Dr.Device

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?"  This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.
 
This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.
 
If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.
 
If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:
 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
 
 
Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?
 
If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

I really can't disagree more with this. The "values" discussion about some abstract notions that represent America is pointless. There are specific social outcomes that represent fundamental beliefs about the nature of humanity and the role of society vs. the individual that are at stake, and political policy outcomes are where the rubber hits the road on beliefs and values. What are you actually trying to get done? How are you actually trying to move social activities? How do you have a statistically significant affect on the social order that makes up your community, county, state, country... the world?
 
I've read your post several times, and while I get the sense of what you are against, I'm not sure at all what you are for? Some philosophical purity of concept? The parties may be pursuing their short term goals, but those pursuits affect the everyday lives of people across the world, and if supporting one over the other has significant ability to get closer to outcomes you desire, and oppose outcomes you loathe, then that is what you work towards. 
.
I'm not even sure what it means " to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American." What does that look like? How do you play that? What do you do, and how is it different than trying to get policy enacted? 
As far as I've ever experienced, the only people who espouse some kind of platonic ideal of pure "values" (whatever that is) are people who have traditionally been privileged enough to be at the top of the social order, where their "values" are just assumed to be correct and universal, thus morally superior to anyone who chooses to value anything else. 

I appreciate you making a thoughtful reply.
 
I still disagree with your premise.You speak of the Democrats running as not-Trump, but the democrats have a solid platform. They talk about that platform. And the media ignores it in favor of the spectacle of Trump. I'm sure there are some Democrats running as simply not-Trump, but what's your basis for asserting this categorically? 
 
Here is Texas, Beto O'Rourke is running against Ted Cruz for US Senator. He is visiting every county in Texas, and talking about issues in every one. Does he talk about how he opposes many of the policies of this administration? Of course he does. But he talks about what he would do differently. Is there something he should be doing differently?
 
How would you have the Democrats modify their behavior? What specifically are they doing that you object to? That you see the same as what the Republicans are doing? 
 
The rhetoric from the two sides does not even approach symmetrical.  If you disagree, please give examples of how you think they're both the same, rather than simply asserting that they are.

The right continually produces bizarre and vile conspiracy theories against the left. It may be the cranks who start them, but they get promoted by voices high in the Republican party. Show me the equivalent of pizzagate from the left.
 
And now I feel like you're going to say I'm once again saying "my guys[1] good, their guys bad" but I have no idea what you are proposing instead. You say they're the same. I see few similarities. 
 
If it's not the rhetoric, and it's not the policies, what is it that's the same between the parties? I conceded that they are both too beholden to corporate interests, but I don't feel like that's what you're talking about.
 
And frankly, some of us don't have the luxury of rising above mere policy disputes. Our lives are literally on the line.
 
This administration is striving to make it legal for anyone, including medical personnel, to refuse me service because of who I am. They believe that, no matter the oath a doctor took, it's okay for that doctor to let me bleed out, because he has "religious" objections to my existence.  They are trying to change rules so that I can be denied insurance coverage because of who I am. The Republicans are fighting attempts to remove "gay panic" as a defense for murder. It's not about them being "mean," it's about them taking concrete steps that are going to kill people like me, and, in the case of global warming, potentially everyone on the planet.
 
So please, tell me what the Democrats could do differently that would show that they aren't just laying the same finite game that you say both sides are playing.
 
[1] The democrats aren't my guys. They're a center-right party that is simply less objectionable than the other choice.
 
 
 

Thank you.

I appreciate you making a thoughtful reply.
 
I still disagree with your premise.You speak of the Democrats running as not-Trump, but the democrats have a solid platform. They talk about that platform. And the media ignores it in favor of the spectacle of Trump. I'm sure there are some Democrats running as simply not-Trump, but what's your basis for asserting this categorically? 
 
Here is Texas, Beto O'Rourke is running against Ted Cruz for US Senator. He is visiting every county in Texas, and talking about issues in every one. Does he talk about how he opposes many of the policies of this administration? Of course he does. But he talks about what he would do differently. Is there something he should be doing differently?
 
How would you have the Democrats modify their behavior? What specifically are they doing that you object to? That you see the same as what the Republicans are doing? 
 
