The All Things Political Topic

[Gorth]

On 12/10/2024 at 2:53 PM, BruceVC said:

What has surprised me is how many people seem to be fine with this killing?

I can understand the frustration and anger towards the  medical aid industry but killing people in the streets is not going to change anything in the industry 

Why stop there, lets go around killing politicians and bank CEO?

 

 

….scribbling down notes on a napkin

[Malcador]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

….scribbling down notes on a napkin

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/11/new-york-police-us-healthcare-hit-list

[Lexx]

"which has been celebrated in some quarters of social media." --- some?

[rjshae]

On 12/2/2024 at 10:45 AM, pmp10 said:

If Biden can pardon for everything and anything for a decade I wonder what Trump will do with the precedent.
6th January gang will likely be only the start. 

The DJT campaign has already pledged to pardon the J6 participants, so the precedent is pre-existing.

Trump reportedly promises January 6 pardons ‘in the first hour’ of his presidency or sooner – US politics live

The optics would be much better if Biden targets political people who DJT would intentionally go after, and if Biden does it in a bi-partisan fashion. For example, members of the January 6th committee; people who worked to prosecute DJT in any manner; selected leaders of Congress, the FBI, and DoJ; and key election workers in disputed states. It should probably be limited to the last decade, when DJT was politically active.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I have to say that everything I've heard about United Healthcare since someone shot the CEO honestly made me curious why it took this long for someone to try to kill him. Sort of a weird curiosity in the US where the rampant violence doesn't trickle up to bizness guys, politicians, and other members of the ruling class. And while I would never condone murder.....I can say that it's not as gut wrenching to see a cartoonishly evil company man get shot than a bunch of school kids.

[uuuhhii]

32 minutes ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

I have to say that everything I've heard about United Healthcare since someone shot the CEO honestly made me curious why it took this long for someone to try to kill him. Sort of a weird curiosity in the US where the rampant violence doesn't trickle up to bizness guys, politicians, and other members of the ruling class. And while I would never condone murder.....I can say that it's not as gut wrenching to see a cartoonishly evil company man get shot than a bunch of school kids.

 

hopefully this will be a trend setter

[Hurlshort]

47 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

 

hopefully this will be a trend setter

I guess we need to get "Shoot CEO's, not schools" trending.

[uuuhhii]

isn't it amazing usa are also trying to bring back polio amid this celebration

 

[Malcador]

Canadian finance minister resigned or pushed out, fun drama. Doesn't change anything as Trudeau is on borrowed time, though.

[Zoraptor]

Saw a thumbnail and thought it was our finance minister who had resigned. Would have been a lovely Christmas surprise.

(Too much to hope for I guess, we'll get two more years of brunette Liz Truss wondering why the reality of a country's economics doesn't match her excel spreadsheets. Yes really; she's easily our worst fm since Muldoon nearly 50 years ago and exactly what you'd expect some someone with a degree in english whose only work experience has been in PR and politics)

[uuuhhii]

usa are pushing gun control for 1 ceo but not thousand of student per year

impressively pathetic

[Lexx]

Not just any students. Little children. Nobody gave a crap about them getting killed. At this point it was clear that the US doesn't want it any other way, tbh.

Edited December 17 by Lexx

[Malcador]

https://apnews.com/article/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-luigi-mangione-fccc9e875e976b9901a122bc15669425

Terrorism? I guess due to manifesto, but still bit much from him wasting some suit

Edited December 17 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

On 12/18/2024 at 1:42 AM, Malcador said:

https://apnews.com/article/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-luigi-mangione-fccc9e875e976b9901a122bc15669425

Terrorism? I guess due to manifesto, but still bit much from him wasting some suit

I realize he was been charged with terrorism and this becomes a technical legal charge so it doesnt matter what we say but personally I dont  consider it terrorism

Its first degree murder definitely which he has also been charged with and he will be found guilty either way 

And the reason I dont think its terrorism is because he killed the CEO because of the reality of how unfair the US medical aid industry is and this is a private sector industry and he wants to achieve private sector policy change 

I can understand the logic behind the terrorism charge but would you  charge someone who kills a bank manager because your loan was refused with terrorism?

If he had killed a member of Congress for not voting or supporting medical aid federal legislation that would be more terrorism because his target is a political person

The CEO is not a politician 

Anyway Im just throwing my view on this out there  because the definition of terrorism is using violence to achieve a political objective or change 

 

[BruceVC]

https://www.parleypolicy.com/post/the-rules-based-international-order-explained

There is understandable criticism about the term  "rules based order " but I think its because often the rules based order is misunderstood around what it is and what it can do and what it cannot do 

I found this link that clarifies this accurately and it discusses its history, shortfalls and advantages

Its a good read for those that have concerns about what it means and how sustainable it has to be.  @Malcadoryou should find it particularly relevant because we have discussed this before on several occasions 

Some quotes from the link

 

" The term “rules-based international order” has become commonplace in government statements and joint communiqué. For many, the corresponding message is that it is necessary to reinforce that order to preserve the conditions needed for peace and prosperity. Others argue that the rules-based international order is nothing more than a tool for a select group of countries to advance their own hegemonic or exploitative ambitions. The one commonality between the two sides that present those arguments is that neither tends to define what the rules-based international order really is or why it matters.

