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

[Gray Lensman]

Speaking of Musk and Twitter, what are the odds that the dumbass will shut up after getting roasted like he did with his arrogant "advice" to end the war?

Betcha the chances are much higher that the so called "free speech absolutist" will block or ban such criticism. Rights for my class and not for yours is a recurring theme in his group.

[Tendrin]

Musk's leaked texts already speak of hiring a 'Blake Masters type' to run 'enforcement' and 'letting the 'boss' back on'.

It doesn't look good for twitter to become anything but an utterly hostile right-wing cess pit akin to Truth or Gab. The reality is that right-wing leaning sites don't do well on their own. They don't want to talk to each other, they want to 'own the libs' and you have to have libs around to do that.

I mean, aside from the ones who just troll for folks to stochastically threaten to bomb a children's hospital, anyway.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Well we needed some comedy news. Facing the aspect he would look like a moron in court and lose a $1 billion dollar breakup fee with Twitter ; Elon Musk comically has to now buy a company he doesn't want. Because his ego wouldn't let him admit he over paid for it to get right win applause. Its more funny that Musk's fans are in shock as he is paying the original over paid price he offered.

This is more funny because its pretty 99% likely Musk would have had to pay that breakup fee and he just couldn't handle folks laughing at him.

So, instead of walking away after paying just ONE billion, Musk has to shell out FORTY-FOUR billion instead. Could someone treat me like a five year old and explain this lunacy to me, not to mention why Twitter was hellbent on selling to him?

[worstblogever]

Some of us actually like Twitter, ,it's much better than Facebook.

Low bar to clear, that.

[Adam Allen]

Some of the stuff came out after the primary.

Granted, voters did know that many of them had Trump's support.

People wouldn't necessarily do it intentionally, so it's not an example of Homo Econimicus rationally weighing the tradeoffs as much as much more complicated feelings. There's bias against the overweight, but plenty of people are fat because of poor lifestyle choices. Likewise, many people have psychosomatic disorders (and it's usually not based on a conscious decision).

It is also supported in some communities. I'm curious about the other ways to be hip and trendy, that will get largely young people affirmation.

This is an interesting question about what percentage we would expect to be some variation of LGBT.

These are slightly different categories, which has implications in terms of how it's expressed. This is especially the case of bisexuality, as some people will identify themselves that way without it affecting their life in any discernible way (IE- a woman married to a man may be bisexual, but she's not interested in cheating on her spouse with a man or a woman) while for others it's a big part of their lives.

When it comes to trans issues, there is a category difference between people who need medical interventions and people who don't, which leads to different policy considerations. This question seems to be asking about whether we think the people would be LGBT in all circumstances, although in some environments they wouldn't have the language for it (IE- someone who identifies as nonbinary in Canada in 2022 might use different terminology if asked to be honest about their perspective if they grew up in 1990s Lithuania or 5th century China, although they would still have a sense that something is amiss.)

It would be apparent that there isn't an evolutionary advantage to being gay, transgender, nonbinary or whatever. On the other hand, type one diabetes is fatal without medical intervention, but over one in 200 American adults is diagnosed with it.

Roughly ten percent of the population is lefthanded, which seems to have limited evolutionary advantage either way.

This is a good question about what percent of the population is LBGT. I'll be curious what the consensus is in twenty years.

Okay, one, you keep speaking of being LGBTQ+ as if it is approximately some kind of illness. Yes, gender dysphoria may require medical intervention, but I feel like the conversation about that totally ignores the entire existence of the field of mental health. It is not as if medical doctors are just transitioning kids left and right like giving out flu shots. You actually need to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and ... you know, maybe trust those licensed professionals who have devoted their lives to understanding the human mind?

Because through all of our entire LGBTQIA2S+ population ... the fields of psychology and mental health do not classify any of these orientations or identities as pathological. They are not diseases to be treated or cured. (Okay, again, gender dysphoria may call for medical intervention, but as Tendrin said, the dysphoria is treatable. That a person is not cisgendered is, nonetheless, not an illness.)

And two, I wouldn't be sure about the evolutionary advantage part. If you're thinking of evolutionary success as requiring nothing more than successful impregnation, then sure -- cishet gets the advantage, there. But the human animal did not become the dominant species on the planet just because we can mate really well. It's not even just the opposable thumbs. But our social capacity, which has allowed for collaboration over lifetimes, creating villages to nations to a world economy and communication network, rather than peaking at being a pack or a herd -- that's how we got so far, so arguably, our that is our greatest evolutionary advantage.

If our ability to interact and connect with such complexity is indeed key to our success as a species -- how do you know us non-cishet are not an essential aspect of that complexity?

Like, you are thinking it's a disadvantage if an individual is gay, because they're less likely to mate and produce physical offspring. But our society is obviously and by necessity more complex than the nuclear family, two-parents-and-kids system, which some folks seem to think of as the only "natural" human system. But I personally think it is possible that as systems grow larger and more complex ... well, the need for yet more cishet breeders perhaps does not continue just endlessly. Maybe variation happens because it allows the human system greater flexibility and adaptation? Which does sound like an evolutionary advantage, right?