The rhetoric from the two sides does not even approach symmetrical.  If you disagree, please give examples of how you think they're both the same, rather than simply asserting that they are.

The right continually produces bizarre and vile conspiracy theories against the left. It may be the cranks who start them, but they get promoted by voices high in the Republican party. Show me the equivalent of pizzagate from the left.
 
And now I feel like you're going to say I'm once again saying "my guys[1] good, their guys bad" but I have no idea what you are proposing instead. You say they're the same. I see few similarities. 
 
If it's not the rhetoric, and it's not the policies, what is it that's the same between the parties? I conceded that they are both too beholden to corporate interests, but I don't feel like that's what you're talking about.
 
And frankly, some of us don't have the luxury of rising above mere policy disputes. Our lives are literally on the line.
 
This administration is striving to make it legal for anyone, including medical personnel, to refuse me service because of who I am. They believe that, no matter the oath a doctor took, it's okay for that doctor to let me bleed out, because he has "religious" objections to my existence.  They are trying to change rules so that I can be denied insurance coverage because of who I am. The Republicans are fighting attempts to remove "gay panic" as a defense for murder. It's not about them being "mean," it's about them taking concrete steps that are going to kill people like me, and, in the case of global warming, potentially everyone on the planet.
 
So please, tell me what the Democrats could do differently that would show that they aren't just laying the same finite game that you say both sides are playing.
 
[1] The democrats aren't my guys. They're a center-right party that is simply less objectionable than the other choice.
 
 
 

You know, I completely agree with Vondy that thinking about the long term is very important, and that preventing fires is better than putting out fires, metaphorically speaking. The problem is that we are currently on fire. The Republicans are running actual Nazi candidates in some places, FFS.
 
I don't care much for the Democrats. They're too hawkish, too much in the pocket of big business, and too afraid to push for significant fixes. The republicans, on the other hand, are actively opposing everything Vondy says he's for. Anyone who values "maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American" needs to be opposing the Republicans wherever they can. Help us put this fire out, and then we can talk about fire prevention.

I appreciate you making a thoughtful reply.
 
I still disagree with your premise.You speak of the Democrats running as not-Trump, but the democrats have a solid platform. They talk about that platform. And the media ignores it in favor of the spectacle of Trump. I'm sure there are some Democrats running as simply not-Trump, but what's your basis for asserting this categorically? 
 
Here is Texas, Beto O'Rourke is running against Ted Cruz for US Senator. He is visiting every county in Texas, and talking about issues in every one. Does he talk about how he opposes many of the policies of this administration? Of course he does. But he talks about what he would do differently. Is there something he should be doing differently?
 
How would you have the Democrats modify their behavior? What specifically are they doing that you object to? That you see the same as what the Republicans are doing? 
 
The rhetoric from the two sides does not even approach symmetrical.  If you disagree, please give examples of how you think they're both the same, rather than simply asserting that they are.

The right continually produces bizarre and vile conspiracy theories against the left. It may be the cranks who start them, but they get promoted by voices high in the Republican party. Show me the equivalent of pizzagate from the left.
 
And now I feel like you're going to say I'm once again saying "my guys[1] good, their guys bad" but I have no idea what you are proposing instead. You say they're the same. I see few similarities. 
 
If it's not the rhetoric, and it's not the policies, what is it that's the same between the parties? I conceded that they are both too beholden to corporate interests, but I don't feel like that's what you're talking about.
 
And frankly, some of us don't have the luxury of rising above mere policy disputes. Our lives are literally on the line.
 
This administration is striving to make it legal for anyone, including medical personnel, to refuse me service because of who I am. They believe that, no matter the oath a doctor took, it's okay for that doctor to let me bleed out, because he has "religious" objections to my existence.  They are trying to change rules so that I can be denied insurance coverage because of who I am. The Republicans are fighting attempts to remove "gay panic" as a defense for murder. It's not about them being "mean," it's about them taking concrete steps that are going to kill people like me, and, in the case of global warming, potentially everyone on the planet.
 
So please, tell me what the Democrats could do differently that would show that they aren't just laying the same finite game that you say both sides are playing.
 
