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

[JB]

Pardon my ignorance, but, don’t you have to pay for Ivermectin (and god only knows how much) while the vaccine is free?

Correct, and it's not technically allowed to be prescribed for covid anyway as it's an anti-parasitic. It's said to be inexpensive (the governments of India and Mexico were including it in "home covid kits" they gave out to the their populations) but it would still have to be paid for if it got approved by the FDA here.

[Tami]

It was trending in Twitter that Whoopi Goldberg said on the View that the Holocaust was not about Race, it was White People going after White People.

I wonder if she understands that Modern science regards race as a social construct. So, on the one hand, yes, the Holocaust was very much about Race since the Nazis viewed Jewish people as being a totally different race from them. On the other hand, if there was no concept of Race among Humans, then it all would be about Humans going after other humans. But that is not the case.

Thoughts?

[Scott Taylor]

Yah I just don't get the holocaust/Nazi revisionist stuff. Going after ratings, I guess.

[Jack Dracula]

Or, allegedly, Putin.

Or, possibly, Satan.

[Gray Lensman]

It was trending in Twitter that Whoopi Goldberg said on the View that the Holocaust was not about Race, it was White People going after White People.

I wonder if she understands that Modern science regards race as a social construct. So, on the one hand, yes, the Holocaust was very much about Race since the Nazis viewed Jewish people as being a totally different race from them. On the other hand, if there was no concept of Race among Humans, then it all would be about Humans going after other humans. But that is not the case.

Thoughts?

I think the idea that it wasn't about race might be news to the Roma. The Holocaust wasn't JUST about race, with exhibit A being they had a category (and badge) for anyone gay. But race was a huge part of it, and the Nazis saw Jews as a distinct race. It doesn't matter whether or not it is true, the people doing the crimes saw it that way.

[Mister Mets]

I doubt that the Republicans will try to stage a big fight about Biden's Supreme Court nomination, because
(1) the Democrats have the votes to get the nominee approved (both Manchin and Sinema have stuck to voting with the party on Biden's previous judicial appointments)
(2) under the current rules of the Senate, filibusters aren't allowed for court appointments
(3) Biden's nominee would not change the politics of SCOTUS, since she would be a liberal justice who is replacing another liberal justice

Probably every Republican (except for maybe 2 or 3 defectors) will vote against the nominee just to be on record as opposing Biden's appointment (which they will use as an "accomplishment" when running for re-election), but the GOP will be content to get the confirmation process out of the way quickly so that they can instead concentrate on defeating everything else that Biden sends their way, where they can use the filibuster to kill it.

These are big reasons why the response will be relatively civil.

It doesn't change the composition of the court, and there's nothing Republicans can really do.

https://twitter.com/leftofcentermi/s...97023609196544

GOP rhetoric against elections continues to be dangerous, but I'm sure some folks here will continue to write excuse after excuse for it.

This guy is a douchebag, but he's polling at one percent.

The Republican frontrunner is the former Chief of the Detroit Police Department.

That someone is standing up to the groupthink false narrative being generated in Washington and newsrooms about what the 6th was is not going unnoted by those critical of Washington in general. Millions of Americans still regard the Government as false and a near enemy of the people it rules. Let's go Brandon is not just about Inflation, rising crime, America's diminished world standing, illegal immigration explosion, distorted vision of who the working class is and what it needs or affirmative action on the SCOTUS. Dung beetles at least don't generate the stuff they move which is more that one can say about the current ruling party.
Attachment 117936

Donald Trump is saying that Kamala Harris has the ability to reject state results the next time we certify results from the electoral college.

If he's right, we should close that loophole, and Al Gore was an idiot for not doing this in January 2001.
If Trump is wrong, this means he is either ignorant or evil, and does not deserve to be President.

You are entitled to your POV and your "official" evidence. Meanwhile the Press still keeps calling the potential independent electors of PA and GA "fake" when no state laws restricts the alternative slate to counter the fraud. PA where a court just ruled that mail-in votes were against state law.

1. Your link is about faithless electors, which is the legal question of what happens when someone selected to represent their state in the electoral college decides to go for someone else. That's a different question than anything about alternative slates.
2. You really should have a link to support the idea that alternate slates are legal.
3. A court's decision a few days ago about mail-in voting does not retroactively change the election results. Nor would it have worked in November 2020. It's about changing elections going forward.

I think that was a few days ago, but I'm sure they are keeping the outrage going. Probably trying to make Biden buying ice cream the new tan suit scandal.

The tan suit seems to be really exaggerated.

As evidence, this thread wasn't discussing it at the time.

It occurred on August 28 2014, and this community (which is politically engaged and does not hold Fox News in high esteem) did not discuss it at the time.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...o-Steps-Beyond!

Yah I just don't get the holocaust/Nazi revisionist stuff. Going after ratings, I guess.

I think she has a different view of race, and likely views antisemitism as a religious issue.

This is very unlikely to be a ratings ploy. I'm trying to imagine how that would work.

[babyblob]

I think she has a different view of race, and likely views antisemitism as a religious issue.