For those seeking to manage conflict, to advance relations between nations, or simply to understand the state of global affairs, the definition of the rules-based international order is important. It is neither some nebulous concept without practical effects nor is it some oligarchical construct meant to impose “rules for thee but not for me.” The rules-based international order as we know it today is predicated on a system of laws, rules, and norms, and it has underpinned international interactions since its formal establishment in 1945. Whether its overall influence is positive or negative continues to be predicated on the actions of the members of the international community, but one cannot influence what one does not fully understand.

Because there is no overarching enforcement authority, it is incumbent upon the members of the international community themselves to work together in establishing the rules and upholding them. This is why so many governments talk about reinforcing the rules-based international order: it is their responsibility to mitigate threats to the global ecosystem that can negatively impact countries across the world.

As with any system, the rules-based international order is imperfect. There is no law that has gone unchallenged, rule that has gone unbroken, or norm that has been unobserved. There is no overarching enforcement authority to oversee the implementation of these laws, rules, and norms. And yet, there is still utility, for in an otherwise anarchic world, the system established in 1945 anchors the international community against the chaos of war, disaster, violence, and crime. That is why it exists and why it matters.  "

 

 

 

 

[HoonDing]

Just imagine a world without this rules based order

[Chairchucker]

On 12/10/2024 at 4:13 PM, BruceVC said:

You dont go around referring to any women in public as a "biological women",  in a  social environment you not going to  ask any women you meet " are you a biological women " 

Its a technical term because of this  ongoing debate. And the definition should be clear, a biological women is capable of having children. Of course some women cant have children for the reasons you mentioned but that doesnt change the obvious physiological differences between men and women and the real differences is the ability to have children. Thats the basic genetic reason how most species exist, women  can have children and men cant 

But thats not the same debate as respecting someone's view to be referred to as a women and treated as a women but that doesn't make them a biological women unless they can have children?

 

You seem to be conflating the culture wars debate with this technical debate? Im not talking about the personal reference. Trans people have every right to want to be referred to as women, I have no issue with that as I explained 

And then Im confused with your sports point, if an intersex athlete has elevated testosterone compared to other women who compete in the same event do  you support them taking HRT to reduce there levels of natural testosterone?

Because you say " let women play sport with women " and that does mean they should take HRT if required  so its fair?

First point, no Bruce, 'biological woman' is not a technical term, it is a worthless one. Just don't use it, its only purpose is to be transphobic. The terms cis woman, cis man, trans woman or trans man are more useful, give more information. If you continue to use 'biological male' or 'biological female' or any term like it, you're choosing to be transphobic and/or unclear. And no, the exceptions demonstrate that the ability to give birth is absolutely not the physiological difference between men and women.

 

TL;DR just stop calling people 'biological men' or 'biological women', it's a worthless term that serves only to play into the hands of hateful bigots.

 

I think at almost every level, we don't need to care about someone's testosterone levels. The overwhelming majority of trans athletes are not trying to steal gold medals from cis athletes at the Olympics or whatever the narrative is, they're just trying to play social sportsball at the lowest community level. I've played a lot of team sport at that kind of low level, and not once have I thought the competition would be improved by having me or my fellow athletes tested to see if they're juicing. The top end professional level is frequently used as the justification for treating trans people like trash, but the implementation seems to be aimed at all levels. I think it's reasonable, specifically at those top levels of competition, for trans women to have done a certain amount of HRT before competing (as is almost always the case) but I don't have much interest in applying this to athletes with various intersex conditions, any more than I think we should penalise taller athletes for being taller, etc.

[Gorth]

I'm a very manly man, does that count for anything?

It has led to some funny situations and friendly jibes in my closest friend circle (which are mostly people in LGBT circles). From transgender over bisexual to my militant lesbian dentist friend (who already had a stockpile of face masks in 2020, because she had planned to fight the police in the streets, joining the fight against the then Morrison government).

Said friends have regularly dragged me to places and events most people miss out on (their loss). Like queer gamer groups (the place where I truly learned to appreciate Cards against Humanity type games), theater plays where Juliette drops Romeo and runs away with her girlfriend, you name it. At some point, they wanted me to try a phone app that morphs you into either more feminine or more masculine features. The feminine appearance was sort of Okish (i'll never feature as a centerfold, that's for sure), but when trying the masculine morphs, they thought the app had broken

(apparently my appearance could not be changed into something more masculine by the app, so it simply did nothing)

Needless to say, I wouldn't swap those friends for anything in the world really.

