Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

This is great thoughts on climate change, and it's nice to see climate change discussed on the thread.

 

 

At the cost of sounding hysteric, and to be blunt, far above heat related deaths are the loss of food, water, and the associated government crackdowns that will happen over it.

 

Food shortages and economic downturn are likely going to mean a marked rise in despotic leadership, military overtures, and more.  It simply isn't practical to maintain a democracy if the leadership is dealing with dire problems they cannot actually address.  The use of technology to remove or replace opposition will become very common, the urgency to replace people even more so.

 

And no.  There are no measures that are going to fix the current situation other than an alien species or apocalyptic event bailing us out.  There's no 'measured approach' that will fix this.  Yes, it will take decades to get there.  But people are already acting based on their fears of this now (even those that likely suggest in public that climate change does not exist).

 

You'll be happy to know I have family who joined a research commission to discuss solutions to difficult problems in the world.  The most common question they have received from a multitude of potential millionaire investors tersely amounts to "How difficult is it to build and maintain a bunker in Canada".

 

 

I will now lighten the mood with a dour artificially humorous statement engineered to prevent protest to my suggestions and ideas:   "I need some alcohol." >_>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I will now lighten the mood with a dour artificially humorous statement engineered to prevent protest to my suggestions and ideas:   "I need some alcohol." >_>

 

Climate change is expected to wreak havoc on barley crops and vineyards.  Hope you like vodka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2018 at 4:52 PM, Cygnia said:

 

If it's any comfort, that's just a get-out-the-vote ploy the administration is doing to the Religious Right. It isn't as if the administration is going to actually do anything, any more than Bush Jr. was serious about his October surprise policy initiatives to motivate the Religious Right to get out and vote.

 

The Republican establishment, and now Trump, treat the Religious Right as if they were Charlie Brown and a football.

 

If they actually checked off anything on the agenda of the Religious Right, they don't have a clue as to how they'd motivate those people to show up to vote in the next election. That blind spot in their thinking might sound odd to Democrats who generally try to fulfill the agendas of their various constituencies then depend on loyalty in the next election cycle, but the Republican establishment hasn't ever figured out that paradigm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump declared himself a "nationalist" this week.  Usually, in this country, the word "white" precedes the word "nationalist".  On the alt right, the word "globalist" is usually bracketed by parentheses, like so: (((globalist))), to indicate the unstated descriptor "Jewish".  Case in point: every protest march, including the caravan traveling from Central America, is assumed to be funded by George Soros, who just happens to be...Jewish.  There is a strain of Trump apologism which endeavors to be too cute by half, asserting that unless someone utters the magic N-word, on tape, they can't be racist, that the most egregious thing in modern society is not racism, which they assert is not a significant factor in American society, but rather to label someone as racist.  I think there are people who are moderate, centrist, even somewhat politically conservative, who have friends and family members about whom they are either aware, or suspect, are kinda racist.  But they don't want to address that openly, because it might put a real strain on their friendship or family ties.  So there's a resistance to stating openly what becomes increasingly clear.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Text of Title IX

 

I have to wonder what the real world impact is. Title IX does apply to all sexes. It doesn't mention gender identity explicitly. It was passed in 1972, a time I presume the distinction between sex and gender wasn't well understood, or at least not commonly understood. (The latter is still true, unfortunately.)

 

IANAL, but maybe one can chime in: If a trans woman is defined as male by way of genetics under this new ruling, could they be barred from participating in activities for women? How would that differ from the current situation? Do transgender people currently enjoy such protections (to participate in activities for their target sex*) under Title IX?

 

 

*By which I mean if someone has undergone steps to make their sex match their gender. There used to be a distinction of being a transgender person versus a transsexual person, who has undergone what used to be called SRS, or sex reassignment surgery. I've been recently informed by my ultra-liberal cousin-in-law that "transsexual" is now not just a dated term, but an offensive one, so didn't want to use the term. (GLAAD's FAQ on word usage for the media still lists it as acceptable but dated, btw.) So, sorry for the awkward phrasing.

 

And by "activities," I mean things like sports teams, or club activities, sororities, dorm situations, etc., that are traditionally assigned to people based on sex.

 

Edit: Corrected bad grammar. Thanks Doc.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

We're not at 1960s levels of domestic political violence and civil unrest.

 

 

 

Yet.  