[Tendrin]

Holy shit, did Mets actually bring up 'evolutionary advantage'? Jesus Christ.

[Adam Allen]

Holy shit, did Mets actually bring up 'evolutionary advantage'? Jesus Christ.

Yeah. I was kind of offended honestly, but did not want to possibly be vulnerable for that accusation of -- like, oversensitive minority/liberal/whatever.

But yeah, Mets -- I don't feel like I have an evolutionary disadvantage, honestly. If anything, I feel like I have a great social advantage in that I have always apparently seen gender interaction more clearly than cisgendered folks. It's part of what makes nonbinary folks seems so "weird" to some -- that we may choose to violate norms that seem hardwired to some ... and you know, maybe even for them, they are, but they're not hardwired that way for all of us. So -- yeah, in a sense, you could say that being able to have a more fluid and less rigid interaction with gender, as society and communication tend to benefit from fluidity -- why, you could almost consider being nonbinary as like a kind of superpower!

It's how you look at it, though. But for serious, please try to stop comparing being alphabet mafia to having an illness. One thing I don't envy the kids of today about -- I'm old enough to have a thick skin about that stuff. But kids don't need adults insinuating they are sick, just by nature of being who they are. I'm guessing this is why we have so many of these kids dealing with issues of depression and anxiety, self harm and the like. Way too much of the world acts like there must be something wrong with them -- that we are all what, part of some kind of mass social illness? -- based on really, nothing but ignorance and prejudice. I think it's quite harmful.

Meh, feel like I'm oversharing at this point, so I'll stop. My two cents, tho.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

So, instead of walking away after paying just ONE billion, Musk has to shell out FORTY-FOUR billion instead. Could someone treat me like a five year old and explain this lunacy to me, not to mention why Twitter was hellbent on selling to him?

Well Twitter wasn't in a hurry to sell to Musk. But as Musk was cheered on by the right wing folks , he soaked in this attention and decided to make an bid for the company. That was way more than what Twitter people could walk away from. His offer was 2x-3x more than what Twitter was worth. So its not all Musk's money either. He put some banks n group together for Twitter so he wouldn't shoulder it all.

I maybe wrong on ego being a driving factor in this deal by Musk. What could be a big reason is if Musk did get socked with the $1 billion walk away fee these folks he's gotten money from could down the road never do another deal with him. So he has to go forward with it for that too.

[Tendrin]

Well Twitter wasn't in a hurry to sell to Musk. But as Musk was cheered on by the right wing folks , he soaked in this attention and decided to make an bid for the company. That was way more than what Twitter people could walk away from. His offer was 2x-3x more than what Twitter was worth. So its not all Musk's money either. He put some banks n group together for Twitter so he wouldn't shoulder it all.

I maybe wrong on ego being a driving factor in this deal by Musk. What could be a big reason is if Musk did get socked with the $1 billion walk away fee these folks he's gotten money from could down the road never do another deal with him. So he has to go forward with it for that too.

He was getting massively clowned on due to discovery. This probably helped him reevaluate.

[worstblogever]

Holy shit, did Mets actually bring up 'evolutionary advantage'? Jesus Christ.

We're getting closer to promoting eugenics again as Republican ideology all the time.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

He was getting massively clowned on due to discovery. This probably helped him reevaluate.

Yeah and we knew by most accounts he was gonna look stupid here. Its likely ego that made him continue this too. But the people he's got lined up for this deal likely would never do another one with him if he didn't continue it. So he was stuck.

[AnakinFlair]

MSNBC is reporting that OPEC is cutting oil production after meeting with Russia. Get ready for higher gas prices.

[Dalak]

MSNBC is reporting that OPEC is cutting oil production after meeting with Russia. Get ready for higher gas prices.

Just in time to hand the GoP the "GAS PRICES ARE TOO HIGH!" complaint for the Midterms after everything that's been done to bring em down despite their intransigence.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, as well as 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Arizona’s 6th Congressional District, David Schweikert, a former real estate vulture capitalist arch-conservative who consistently votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, defund Planned Parenthood, fails to understand how the debt ceiling works, referred to the 2013 Government Shutdown as "my idea of fun", and was once recorded on video high-fiving Rep. Ben Quayle on the floor of the house after denying a pay increase to active duty soldiers fighting the War on Terror. If that isn't tacky enough, he also showed a lack of character when he then turned around after redistricting and ran against Quayle in the 2012 GOP Primary in Arizona's 6th District, instead of the 5th, because he preferred how gerrymandered it was compared to where he started. Schweikert managed to defeat Quayle in part by running campaign ads that insinuated he was bisexual, and as a result, the rest of the Congressional delegation from Arizona has turned their backs on him, and John Boehner removed him from all his committee assignments because, as one GOP staffer said of Schweikert, he's "one of the most egregious ***holes in the party". This is what his OWN party thinks of him. Democrats don't disagree, and certainly unions don't either, with Schweikert having compared the unions to Nazis, saying, "Goebbels would be proud of them."

