Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[csyphrett]

10 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm pretty sure this would convince nobody. Most conservatives (more talking heads, less so rank and file citizens) I've seen expressing an opinion agree that these intersex conditions occur, and express varying levels of sympathy toward these cases. What they don't like are people born with normal genitalia who say that they're of the opposite gender than goes with their genitalia. They get further confused with the vast spectrum of circumstances that are now being taken in under the transgender umbrella by trans-rights activism.

 

IMO, a better way to use the atypical genitalia argument is this: There have been many cases where a person was born with ambiguous genitalia, and a doctor made the call to assign a sex to the infant based on what the surgeon felt they could best "correct" the genitalia to, regardless of chromosome. This caused a problem later in life as these children often didn't feel  "right" in their bodies. A genetic male assigned female at birth, and raised as a female, for example, would eventually figure out something was up, and be caused great emotional trauma as a result. News pieces and news magazine shows were devoted to this topic as far back as, say, the 80s, and the debate continues to this day. (I remember them coming up at least in the early 80s time frame on shows like 60 Minutes.) So, get the person to agree that this is a messed up situation. Shouldn't be too hard. Hopefully, they will sympathize with stories of a boy being surgically altered and raised as a girl (or vice versa) and this causing problems.

 

Then say that this must mean we have an innate sense of our gender. Once agreement is reached, flip the script. Talk about a boy who's born and raised as a boy but has a strong innate feeling that he's a girl. This causes great emotional distress. What's the solution? Well, you can't fix the thing that tells a person what their sex is, since nobody knows what it is. So, you take steps to make them comfortable in their body, and to treat them as the gender that's appropriate. That might include purely social things, or hormone replacement therapy or various surgeries up to gender confirmation surgery.

 

Probably also wouldn't work, but you never know.

 

Good luck on convincing them that any of the other categories of people that fall under the trans umbrella are acceptable, though. Baby steps, I guess.

 

 

 

*As far as I know. I label this thing as "gender" based on some older thinking of one's gender being in your head and your sex being in your chromosomes. When those two don't align, it causes issues. Still seems to hold up, such as in the case of intersex/atypical genitalia children above, though it's a pretty simple model that doesn't address many other areas of gender identity.

You seem way too smart to have ever been an MP.

CES

[csyphrett]

About the Tesla thing, two things from recent memory stick out in regards to accidents and such. Musk ordered the radar taken out to make a cheaper car. That contributes to the car not being able to tell if you are driving into a lake, or a wall, another car, whatever might be on the road.

 

Autodriving Teslas have been shown to slow down traffic because they can't read signals from other drivers.

 

I know I want a car like the ones in Minority Report, Star Trek, and so forth, but I don't think Musk is the right guy to spearhead such an action when the computerized map (which is one of the things used for the car) at the job will take a delivery two streets away and show that it is five counties away, or tell the driver to cut through someone's house.

CES  

[Iuz the Evil]

The Clifton article is very interesting. 

There’s also the dimension of the role of the State/government in these discussions. It is entirely possible to get someone to agree “that’s a tough situation for that kid” while not moving them at all on factors like the role of public education, the rights of the child’s parents to be informed and actively involved in decision making on behalf of their minor dependent, public funding of media campaigns, child welfare laws and so forth. Reasonable minds may differ on proposed solutions to problems that arise, or find identified interventions too intrusive or antithetical to other beliefs. There are a host of arguments that tend to split reasoning or hinge on one factor or another, like the impact to individuals versus society (see also: pandemic response).

I can empathize with the concern about exercise of governmental power, it’s rooted in the same frustration I feel when Desantis uses the State to ban textbooks, or specific LGBTQ+ public events. The conservative spectrum tends to object to mandated curriculum that is counter to their belief traditions and express concerns about weaponizing powerful governmental institutions (like the department of education or child welfare). Government has a lot of power, and it’s unpleasant when it’s used in ways you don’t agree with.

 

 And also concurrently, the folks in question will logically be wanting to persuade you of their viewpoint also, which they self evidently would consider more valid than the counter argument being presented (since they’ve already adopted it and theoretically believe they’ve considered the arguments, within the framework of their own belief system). 

 

 In any case, it’s interesting to consider. Neither of the most prevalent political perspectives appears likely to voluntarily depart, and the conflicts are worth considering. The pro-Trump people are no more likely to secede than we were in California during his Presidency, and I’d prefer it if we found ways to manage despite disagreement.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

When one side essentially wants to wipe out marginalized people in the country either figuratively or literally....I'm done "finding ways to manage despite disagreements".