No, but there seems to be (And I admit ti being an outsider looking in on this) an unprecedented level of insults and threats , much of it coming from Trump, that appeared to have stirred things up to an  unhealthy level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to a socio-political analyst today who offered an interesting perspective on this issue. He suggested that the election of Barack Obama in 2008, and the widespread proclamations by various parties that  this heralded the end of white dominance of American society, actually galvanized those Americans for whom that prospect was unsettling. Donald Trump was later able to tap into those insecurities to propel himself into power; but thereby exacerbated the hostilities even more. Unfortunately he also has a vested interest in maintaining them to motivate his supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

We're not at 1960s levels of domestic political violence and civil unrest.

 

 

 

Yet.  

 

Thank you, mega. We have to remember this sort of thing is not unprecedented, and has even been worse. The course is not yet irreversible, and unlikely to be permanent. Donald Trump would be an unexceptional example of a typical tin-pot demagogue, if he were at the head of some banana republic instead of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Thank you, mega. We have to remember this sort of thing is not unprecedented, and has even been worse. The course is not yet irreversible, and unlikely to be permanent. Donald Trump would be an unexceptional example of a typical tin-pot demagogue, if he were at the head of some banana republic instead of the United States.

The 60s had a half dozen assassinations, multiple riots, a LOT of bombings and other terroristic attacks.  And vast, sweeping social and cultural changes.  The other major era of intense social and political unrest, of course, was the 20 years before the Civil War and the 20 years after it.  

Civility is a two-way street, but it doesn't require a perfectly civil debate opponent in order to facilitate being civil oneself.  Sometimes civility rubs off, and when it doesn't, well, at least you know who is worth engaging with and who isn't.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we're not at 60s level of violence *yet*.  I still believe things are worse now.  Yes, the 60s had it boil through and out into the open.  Right now, it's staying in its boiler, getting hotter and hotter.  But worse, the boiler's sucking everyone in.  

 

There are some differences.  There is no Martin Luther King, advocating for radical change through peaceful means...because we drag anyone who tries that path through the cesspool.  Almost no one listens to any voice that isn't fundamentally an echo of their own....or, they are themselves another echo of yet another demagogue.  Politics was not at the level of afternoon talk radio in the 60s.

 

I might also add:  consider who got assassinated in the 60s...and what THAT says.  Also remember the root cause of much of the violence of the 60s was that state and local governments were actively and illegally practicing discrimination.  There are some parallels with things like Black Lives Matter, where it's viewed that some local governments are still doing so, through their police departments.  

 

One thing that's really scary about Trump the manipulator is that he is VERY good at recasting any issue into the form he wants.  And he keeps everyone off balance, chasing this and that around and always responding to the crisis of the moment...which means the real  issues are lost.  David Eddings has an exchange between Garion and Zakath in one of the Mallorea books.  Garion wonders at Zakath's unpredictability.  Zakath's response is along the lines of "always keep the cockroaches scurrying;  it keeps them off balance and prevents them from consolidating any meaningful power base."  That's how he handled his Court.  Yeah, well, that fits Trump perfectly, IMO.  

 

And gee, if we approach the violence of the 1860s???  With modern weapons?????  It's gonna be sooooo much worse......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

And gee, if we approach the violence of the 1860s???  With modern weapons?????  It's gonna be sooooo much worse...... 

 

The modern weapon that would decide that would be information and surveillance, which the government very nearly has a monopoly on. We won't see an event of that magnitude any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2018 at 11:28 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

The modern weapon that would decide that would be information and surveillance, which the government very nearly has a monopoly on. We won't see an event of that magnitude any time soon.

 

No, likely not.  But a major upswing in terrorist activity?  In events that go from Angry to BLOODY in seconds?

 

One thing that's important to note is the fundamental changes in attitudes since the 60s.  Demonization and dehumanization of one's enemies is the rule.  I submit that this makes lethal attacks...be it gun attacks, a la Vegas or Pulse or Parkland, or the ongoing mail bombs.  They probably don't have a lot in common, but I'm suggesting that the incident rate explosion is itself a point to consider.  Can't blame any one thing for this...altho I would give greater weight to Trump's tactics, simply because as the President, his embrace of attack speech and demonizing carries much greater than normal cachet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 10:22 PM, megaplayboy said:

Trump declared himself a "nationalist" this week.  Usually, in this country, the word "white" precedes the word "nationalist".  On the alt right, the word "globalist" is usually bracketed by parentheses, like so: (((globalist))), to indicate the unstated descriptor "Jewish".  Case in point: every protest march, including the caravan traveling from Central America, is assumed to be funded by George Soros, who just happens to be...Jewish.  There is a strain of Trump apologism which endeavors to be too cute by half, asserting that unless someone utters the magic N-word, on tape, they can't be racist, that the most egregious thing in modern society is not racism, which they assert is not a significant factor in American society, but rather to label someone as racist.  I think there are people who are moderate, centrist, even somewhat politically conservative, who have friends and family members about whom they are either aware, or suspect, are kinda racist.  But they don't want to address that openly, because it might put a real strain on their friendship or family ties.  So there's a resistance to stating openly what becomes increasingly clear.  