Schweikert’s relationship with those constituents has soured, as he has repeatedly dodged town halls and seen constituents host ones with him in absentia, and his home office in his district has responded to those who brought cookies and hoped to set up meetings with him... by calling the police and trying to have them arrested. For sharing baked goods, apparently.

He was fund-raising in 2018 by claiming Democratic organizations in his district who want to flip his seat were "inciting violence" and "setting cars on fire". Big surprise, that was not based in reality, unless maybe you get your news from Alex Jones, in which case you aren't based in reality anyway. As stated, Schweikert's Arizona district is one of the more conservative in the state, and he won re-election in 2018 with only 55% of the vote over Anita Malik, after talking down to Malik and telling her that “87 is more than 84”, during their debate leading her to snap back, “Yes, I know 87 is larger than 84, so thank you for that condescension.”

In 2020, he hung on again, but with only 52% of the vote against Dr. Hiral Tipirneni. In spite of the fact that he was forced to admit to 11 ethics violations in his attempts to win office in the first place, most of which included a refusal to diagnose loans and campaign contributions along the way.

[Catlady in training]

Some of the stuff came out after the primary.

Granted, voters did know that many of them had Trump's support.

People wouldn't necessarily do it intentionally, so it's not an example of Homo Econimicus rationally weighing the tradeoffs as much as much more complicated feelings. There's bias against the overweight, but plenty of people are fat because of poor lifestyle choices. Likewise, many people have psychosomatic disorders (and it's usually not based on a conscious decision).

It is also supported in some communities. I'm curious about the other ways to be hip and trendy, that will get largely young people affirmation.

This is an interesting question about what percentage we would expect to be some variation of LGBT.

These are slightly different categories, which has implications in terms of how it's expressed. This is especially the case of bisexuality, as some people will identify themselves that way without it affecting their life in any discernible way (IE- a woman married to a man may be bisexual, but she's not interested in cheating on her spouse with a man or a woman) while for others it's a big part of their lives.

When it comes to trans issues, there is a category difference between people who need medical interventions and people who don't, which leads to different policy considerations. This question seems to be asking about whether we think the people would be LGBT in all circumstances, although in some environments they wouldn't have the language for it (IE- someone who identifies as nonbinary in Canada in 2022 might use different terminology if asked to be honest about their perspective if they grew up in 1990s Lithuania or 5th century China, although they would still have a sense that something is amiss.)

It would be apparent that there isn't an evolutionary advantage to being gay, transgender, nonbinary or whatever. On the other hand, type one diabetes is fatal without medical intervention, but over one in 200 American adults is diagnosed with it.

Roughly ten percent of the population is lefthanded, which seems to have limited evolutionary advantage either way.

This is a good question about what percent of the population is LBGT. I'll be curious what the consensus is in twenty years.

I'm curious why 20 years. Why does it matter to the discussion at the moment, what will the numbers in 20 years be?

Okay, one, you keep speaking of being LGBTQ+ as if it is approximately some kind of illness. Yes, gender dysphoria may require medical intervention, but I feel like the conversation about that totally ignores the entire existence of the field of mental health. It is not as if medical doctors are just transitioning kids left and right like giving out flu shots. You actually need to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and ... you know, maybe trust those licensed professionals who have devoted their lives to understanding the human mind?

Because through all of our entire LGBTQIA2S+ population ... the fields of psychology and mental health do not classify any of these orientations or identities as pathological. They are not diseases to be treated or cured. (Okay, again, gender dysphoria may call for medical intervention, but as Tendrin said, the dysphoria is treatable. That a person is not cisgendered is, nonetheless, not an illness.)

And two, I wouldn't be sure about the evolutionary advantage part. If you're thinking of evolutionary success as requiring nothing more than successful impregnation, then sure -- cishet gets the advantage, there. But the human animal did not become the dominant species on the planet just because we can mate really well. It's not even just the opposable thumbs. But our social capacity, which has allowed for collaboration over lifetimes, creating villages to nations to a world economy and communication network, rather than peaking at being a pack or a herd -- that's how we got so far, so arguably, our that is our greatest evolutionary advantage.

If our ability to interact and connect with such complexity is indeed key to our success as a species -- how do you know us non-cishet are not an essential aspect of that complexity?

Like, you are thinking it's a disadvantage if an individual is gay, because they're less likely to mate and produce physical offspring. But our society is obviously and by necessity more complex than the nuclear family, two-parents-and-kids system, which some folks seem to think of as the only "natural" human system. But I personally think it is possible that as systems grow larger and more complex ... well, the need for yet more cishet breeders perhaps does not continue just endlessly. Maybe variation happens because it allows the human system greater flexibility and adaptation? Which does sound like an evolutionary advantage, right?

I agree. I think, if I was looking at the situation from purely logical and evolutionary perspective, I think we could maybe assume that the nature is trying to slow down the rapid increase of population in the last century, by making more people gay or trans, therefore less likely (though not completely unable) to have biological children. The planet is getting overpopulated really fast.
To be clear, this is not my opinion, because I don't really believe in any greater power and see things as more random, just providing an alternative look at it.