This is very unlikely to be a ratings ploy. I'm trying to imagine how that would work.

A lot of people I know see the Holocust as a Religious issue and not one of racism as they see Antisemitism as an attack on religion and not one on race.

[Mister Mets]

Of course we need to be concerned about these kinds of laws that could be passed in the future. Not to mention those that have already been proposed and/or are in the process of debate.



Thanks for information, I didn't know about that Amazon case. An argument can be made that this is different to the cases I mentioned, since this was an effort of private citizens, not someone who is in a position of power.

I am personally not sure how to side here. Of course I am opposed to a book like that, but in general we should leave others to voice their opinions the same way as we would like to be able to. In this case there is the fact that the book reportedly links transgender identity with mental illness. I haven't read it, so I can't say if that is the case (according to the article, people protesting it claim it is). That would be medical misinformation, as the WHO no longer considers transgender identity to be mental illness.

This is another debate entirely: Should books with medical misinformation be published? Especially now when there's a lot of it online, it is a question that might need to be asked, if it hasn't yet. If anyone has any information on the topic, I would love to hear it, as I am out of my depth here.

A really powerful company like Amazon functions almost like a monopoly, so when people are trying to use that power to restrict the spread of a book, it is pretty close to bureaucrats wielding government power.

I'd like to point out that Abigail Shier's book was *extremely* transphobic. Extremely. That this is being soft peddled doesn't surprise. It's sub header is literally 'the transgender craze seducing our daughters'. Perhaps Mets ought to pick his examples with more care, lest someone think he be soft peddling transphobia himself with his extroidinarily kind description of its contents.



https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...misinformation

The idea that Maus shouldn't be part of a school curriculum is, of course, absurd, and the Tennesee School Board's rulings also from what I understand removes it from school libraries, where it absolutely belongs .

The question was about the willingness to censor. It's a very different argument to say that this thing is so objectionable as to merit censorship.

There are difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty. If Shrier's wrong, what distinguishes her from other people who are wrong in their speculation? Is it a lack of intellectual rigor, or that the topic itself so dangerous? If she's correct, and someone's nasty about it, they're the toxic combination of obnoxious and wrong.

The Psychology Today piece largely ignores Shrier's argument, which can lead to confusion about the book. In your own words, what do you think it should be about?

It's nice that people are doing that, but they should be running for school board instead. Gender Critical garbage has some very deep pockets behind it, but polls of society's views, even in the UK where Gender Critical crap is deeply entrenched, shows them to be a *very* small minority. It's likely that its status as 'best seller' is highly manipulated, as politically charged best-sellers of a conservative bent are often *extremely* inflated that way.

https://www.newstatesman.com/interne...you-to-believe

A key point people forget about bestsellers is that you don't need a popular view to sell something. A book can appeal to a small percentage of the population, and still sell a lot of copies.

Responding specifically to your paragraph in bold. It's a good question and for me a difficult one because medicine, like science, is always changing.
For example, right now in the US there's big debate on whether Joe Rogan, a podcast host, should be removed from the streaming service Spotify. He claims to have taken controversial Ivermectin, prescribed by a doctor, when he had covid and that it greatly helped him. He also has a lot of negative things to say about vaccines. Various musicians are giving Spotify the ultimatum of kicking Rogan off or they'll remove their music from the service.

However, just today a well-known pharmaceutical company in Japan has released information from a clinical trial showing the drug has been helpful against omicron.

Japan's Kowa says ivermectin has 'antiviral effect' against Omicron, other variants
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/japa...other-variants



If the drug remains helpful as they conclude their clinical trial, that's something to be taken very seriously.
This is why I've been researching what other nations are doing and it's clear no two nations are following the exact same path in battling this virus.

Another complicating factor about medicine isn't just that the science changes, but that the situation changes.

For example, the FDA declared that Monoclonal antibody treatment should not be used against Omicron. Some Republicans were thinking it's about politics, when it's just significantly less effective against the currently predominant form of Covid.

https://www.kens5.com/article/news/v...4-d74a771505a9

[Tami]

Some records sent to Jan. 6 committee were torn up, taped back together — mirroring a Trump habit

When the National Archives and Records Administration handed over a trove of documents to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, some of the Trump White House records had been ripped up and then taped back together, according to three people familiar with the records.

Former president Donald Trump was known inside the White House for his unusual and potentially unlawful habit of tearing presidential records into shreds and tossing them on the floor — creating a headache for records management analysts who meticulously used Scotch tape to piece together fragments of paper that were sometimes as small as confetti, as Politico reported in 2018.

But despite the Presidential Records Act — which requires the preservation of memos, letters, notes, emails, faxes and other written communications related to a president’s official duties — the former president’s infrangible shredding practices apparently continued well into the latter stages of his presidency.

[worstblogever]

Some records sent to Jan. 6 committee were torn up, taped back together — mirroring a Trump habit

Incompetent dips*** who no one can get to adhere to the law, example #96487

[The Cool Thatguy]

Incompetent dips*** who no one can get to adhere to the law, example #96487

They can't obey the law, and they can't break the law competently.

