nothing wrong with being a conservative in general it's the specific brand of conservatism you defend day on and day out that gets you flack.

You want to say you think government in general should be leaner and smaller. Okay, I disagree but it doesn't make you a bad person.

You're for outspending the next ten highest spending countries when it comes to defense? Okay, I'm not but again you're not a terrible human being for supporting that.

You believe in strong second amendment rights? Fine, I'm for heavy regulation on gun ownership but you're not scum for thinking owning a gun is important.

You defend politicians for putting forward anti- trans or gay rights legislation though? Yeah, that goes beyond just being conservative and puts you in "I'm a terrible excuse for a human being" territory.

You defend open bigotry in your party? Yup, you guessed it, you're going to be called horrible names.

You downplay sexism in your party? Again, yup that's bad.

And you do those latter things all the time.

If you think what I've said is so outrageous it merits insults, you should post the comments so that readers who think that what I said is reasonable will see that you think that they deserve to be called names. Right now, we're in agreement that sexism shouldn't be downplayed. The disagreement would be whether a particular comment was an example of that.

The question shouldn't be whether I defended a politician, but whether I was wrong on the merits at the time. It shouldn't be considered suspicious to say something accurate about someone reprehensible. Critics of politicians are not served by arguments that fall apart when faced with the facts.

I hope we're all in agreement on this. If somebody feels differently, they should consistently clarify this.

[JackDaw]

If you think what I've said is so outrageous it merits insults, you should post the comments so that readers who think that what I said is reasonable will see that you think that they deserve to be called names. Right now, we're in agreement that sexism shouldn't be downplayed. The disagreement would be whether a particular comment was an example of that.

.

Radical thought: isn’t there a good case for sticking to board rules and avoiding insults altogether?

They almost never move the discussion on in a constructive way, and I think in most cases leave the insulter and insulted in a more stressed and sad mood.

Somebody says something that appears terrible…comments on it can be worded something like “I disagree with that strongly because..”