[1] The democrats aren't my guys. They're a center-right party that is simply less objectionable than the other choice.
 
 
 

But these are not symmetrical positions. There is clear evidence that the republican policies are disenfranchising thousands, and likely tens of thousands, of minority voters. There is no evidence that the lack of those policies are causing tens, lets alone hundreds or thousands of cases of voter fraud.
 
 
You can promise that all you like, but their own actions and words say otherwise. The emails that have come out in the various lawsuits around the republican efforts document republicans specifically targeting black voters. The voter registration purges going on across the country in red states at least appear to be disproportionately affecting minority voters. The claims of voter fraud that get made to justify their policies are shown again and again to be baseless.  A bunch of republican voters may believe that voter fraud is a problem, and that their politicians are trying to fix it, but they are wrong.  
 
 
I admit that Republicans have done things in the name of religious freedom. But as far as I can see, that's just lip service. They have done nothing in actual service of religious freedom. A corporation is not a person and has no religion, so can not have religious objections to anything. If the owners don't want to comply with law, they shouldn't be in business. 
 
And why should discriminating against homosexuals be any different than discriminating against any other group. There are still churches that preach against the mixing of the races. Should a business run by a member of that church be able to discriminate against blacks? Should a business be able to refuse to hire a Mormon, or a catholic, if it's run by a Southern Baptist? Because those make just as much sense.
 
 
 
That's certainly something that's alleged, and should be looked into. But even if it is found to be true, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea of helping traditionally underrepresented minorities.
 
And in my original, I left out the biggest difference of all between the parties right now, at least in terms of long term effects.
 
The Democrats want to address global warming. 
The  Republicans claim that it doesn't exist, or that if it does, it has nothing to do with the actions of humanity, and there's nothing we can do about it.
 
Global warming is an existential threat to human civilization, and possibly human existence. By denying it, the Republicans are threatening the human race. I know it sounds melodramatic, but every day the Republicans stay in power, the more likely human civilization faces an early end. Okay, well, that may not be true. They may have already delayed action long enough that it's too late, and there's nothing we can do. So, there's that.
 
 
 
 

But these are not symmetrical positions. There is clear evidence that the republican policies are disenfranchising thousands, and likely tens of thousands, of minority voters. There is no evidence that the lack of those policies are causing tens, lets alone hundreds or thousands of cases of voter fraud.
 
 
You can promise that all you like, but their own actions and words say otherwise. The emails that have come out in the various lawsuits around the republican efforts document republicans specifically targeting black voters. The voter registration purges going on across the country in red states at least appear to be disproportionately affecting minority voters. The claims of voter fraud that get made to justify their policies are shown again and again to be baseless.  A bunch of republican voters may believe that voter fraud is a problem, and that their politicians are trying to fix it, but they are wrong.  
 
 
I admit that Republicans have done things in the name of religious freedom. But as far as I can see, that's just lip service. They have done nothing in actual service of religious freedom. A corporation is not a person and has no religion, so can not have religious objections to anything. If the owners don't want to comply with law, they shouldn't be in business. 
 
And why should discriminating against homosexuals be any different than discriminating against any other group. There are still churches that preach against the mixing of the races. Should a business run by a member of that church be able to discriminate against blacks? Should a business be able to refuse to hire a Mormon, or a catholic, if it's run by a Southern Baptist? Because those make just as much sense.
 
 
 
That's certainly something that's alleged, and should be looked into. But even if it is found to be true, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea of helping traditionally underrepresented minorities.
 
And in my original, I left out the biggest difference of all between the parties right now, at least in terms of long term effects.
 
The Democrats want to address global warming. 
The  Republicans claim that it doesn't exist, or that if it does, it has nothing to do with the actions of humanity, and there's nothing we can do about it.
 
Global warming is an existential threat to human civilization, and possibly human existence. By denying it, the Republicans are threatening the human race. I know it sounds melodramatic, but every day the Republicans stay in power, the more likely human civilization faces an early end. Okay, well, that may not be true. They may have already delayed action long enough that it's too late, and there's nothing we can do. So, there's that.
 