Wish that had a greater impact than it likely will.

[shooshoomanjoe]

So, is it true that FOX is going crazy about Biden buying ice cream?

Yep. But That was last week or so.q

[Tendrin]

A really powerful company like Amazon functions almost like a monopoly, so when people are trying to use that power to restrict the spread of a book, it is pretty close to bureaucrats wielding government power.

The question was about the willingness to censor. It's a very different argument to say that this thing is so objectionable as to merit censorship.

There are difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty. If Shrier's wrong, what distinguishes her from other people who are wrong in their speculation? Is it a lack of intellectual rigor, or that the topic itself so dangerous? If she's correct, and someone's nasty about it, they're the toxic combination of obnoxious and wrong.

The Psychology Today piece largely ignores Shrier's argument, which can lead to confusion about the book. In your own words, what do you think it should be about?

Good god, dude. It doesn't 'ignore' Shier's argument, which is effectively 'transgenderism is a social contagion'. It correctly calls it not scientific and transphobic. Because it is.

https://www.glaad.org/gap/abigail-shrier

She's a transphobe. She wrote a transphobic book. Activists pressured Amazon not to carry a transphobic book. Suggesting that amazon agreeing would be 'censorious' because it's 'like a monopoly' is absurd, when acquiring her book remains plainly easy for anyone. It's a best seller, after all.

Shrier’s book on what she calls the “transgender craze” was read and reviewed by medical researcher Dr. Jack Turban, who wrote: “The book's central (and false) premise is that there are massive numbers of transgender youth who are not truly transgender, but rather just confused, and that they are all being rushed into gender-affirming medical interventions and surgeries that they will later regret. As a physician and a researcher who has dedicated my career to taking care of and understanding transgender youth, I recognized the book as bizarre and full of misinformation. I assumed it wouldn't gain much traction. I was wrong.” Turban points out that “Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about… only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.”

Please stop soft-peddling a dangerously transphobic book which is already doing immense damage to transgender youth by encouraging parents to deny them their identities.

—Described trans rights as a “war on women“ and misgendered transgender women as “biological males who self-identify as females,” falsely claiming trans women’s use of “women’s restrooms, locker rooms and protective facilities… would put women and girls at immediate physical risk.” There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, according to a study from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

There *is* no substance to her argument to engage with. It's just transphobia. She is not someone whose opinion on trans rights has any merit whatsoever.

There is no research showing that more trans boys come out than trans girls, despite Shrier’s claim of a “sudden spike in transgender identification among teen girls [identifying as boys].” In fact, the data showed the number of young LGBTQ people identifying as lesbian doubled compared to the previous generation, whereas the number of young LGBTQ people identifying as trans went up only by a few points, again disproving the false theory that teen girls are falling prey to a “spike” in gender transition. Gallup researchers: “The pronounced generational differences raise questions about whether higher LGBT identification in younger than older Americans reflects a true shift in sexual orientation, or if it merely reflects a greater willingness of younger people to identify as LGBT. To the extent it reflects older Americans not wanting to acknowledge an LGBT orientation, the Gallup estimates may underestimate the actual population prevalence of it.”

So, again, stop soft peddling a transphobic book full of transphobic lies, written by a transphobe, reusing a warmed over anti-gay argument that gayness is infectious and that exposure to queer people will encourage our vulnerable children to become queer themselves.

[JackDaw]

She's a transphobe. She wrote a transphobic book. Activists pressured Amazon not to carry a transphobic book. Suggesting that amazon agreeing would be 'censorious' because it's 'like a monopoly' is absurd, when acquiring her book remains plainly easy for anyone. It's

But surely the activists want Amazon to stop distributing/ selling the book because achieving that would make the book significantly harder to obtain?

i.e. The activists want Amazon to act as censors (the definition can include stopping distribution as well as editing material, and does not need to be total.) There is no need for Amazon to be a monopoly for them to be censorial. (And..of course…it is not necessarily a bad thing. Some material should be censored.)

[Tendrin]

But surely the activists want Amazon to stop distributing/ selling the book because achieving that would make the book significantly harder to obtain?

i.e. The activists want Amazon to act as censors (the definition can include stopping distribution as well as editing material, and does not need to be total.) There I’d no need for Amazon to be a monopoly for them to be censorial. (And..of course…it is not necessarily a bad thing. Some material should be censored.)

This is very simple. Is it the government doing it? No? Then it's not censorship. Saying 'hey, you guys are carrying hateful material, couldjafuckinnot', isn't censorship. People choosing not to stock hateful material? Also isn't censorship.

And there are *plenty* of other booksellers out there who plainly stocked it, given it's *best selling nature*. The entire point of the activism is to bring attention, instead, to the fact that it's transphobic, hateful, inaccurate, misleading, and harmful.

Weird how people are all about the anti-gay baker not having to bake gay wedding cakes, but you ask a bookseller not to sell transphobic books, and it's all of a sudden 'censorship'.