[Lord Liaden]

19 hours ago, DShomshak said:

ADDENDUM: It's important to note that Clifton emphasizes that this emphasis or de-emphasis on ranked categories is itself a *tendency,* not itself an ironclad boundary or category! Even the most conservative person might see some boundaries as unimportant; even the most liberal can see some distinctions as vital and uncrossable. So, perhaps there's some hope in persuading at least some people to abandon Trumpian tribalism and status-paranoia by seeing different boundary lines and categories as the ones that matter.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

That does sound like at least faint cause for optimism. Speaking for myself, I still don't know how to reach someone past a philosophy nurtured on hatred and fear.

[DShomshak]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I'm not necessarily against the idea;  the issue is that the 'experts' think their code is better than it is.  That's not a Musk problem per se, it's pretty much endemic among any class of 'experts.'  "We've tested everything we can think of, this code is good!"  Fine...but what did you NOT think of?

To paraphrased a maxim from the book Murphy's Law: Or, Why Things Go Wrong: "An expert is a person who avoids the small mistakes while sweeping on to the grand fallacy."

 

Dean Shomshak

Edited June 12, 2023 by DShomshak

[Iuz the Evil]

2 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

When one side essentially wants to wipe out marginalized people in the country either figuratively or literally....I'm done "finding ways to manage despite disagreements".

Fair enough. It appears to me that side feels similarly about the actions of their opposition, so we can just keep on the same way we have the past decade or two then. 

[unclevlad]

1 minute ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Fair enough. It appears to me that side feels similarly about the actions of their opposition, so we can just keep on the same way we have the past decade or two then. 

 

Probably true.  But that side has never wavered in their opposition.  As Dean pointed it, it's rooted in some very core notions.  They haven't changed...retreated, regrouped, accepted temporary setbacks, ok, but they have not changed.  This isn't dating back just a couple decades;  it's been ongoing for a very long time.  

 

The difference today is the demagogues have learned to play on fear better.  They started sowing that seed broadly in the 80s;  the Moral Majority was founded in 1979.  What we're seeing is the result of multiple decades of divisive, hate-based rhetoric.  They also know how to play the long game better...in several ways.  Concentrate and isolate the liberals...in Texas, it's in the cities.  Nationally, it's NY and Cali and some others.  How much of this was planned, and how much was simply recognized and used...good question.  Disrupt when the Democrats have power;  exploit when the Republicans do.  That's how we have the Supreme Court we have now, and IIRC, a heavy concentration of Republican-appointed federal judges, particularly Trump appointees.

 

The hard-core Republicans have absolutely no reason to compromise.  They're WINNING, hands down.

[death tribble]

Silvio Berlusconi the former Italian Prime Minister dies at 86. Posting this here as his life was very contentious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65877241

[Cygnia]

3 hours ago, death tribble said:

Silvio Berlusconi the former Italian Prime Minister dies at 86. Posting this here as his life was very contentious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65877241

Admittedly, I was half-expecting him to go out like Nelson Rockefeller...

[Dr.Device]

8 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Fair enough. It appears to me that side feels similarly about the actions of their opposition, so we can just keep on the same way we have the past decade or two then. 

 

To the extent that the conservative side actually believes that they are under any sort of threat comparable to what LGBTQIA+ and other marginalized individuals are under, they are deeply delusional.  No one significant on the left wants to wipe out conservatives, or christians, or white people. Republican leaders are taking active steps to wipe me and mine out.

 

There is no equivalence.

[death tribble]

Boris Johnson's resignation honours list stirs up controversy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65861936

[Asperion]

Makers of auto driven cars have been going at this entirely the wrong way.  The best way to convince the populace would have been to first put it into fleet vehicles going long distance (such as cross country) then move to emergency vehicles (free up those paramedics to do their job) and gradually slide into more common vehicles as they gain data from everyone above. Doing this will require a minimum of ten years (preferably more) but people listen to hard data and that will give it to them. Telling people "You will get this, no choice " only leads to people fighting against it and looking for anything that will support the position that destroys something that might be a positive. 

[Cygnia]

Analysis of 3.5 million comments uncovers disturbing insights into the incel community

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, death tribble said:

Silvio Berlusconi the former Italian Prime Minister dies at 86. Posting this here as his life was very contentious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65877241

 

I'm still not convinced he won't find a way to be Prime Minister again.

[Pattern Ghost]

3 hours ago, Dr.Device said:

 No one significant on the left wants to wipe out conservatives, or christians, or white people.

 

I think this depends on your definition of significant. If you mean politicians with significant policy-making power, then I agree. However, if you extend this to people who have the ability to influence large numbers of people, then those exist. There are certainly influential people in the activist and academic circles who are preaching their own brand of hate.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Pattern Ghost

[Dr.Device]

6 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I think this depends on your definition of significant. If you mean politicians with significant policy-making power, then I agree. However, if you extend this to people who have the ability to influence large numbers of people, then those exist. There are certainly influential people in the activist and academic circles who are preaching their own brand of hate.