As for the subject of transgender sports and the fairness/unfairness of it?.... I've often thought about it and probably still am, without getting any closer to making my mind up what I could see as the best approach

 

edit: they once teased me in the theatre, asking me if I didn't feel like the odd one out? Me, looking at the three girls just stated the obvious, because I'm the only guy here? To which the reply from the girls was I was the only straight person in the theatre

[Azdeus]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

(apparently my appearance could not be changed into something more masculine by the app, so it simply did nothing)

I'll vouch for that

[Zoraptor]

20 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

First point, no Bruce, 'biological woman' is not a technical term..

It is a technical term. In both senses: it is, for example, used as the basis of the IAAF transgender policy     and biological sex is also a recognised scientific concept. Often the people using it pejoratively actually mean 'genetic sex' instead, but biological sex is a technical term.

The problem comes about because there's a whole lot of non biological stuff associated with being a person which we don't apply to other creatures. Nobody cares if you describe an albino mouse as a 'mutant', a lot of people care if you describe a human albino as a mutant- but there's no scientific difference, and the term remains a real technical term.

The difference is entirely that people see being called a 'mutant' as dehumanising when it's applied to a human. Which is fair enough, and if you wander around randomly calling albinos 'mutants' you're probably a bit of a knob outside of the scientific context. But it doesn't mean the term 'mutant' is not a technical term either.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Whenever people start talking about "biological women" I feel bummed out because I'm expecting to see a non-biological woman, by which I mean a lady robot, and that's never the case. If only the AI people put in work for that instead of an aggregated plagiarism generator that does everything bad and wrong then maybe we could be dealing with robots instead of whatever has the brain wormed mad this week. Would be refreshing.

[ShadySands]

I dunno why they're always up in arms over non-issues. Orange for the orange god, outrage for the outrage machine.

[BruceVC]

On 12/25/2024 at 3:12 AM, Chairchucker said:

First point, no Bruce, 'biological woman' is not a technical term, it is a worthless one. Just don't use it, its only purpose is to be transphobic. The terms cis woman, cis man, trans woman or trans man are more useful, give more information. If you continue to use 'biological male' or 'biological female' or any term like it, you're choosing to be transphobic and/or unclear. And no, the exceptions demonstrate that the ability to give birth is absolutely not the physiological difference between men and women.

 

TL;DR just stop calling people 'biological men' or 'biological women', it's a worthless term that serves only to play into the hands of hateful bigots.

 

I think at almost every level, we don't need to care about someone's testosterone levels. The overwhelming majority of trans athletes are not trying to steal gold medals from cis athletes at the Olympics or whatever the narrative is, they're just trying to play social sportsball at the lowest community level. I've played a lot of team sport at that kind of low level, and not once have I thought the competition would be improved by having me gor my fellow athletes tested to see if they're juicing. The top end professional level is frequently used as the justification for treating trans people like trash, but the implementation seems to be aimed at all levels. I think it's reasonable, specifically at those top levels of competition, for trans women to have done a certain amount of HRT before competing (as is almost always the case) but I don't have much interest in applying this to athletes with various intersex conditions, any more than I think we should penalise taller athletes for being taller, etc.v 

What is your definition of the difference between  a man and women, if you disagree its about the  obvious birth reality to have children that includes reproductive organ  differences that women have and men dont, if someone asks you " what is the difference between a man and woman " how would you describe the difference? 

And this debate about ensuring all athletes have equal levels of testosterone is for all athletes

Its not the fault of Trans athletes that they might have 3-4 times the amount of testosterone but it would be unfair to women in the same event to compete against them. It doesn't need to be complicated or seen as unfair, trans athletes  would just confirm they dont have elevated testosterone   which  can increase a  persons performance in many sports events, thats one of  the reasons doping is illegal because it  can increase testosterone and that makes the  overall race unfair. The same principle would apply to Trans athletes, its not suppose to be about targeting  Trans athletes. Its about ensuring that sports event are as fair as possible

And just for your  own reference around this debate,  being born with big hands or being taller is not the same debate as the testosterone  levels one

You can change the levels of testosterone with medication    and that change can influence performance but you cant the size of someone's hands

I know this point gets raised with the testosterone debate but that not really the same 

[uuuhhii]

17 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I dunno why they're always up in arms over non-issues. Orange for the orange god, outrage for the outrage machine.

 

 

foolish peasant always need some distraction while the lord squeeze them dry

outrage are cheaper than bread and circus

[BruceVC]

On 12/25/2024 at 12:26 PM, Gorth said:

 

As for the subject of transgender sports and the fairness/unfairness of it?.... I've often thought about it and probably still am, without getting any closer to making my mind up what I could see as the best approach

 

 

Just to be clear do you mean Trans people competing in women's events or the expectation of  testing of testosterone for Trans people 

Because there should be no issue if the testosterone is the same because what other approach is there. Because if you say let Trans athletes  compete without any testosterone checks you could  create real situations has an unfair advantage?

 

 

@Zoraptor you have interesting  views on these topics, whats your opinion and understanding of this debate. Do you think elevated testosterone can give certain performance advantages but then should every Trans athlete be checked or is this unfair? I wonder does having intersex traits always mean elevated testosterone or it does it depend on the intersex trait?