 

Well, the one thing I have found in common with the extreme right and extreme left is their shared hatred of all things Jewish.  (in the left's case over banking mainly as near as I can tell):(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that too.  Though, I firmly believe they tend to look at the Palestinian side under rose tints*.  But, that conflict is too much of a headache to unravel in one night (or decade)

 

*and before anyone starts, I am aware about my pro-Israeli bias. And I never say the Palestinians don't have some points (at least on the settlements)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bitterness, mistrust and resentment between both sides in that conflict have become so deeply entrenched over generations, it no longer matters who started it or who did what to whom. Both sides have a long and complex history of grievances, and neither can set that history aside enough to reach a genuine accommodation.

 

And Donald Trump thinks he can fix it. Through his obvious mastery of diplomacy. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2018 at 6:21 PM, archer said:

 

If it's any comfort, that's just a get-out-the-vote ploy the administration is doing to the Religious Right. It isn't as if the administration is going to actually do anything, any more than Bush Jr. was serious about his October surprise policy initiatives to motivate the Religious Right to get out and vote.

 

The Republican establishment, and now Trump, treat the Religious Right as if they were Charlie Brown and a football.

 

If they actually checked off anything on the agenda of the Religious Right, they don't have a clue as to how they'd motivate those people to show up to vote in the next election. That blind spot in their thinking might sound odd to Democrats who generally try to fulfill the agendas of their various constituencies then depend on loyalty in the next election cycle, but the Republican establishment hasn't ever figured out that paradigm.

 

 

I've bowed out of the political threads in general to avoid exploding in rage, but I checked in to see if this had come up here, since it's super relevant to me.

 

This is a "get out the vote" ploy, but it isn't just a "get out the vote" ploy. If you don't think that this administration will follow through on this, I believe that you are sadly mistaken. The DOJ has also filed a brief statement dating that employers should be able to discriminate based on gender identity[4]. The only reason trans folk haven't been kicked out of the military en masse is because the order is held up in court. Whether this administration hates us, or is just using us as a scapegoat, it doesn't matter. They want us gone.

 

On 10/23/2018 at 9:24 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

Text of Title IX

 

I have to wonder what the real world impact is. Title IX does apply to all sexes. It doesn't mention gender identity explicitly. It was passed in 1972, a time I presume the distinction between sex and gender wasn't well understood, or at least not commonly understood. (The latter is still true, unfortunately.)

 

IANAL, but maybe one can chime in: If a trans woman is defined as male by way of genetics under this new ruling, could they be barred from participating in activities for women? How would that differ from the current situation? Do transgendered people currently enjoy such protections (to participate in activities for their target sex*) under Title IX?

 

*By which I mean if someone has undergone steps to make their sex match their gender. There used to be a distinction of being a transgendered person versus a transsexual person, who has undergone what used to be called SRS, or sex reassignment surgery. I've been recently informed by my ultra-liberal cousin-in-law that "transsexual" is now not just a dated term, but an offensive one, so didn't want to use the term. (GLAAD's FAQ on word useage for the media still lists it as acceptable but dated, btw.) So, sorry for the awkward phrasing.

 

And by "activities," I mean things like sports teams, or club activities, sororities, dorm situations, etc., that are traditionally assigned to people based on sex.

 

 

First, a note, transgender is an adjective, not a verb, so it's "transgender person, not "transgendered person." Not a huge deal, but I wanted to point it out. [1]

 

Now the main question, real world effects:

 

Immediate legal effects are minimal. The administration can interpret Title IX however they want, but they can't change the actual law. For good or ill, it's up to the courts to interpret the law, and congress to change the law if they don't care for the interpretation.

 

That said, the administration (as noted above) can weigh in on any lawsuits brought under Title IX, and they can sway the courts. and given the new composition of the Supreme Court, I don't hold out a lot of hope for any sane decision on this topic there. There's worse the administration can do, but I'll come back to that.

 

The government is also messing with us on passports. There was a clear cut process for changing the gender marker on one's passport, and the admin says that the process hasn't changed, but we are fining our requests rejected for spurious reasons. I ended up with only a "provisional" passport, even though every piece of my documentation was exactly as requested. Initially they declined to give me even that and I had to push.