 

Do you have any actual examples of anyone influential on the left calling for the eradication of any of the groups I mentioned (white people, conservatives, christians)? Examples of anyone influential on the left demonizing those groups in the way prominent conservative politicians and pundits demonize LGBTQIA+ people and other marginalized populations?  Specifically, any examples that are spreading hate based on those qualities (whiteness, conservatism, christianity) and not on actual behaviors? 

 

Because if you're going to count hatred based on actual behaviors, then sure. I hate Trump. I hated Pat Robertson and will let you imagine my feelings about his death. I hate Greg Abbot and Ken Paxton. None of them for who they are, but for what they have done. What they are doing. That is in no way equivalent to them hating me for who I am.

 

Please give me some examples that are within two orders of magnitude of DeSantis and his stooges making it effectively illegal for me to exist in the state of Florida. Give me some examples within even two orders of magnitude of an influential conservative voice speaking at CPAC and calling for the eradication of trans people. How about something anywhere remotely in the ballpark of a pastor with a congregation numbering the thousands calling for the parents of trans kids to be shot in the head?

 

The two sides are not in anyway close, and to keep saying they are is minimizing the threat to me and mine, and is deeply insulting.

[unclevlad]

Even if there are those on the left who espouse hate to the degree those on the right do...they're a comparative thimbleful, compared to those on the right, who are a bucketful, AND who have far more actual power and visibility to enact change...not merely call for it.

 

The left has their inflammatory demagogues, that's true.  No argument there.  But they largely argue FOR things for which they feel passionate, FOR the groups they assert they represent.  

 

 

[Iuz the Evil]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB957
 

Custody determination based on parental affirmation of child gender identity. That’s moving through congress in California right now, and is essentially equivalent to the Florida law regarding removal of parental rights for LGBTQ individuals. It is expected to pass by the legislative analysts I work with… that can change, but I think right now it’s likely to move forward.
 

This isn’t “respect people”, this is “you can lose custody of your children through a court process”. I imagine that devout Catholics and followers of Islam may have some strong objections to this, and it’ll undoubtedly be subject to court challenge. It is however a reasonable example of the sorts of behavior I have come to expect from the right, but different this time. There are others easier to find on a variety of issues. This is not a “may consider” it is a “shall consider”, that’s a very different thing.

 

 There’s quite a bit of this sort of activity out here, probably harder to see when you aren’t in California. In any event this board remains an interesting place and I’m not looking to offend, although I’m sure that can happen anyway. I consider the right to have much more odious behavior, and the left is not in any way hesitant about using their own flavors of the power of government coercion to enforce social policy. Both can be true.

 

 In any case, I offer this example only because it was asked for. I’m more interested in reading the comments than participating so I’ll now bow out.

[Old Man]

19 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB957
 

Custody determination based on parental affirmation of child gender identity. That’s moving through congress in California right now, and is essentially equivalent to the Florida law regarding removal of parental rights for LGBTQ individuals. It is expected to pass by the legislative analysts I work with… that can change, but I think right now it’s likely to move forward.
 

This isn’t “respect people”, this is “you can lose custody of your children through a court process”.

 

IANAL but that isn't what the bill says at all.  And the harm caused to trans children who are denied their gender identity by their parents (even without being subjected to conversion therapy or other direct abuse) is real and well documented.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Old Man

[Dr.Device]

22 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB957
 

Custody determination based on parental affirmation of child gender identity. That’s moving through congress in California right now, and is essentially equivalent to the Florida law regarding removal of parental rights for LGBTQ individuals. It is expected to pass by the legislative analysts I work with… that can change, but I think right now it’s likely to move forward.
 

This isn’t “respect people”, this is “you can lose custody of your children through a court process”. I imagine that devout Catholics and followers of Islam may have some strong objections to this, and it’ll undoubtedly be subject to court challenge. It is however a reasonable example of the sorts of behavior I have come to expect from the right, but different this time. There are others easier to find on a variety of issues. This is not a “may consider” it is a “shall consider”, that’s a very different thing.

 

 There’s quite a bit of this sort of activity out here, probably harder to see when you aren’t in California. In any event this board remains an interesting place and I’m not looking to offend, although I’m sure that can happen anyway. I consider the right to have much more odious behavior, and the left is not in any way hesitant about using their own flavors of the power of government coercion to enforce social policy. Both can be true.

 

 In any case, I offer this example only because it was asked for. I’m more interested in reading the comments than participating so I’ll now bow out.

 

That's a swing and a miss.