 
 
 

But these are not symmetrical positions. There is clear evidence that the republican policies are disenfranchising thousands, and likely tens of thousands, of minority voters. There is no evidence that the lack of those policies are causing tens, lets alone hundreds or thousands of cases of voter fraud.
 
 
You can promise that all you like, but their own actions and words say otherwise. The emails that have come out in the various lawsuits around the republican efforts document republicans specifically targeting black voters. The voter registration purges going on across the country in red states at least appear to be disproportionately affecting minority voters. The claims of voter fraud that get made to justify their policies are shown again and again to be baseless.  A bunch of republican voters may believe that voter fraud is a problem, and that their politicians are trying to fix it, but they are wrong.  
 
 
I admit that Republicans have done things in the name of religious freedom. But as far as I can see, that's just lip service. They have done nothing in actual service of religious freedom. A corporation is not a person and has no religion, so can not have religious objections to anything. If the owners don't want to comply with law, they shouldn't be in business. 
 
And why should discriminating against homosexuals be any different than discriminating against any other group. There are still churches that preach against the mixing of the races. Should a business run by a member of that church be able to discriminate against blacks? Should a business be able to refuse to hire a Mormon, or a catholic, if it's run by a Southern Baptist? Because those make just as much sense.
 
 
 
That's certainly something that's alleged, and should be looked into. But even if it is found to be true, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea of helping traditionally underrepresented minorities.
 
And in my original, I left out the biggest difference of all between the parties right now, at least in terms of long term effects.
 
The Democrats want to address global warming. 
The  Republicans claim that it doesn't exist, or that if it does, it has nothing to do with the actions of humanity, and there's nothing we can do about it.
 
Global warming is an existential threat to human civilization, and possibly human existence. By denying it, the Republicans are threatening the human race. I know it sounds melodramatic, but every day the Republicans stay in power, the more likely human civilization faces an early end. Okay, well, that may not be true. They may have already delayed action long enough that it's too late, and there's nothing we can do. So, there's that.
 
 
 
 

Who do you include in "the radical progressive 'left'"? Especially, what "morality" do you see them trying to impose on others?
 
Because I don't see what passes for the left (i.e., the Democratic Party) in this country as being anywhere near to the GOP, in policies, tactics, or outcomes.
 
The Democrats want to make sure every eligible person can vote.
The republicans are doing their best to disenfranchise as many minorities as possible. 
 
The Democrats are trying to prevent discrimination, whether based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The GOP is trying to enshrine discrimination into the law.
 
The Democrats are trying to maintain a social safety net for all.
The GOP is trying to tear it down.
 
The Democrats are trying to make sure everyone has access to adequate healthcare.
The GOP is fighting this tooth and nail.
 
The Democrats are trying to secure our elections from interference by foreign entities.
The GOP is stopping them.
 
I agree that both parties are too beholden to corporate interests. I agree that many politicians in both parties are often more worried about their own reelection than their the good of their constituents, but the GOP is standing by while the current administration, at the direction of the President, sells this country off to the highest bidder. They pretend to investigate his possible connection to the interference with the 2016 elections, while keeping the Democrats from calling relevant witnesses. They take money from the NRA, which, has become essentially a front for funneling money from Russian oligarchs to political campaigns here. There is not an ounce of integrity left in the national Republican Party.
 
So, are the Democrats perfect? Not even close. But to group them as even close to the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not supportable.
 
 
 

Who do you include in "the radical progressive 'left'"? Especially, what "morality" do you see them trying to impose on others?
 
Because I don't see what passes for the left (i.e., the Democratic Party) in this country as being anywhere near to the GOP, in policies, tactics, or outcomes.
 
The Democrats want to make sure every eligible person can vote.
The republicans are doing their best to disenfranchise as many minorities as possible. 
 
The Democrats are trying to prevent discrimination, whether based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The GOP is trying to enshrine discrimination into the law.
 
The Democrats are trying to maintain a social safety net for all.
The GOP is trying to tear it down.
 
The Democrats are trying to make sure everyone has access to adequate healthcare.
The GOP is fighting this tooth and nail.
 
The Democrats are trying to secure our elections from interference by foreign entities.
The GOP is stopping them.
 