You ask if trans folk can participate in activities as individuals of their actual gender[2][3], as opposed to the gender they were assigned at birth. The answer there is a resounding "maybe." It's works differently in different places in the country. In some places, we're completely acknowledged as our actual gender. In others, they'll leave a trans girl to die in the hallways during an active shooter drill because they think a trans girl in the girls bathroom is scarier than a psycho with a gun. Various cases are winding through the courts to establish which of our rights the government will actually acknowledge. Over all, the trend has been going toward fully acknowledging our gender.

 

And that leads us to the worse thing the DOJ can do. Armed with this (mis)interpretation of Title IX, I expect them to start filing suits against the places that do treat us as our true gender, claiming that it is sex discrimination to allow "men" in woman only spaces. They wouldn't even have to initiate the suit. They could just join one of several in progress around the country.

 

Combined, these are a clear sign that our identities are under attack. If they invalidate my gender for federal purposes, will any of my ID even be valid? Since Real ID exists, probably not. Which makes it impossible for me to get a job. Or vote. Sure, I'd have a couple of choices. I could get a new ID with an "M" on it. I'm lucky enough to mostly pass. That would have me outing myself in every situation that I needed to present an ID. Or, I could go completely back in the closet. Walk around pretending to be a guy. 

 

Beyond all of the legal ramifications, though, there's another, more immediate effect. By further marginalizing and demonizing us, the administration is signaling to the people out there who already hate us that we do not enjoy the protection of the state. That we are fair game. It is virtually inevitable that this will ratchet up the rhetoric and even violence against us. And if they get there way, there will be bathroom bills across the country, requiring me to use the men's room. So I'd have to either not exist in public, risk my life using the wrong restroom, or break the law on a regular basis and end up in men's jail. How well do you think I'd fare there?.

 

In conclusion, this administration wants people like me gone. I get the impression they'd prefer us dead, but they'll settle for back in the closet.

 

Well, I'm not going back in the closet.

 

[1] Also, some people probably do find "transsexual" offensive, so it would be rude to use it them. I think most of us just find it archaic and annoying. A few of us (but not me) even still use it to describe ourselves. Language. Go figure.

[2] My paraphrase.(I don't want to put words in your mouth).

[3] I'm not going to go into it here, but the sex vs. gender distinction is not as clear as many would like. The science is pretty clear that the idea of two distinct sexes is convenient shorthand, but woefully over-simplified.

[4] This is actually a threat to way more than just us trans and other LGBTQfolks, but that's another discussion.[5]

[5] yes, that footnote was out of order. Sorry.[6]

[6] Not sorry.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This administration is nothing but hate and bigotry all the way down. The only reason it hasn't been more awful is that everything has to go through a court, and some of the judges look at this and go, No. Quit being stupid.

 

HB2 here in NC was obviously a power grab on the back of trans hate. Cooper negotiated a reduced version of the bill, and then it was gutted by the court.

 

CES 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Dad taught me two things about politics:

 

1) No matter what they're telling you, they're not telling you the whole story.

2) No matter what they're talking about, they're talking about money and power.

 

So as much as the current administration stinks of hatred, it's not hatred for hatred's sake. It's a deliberate attempt to play on the old, white, male Establishment's fear that they're going to lose their position of power to a younger, more racially and more sexually diverse political body. 

 

In the 2016 election, the Democratic party tried to build a coalition of all the minority groups they could get on board. Blue collar workers? They've pretty much always voted Democratic (and so have their Union leaders). Latinos and African-Americans? Obviously.  LGBTQ? "You can't vote for Republicans, they're all religious fanatics and hate and fear you." Women? "Any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary is a traitor to her sex." And so on. In not so many words, the Democratic party made the 2016 election an issue of breaking the upper-class white male political hegemony. If you were an upper-class (or middle-class) straight white Christian male, they didn't have any use for you. They literally catered to everyone else. (Or it seemed based on the rhetoric and advertising at the time.)

 

The Republicans, seeing where this was going, went all-in on reinforcing the status quo--perhaps never so simply stated as "Make America Great Again". They cast the progress of the previous three or four decades as a problem that only they could fix. They played on the xenophobia, economic uncertainty, superstition, and general inertia of what is still the largest single voting block in the US. 

 

We know how it turned out, of course.

 

The hate is not the agenda. The hate is a tool to promote the real agenda: To prevent the loss of political power by those who have held it for pretty much the entire history of our country.

 

They're worried about becoming a minority . . . which, I suppose, is a tacit admission that minorities are sometimes treated very badly in this country.

 

 

Of course, I'm not a political scientist--I'm an actual scientist--so this may be completely off. But that's how it looks from where I stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...