 

First, that isn't an example of anyone being attacked for their identity. No one is being attacked by that law. No one's life is being put in danger. No one is being vilified by that law. To the extent that anyone is being judged, it is for their actions. [edited to add: Also, what Old Man said above]

 

Second, even if one were to accept the counterfactua] that affirming the gender identity of a child is anything but a good thing, requiring it to be one factor in determining custody of a child, when that custody is in dispute, is vastly less than what is being done in the other direction. In Florida, if I visited with my child, they could just take my child away if they believe, that I might provide my child with gender affirming care (and me being trans could be considered enough evidence that I would).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Dr.Device

[Iuz the Evil]

I respect that you have strong feelings on the subject, and will leave it at that.

[Pattern Ghost]

5 hours ago, Dr.Device said:

 

Do you have any actual examples of anyone influential on the left calling for the eradication of any of the groups I mentioned (white people, conservatives, christians)?

 

Judging by how upset you seem in your post, I don't think this would be a productive way to proceed, so I'm not going to provide any. It's not so hard to find, if you look.

 

Here's the thing: I'm not on the side of the people you're so clearly -- and rightfully -- offended by and upset by. I'm not going to do anything further to present what may be seen as that side of any equivalency argument. You might notice that I never said that there was equivalency, or made such an argument. What I said was that it exists. I will also say that it isn't productive, healthy or something that should be tolerated.

 

The fact is that elements on BOTH sides have become quite a bit too heated lately and that's not good. It leads to boiling points for violence. It doesn't need to be a large number or the majority of a group that's extreme to create very bad outcomes.

 

Look at it this way: In the old days, every village had its idiot. Now the Internet has made it not only possible for these idiots to form their own villages, but also to mobilize. We live in an age of instantaneous communication (and miscommunication) and convenient fast travel. Not a great recipe considering how easy it is to radicalize any given number of people.

 

5 hours ago, Dr.Device said:

 

Please give me some examples that are within two orders of magnitude of DeSantis and his stooges making it effectively illegal for me to exist in the state of Florida.

 

I already agreed with you on this point in the post you were responding to. But see above. It only takes a small number of influential people putting out hate-fueled rhetoric to cause issues. Those issues then tend to snowball, causing an impact on both sides, and pretty soon we get to see the effect.  

 

It does nobody any good to say "our side isn't as bad," or "they deserve it," or whatever excuses are made for hateful behavior, regardless of the righteousness of the cause. It does nobody any good to give their "side" a blanket pass on bad behavior.

 

So, while I agree with you in principal, vote in favor equality for all people, and generally respect you as a person (or as a presence on this forum, at least), I'm just saying that we shouldn't overlook what might seem like lesser evils being committed by people adjacent to our causes. 

 

If, after this, you would still like me to find examples of the people I'm talking about, I will. But we'll take it to PMs, as I have no desire to pollute the thread with it.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Pattern Ghost

[Cygnia]

 

[Dr.Device]

@Pattern Ghost

{I'm not going to quote because the nested quotes are getting out of hand, and it's not really necessary]

 

First, I want to say that I do appreciate that you acknowledge the threats that folks like me are facing. I do have a lot of anger, but what you're seeing here is more frustration (not that there's a bright line between the two).

 

My problem with "The fact is that elements on BOTH sides have become quite a bit too heated lately" is twofold.

 

First,  tone policing always favors those in power. I and other have been repeatedly accused of raising the heat (in general, I'm not talking about here) by pointing out that there is a thriving campaign on the right to eliminate us, which is a simple statement of fact, backed up with evidence. It's not, what's raising the heat is the fact that they're trying to eliminate us.

 

Second, most of the time I see any "both side" argument these days, it's being used by someone as an excuse to keep voting for republicans, or dismiss the concerns being expressed by LGBTQIA+ folks. I appreciate that that is not what you're doing, but I'd ask you to keep in mind that for many people, the moment they hear "both sides" they stop listening.

 

And then there's the more emotional aspect.

Analogies suck, but I'm going to make one anyway. Let's say that we have two people, Alice and Jane. Alice's sister has a bad cold. Jane has lung cancer. Every time Jane brings up something about her cancer, like how she's having trouble getting her insurance to cover a new treatment, or that chemo has been killing her appetite, Alice brings up how miserable her sister's cold is making her. She never says that the cold is as bad as Jane's cancer, but she always takes that opportunity to talk about it. I'd think Jane could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps Alice is minimizing the cancer by regularly bringing up the cold.

 

That's what I'm dealing with. Almost anywhere outside explicitly queer spaces that I bring up the attacks on trans people, someone will chime in talking about how some people on the left are mean, too. It's immensely frustrating, and does come across as minimizing what is being done to us.