I agree that both parties are too beholden to corporate interests. I agree that many politicians in both parties are often more worried about their own reelection than their the good of their constituents, but the GOP is standing by while the current administration, at the direction of the President, sells this country off to the highest bidder. They pretend to investigate his possible connection to the interference with the 2016 elections, while keeping the Democrats from calling relevant witnesses. They take money from the NRA, which, has become essentially a front for funneling money from Russian oligarchs to political campaigns here. There is not an ounce of integrity left in the national Republican Party.
 
So, are the Democrats perfect? Not even close. But to group them as even close to the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not supportable.
 
 
 

Who do you include in "the radical progressive 'left'"? Especially, what "morality" do you see them trying to impose on others?
 
Because I don't see what passes for the left (i.e., the Democratic Party) in this country as being anywhere near to the GOP, in policies, tactics, or outcomes.
 
The Democrats want to make sure every eligible person can vote.
The republicans are doing their best to disenfranchise as many minorities as possible. 
 
The Democrats are trying to prevent discrimination, whether based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The GOP is trying to enshrine discrimination into the law.
 
The Democrats are trying to maintain a social safety net for all.
The GOP is trying to tear it down.
 
The Democrats are trying to make sure everyone has access to adequate healthcare.
The GOP is fighting this tooth and nail.
 
The Democrats are trying to secure our elections from interference by foreign entities.
The GOP is stopping them.
 
I agree that both parties are too beholden to corporate interests. I agree that many politicians in both parties are often more worried about their own reelection than their the good of their constituents, but the GOP is standing by while the current administration, at the direction of the President, sells this country off to the highest bidder. They pretend to investigate his possible connection to the interference with the 2016 elections, while keeping the Democrats from calling relevant witnesses. They take money from the NRA, which, has become essentially a front for funneling money from Russian oligarchs to political campaigns here. There is not an ounce of integrity left in the national Republican Party.
 
So, are the Democrats perfect? Not even close. But to group them as even close to the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not supportable.
 
 
 

Who do you include in "the radical progressive 'left'"? Especially, what "morality" do you see them trying to impose on others?
 
Because I don't see what passes for the left (i.e., the Democratic Party) in this country as being anywhere near to the GOP, in policies, tactics, or outcomes.
 
The Democrats want to make sure every eligible person can vote.
The republicans are doing their best to disenfranchise as many minorities as possible. 
 
The Democrats are trying to prevent discrimination, whether based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The GOP is trying to enshrine discrimination into the law.
 
The Democrats are trying to maintain a social safety net for all.
The GOP is trying to tear it down.
 
The Democrats are trying to make sure everyone has access to adequate healthcare.
The GOP is fighting this tooth and nail.
 
The Democrats are trying to secure our elections from interference by foreign entities.
The GOP is stopping them.
 
I agree that both parties are too beholden to corporate interests. I agree that many politicians in both parties are often more worried about their own reelection than their the good of their constituents, but the GOP is standing by while the current administration, at the direction of the President, sells this country off to the highest bidder. They pretend to investigate his possible connection to the interference with the 2016 elections, while keeping the Democrats from calling relevant witnesses. They take money from the NRA, which, has become essentially a front for funneling money from Russian oligarchs to political campaigns here. There is not an ounce of integrity left in the national Republican Party.
 
So, are the Democrats perfect? Not even close. But to group them as even close to the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not supportable.
 
 
 

I believe in a large, robust and active government, because the government is us, the people, having a say and influence over the economic forces that otherwise harm the majority for the benefit of the extreme minority.
I believe no individual is more important than the social contract that binds us, that provides the stability necessary for advancement.
I believe equal opportunity requires limitations on those who have traditionally held privilege.
I believe fiscal responsibility involves a level of wealth redistribution that reduces the gap between the most wealthy and most poor, and incentivizes a bulging middle class. This includes highly funded public education through university levels.
I believe in a level of defense that is not beholden to, nor for the benefit of the military industrial complex.
I believe in active, dynamic regulation of the markets, because "free markets" never exist... they are either controlled by a wide body of government, or controlled by the economic interests who benefit the most from them.
I believe that good faith in the face of unbridled greed and corruption is foolish and treasonous. Strong defense starts with defending the majority from the minority that would enslave them.
 

In the last supers campaign I ran (lo those many years ago) I had this. Super powers (and a bunch of other weirdness) were relatively new, and the government was trying to figure things out. A decent chunk of one session was spent with the group taking the FAA inspector on a test flight in their flying car [1] so she could license it. If the players hadn't been into it, it would have been a few minutes of the game, but they seemed to enjoy it, so we played the whole thing out.
 
They were also targeted by assassins[2] sent by De Boers because of their Gemerator 3000™[3]. It was a bit of a wacky game.
 
[1] It was a 1960s looking station wagon (wood paneling and all) that they had received as a boon from an extra dimensional entity when they requested a vehicle that could take them "anywhere on Earth". 
[2] One of the assassins made the mistake of trying to blow up the car.
[3] Another boon from the entity. All the boons they got were excuses to spend character points.

In the last supers campaign I ran (lo those many years ago) I had this. Super powers (and a bunch of other weirdness) were relatively new, and the government was trying to figure things out. A decent chunk of one session was spent with the group taking the FAA inspector on a test flight in their flying car [1] so she could license it. If the players hadn't been into it, it would have been a few minutes of the game, but they seemed to enjoy it, so we played the whole thing out.
 
They were also targeted by assassins[2] sent by De Boers because of their Gemerator 3000™[3]. It was a bit of a wacky game.
 
[1] It was a 1960s looking station wagon (wood paneling and all) that they had received as a boon from an extra dimensional entity when they requested a vehicle that could take them "anywhere on Earth". 
[2] One of the assassins made the mistake of trying to blow up the car.
[3] Another boon from the entity. All the boons they got were excuses to spend character points.

I want to see him throw a polar bear at a bad guy

I want to see him throw a polar bear at a bad guy

I want to see him throw a polar bear at a bad guy

In the last supers campaign I ran (lo those many years ago) I had this. Super powers (and a bunch of other weirdness) were relatively new, and the government was trying to figure things out. A decent chunk of one session was spent with the group taking the FAA inspector on a test flight in their flying car [1] so she could license it. If the players hadn't been into it, it would have been a few minutes of the game, but they seemed to enjoy it, so we played the whole thing out.
 
They were also targeted by assassins[2] sent by De Boers because of their Gemerator 3000™[3]. It was a bit of a wacky game.
 
[1] It was a 1960s looking station wagon (wood paneling and all) that they had received as a boon from an extra dimensional entity when they requested a vehicle that could take them "anywhere on Earth". 
[2] One of the assassins made the mistake of trying to blow up the car.
[3] Another boon from the entity. All the boons they got were excuses to spend character points.

That general statement is true, especially for the Red Cross, but that's not accurate on the Clinton Foundation. 86.9% of its funds go to program expenses, that is, the actual programs and services it exists to deliver. That's pretty dang high as non-profits go.

Well, that's that.
 
I honestly doubt our nation will survive the next few years. Not in any form that's worth calling America, anyway.

Emotional Teflon
 
Characters shrugging off the death of friends, mentors, or even loved ones after a moment (if that) of grief. Often celebrating wildly once they've "won."

So, recently on the Politics thread, I mentioned that I'm transgender. When I came out a couple of months ago, I changed my gender field on my profile to female, and put real pic of me as a profile pic. But I didn't post anything here. I'd considered doing it at the same time I was coming out on social media, but I didn't. I'm not sure why. I only brought it up in the politics thread because it was relevant to the argument I was making.
 
But this evening, when I was watching a show with a trans character, I started thinking about how important representation is to me, and to all people, really. I was thinking about the fact that, until someone says something otherwise (or their name indicates otherwise) on these boards (and on the internet in general) , I tend to imagine them as a straight white male. I think a lot of people do that. I mean, I don't think we even do it consciously, but I'm aware of the times when someone says something that reveals that they aren't a SWM, and I'm a little bit surprised. I don't like that. It bothered me when I identified as a straight white male, and it bothers me now.
 
And that's why I'm posting this. Representation is important. I want any other LGBTQ folks on the boards to know they're not alone. Also, if anyone's curious about what it's like to be trans, and to transition, I way overshare on my Tumblr, or feel free to ask me any (not too personal) questions here.