The All Things Political Topic

[Malcador]

18 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.

Is a tiresome way to live.

[ShadySands]

I have a Trumper coworker that has an odd fixation with trans people as well. Always asking really weird questions* like trans people run... well, literally anything or have any kind of power whatsoever. I'm like I've only ever truly known one trans person well and that story was such a tragedy because they ended up overdosing on purpose. I have a hard time caring about some hypothetical situation where Billy wants to become a girl just to steal Sally's trophy or whatever.

*they think trans people are somehow impacting my young kid's schooling or the education system just by acknowledging they exist.

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

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?

Testosterone 100% gives a benefit, for most sports. It's a scientific fact and the reason why there are limits. There's a lot more moral grey area for it than for synthetics though, since it is a natural product and like most natural products is produced naturally at a range of levels rather than one consistent one per sex. So nobody with any sense thinks Imane Khalif or Caster Semenya are 'cheats' for having high testosterone levels, since it's clearly natural for them and whatever the tests say they've clearly always identified as being female.

The issue is pretty much exactly as I said before: when you try to apply scientific principles to humans you run into the 'problem' that humans aren't lab mice but are people, and that scientific tests tend to run to true/ false results. If you determine the natural testosterone levels for lab mice sexes and make your standard cut off at 3sd nobody cares about the 5% that are 'abnormal'.

You have to do scientific tests to work out if people are cheating- too much EPO, too much testosterone, stimulants etc- which pretty much everyone agree has to be done, and they have semi arbitrary levels below which you're fine, and above which you're not. Science by definition runs on facts not feelings so if you have to define a woman and a man for sporting events scientifically and testably then some people are going to be very very upset- and justifiably so in the vast majority of cases- at being told they're the wrong sex or have to take medication to compete, because of some arbitrary result. You do have to have that arbitrary test though, so long as you want to have men and women competing separately.

[rjshae]

Ed.: duplicate posting deleted.

Edited December 28, 2024 by rjshae

[rjshae]

9 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I have a Trumper coworker that has an odd fixation with trans people as well. Always asking really weird questions* like trans people run... well, literally anything or have any kind of power whatsoever. I'm like I've only ever truly known one trans person well and that story was such a tragedy because they ended up overdosing on purpose. I have a hard time caring about some hypothetical situation where Billy wants to become a girl just to steal Sally's trophy or whatever.

*they think trans people are somehow impacting my young kid's schooling or the education system just by acknowledging they exist.

I think trans people are an easy target for the exclusivity party to target. It's not like trans people weild a significant economic or voter clout, so they're not much of a threat for a backlash. Yes it's strange to politically obsess so much over what's effectively a tiny minority with little influence. It may be an indirect rallying cry; like the opposite of virtue signalling.

[uuuhhii]

42 minutes ago, rjshae said:

I think trans people are an easy target for the exclusivity party to target. It's not like trans people weild a significant economic or voter clout, so they're not much of a threat for a backlash. Yes it's strange to politically obsess so much over what's effectively a tiny minority with little influence. It may be an indirect rallying cry; like the opposite of virtue signalling.

 

vice signalling

[Gorth]

21 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I have a Trumper coworker that has an odd fixation with trans people as well. Always asking really weird questions* like trans people run... well, literally anything or have any kind of power whatsoever. I'm like I've only ever truly known one trans person well and that story was such a tragedy because they ended up overdosing on purpose. I have a hard time caring about some hypothetical situation where Billy wants to become a girl just to steal Sally's trophy or whatever.

*they think trans people are somehow impacting my young kid's schooling or the education system just by acknowledging they exist.

According to my LGBT friends, trans people are lowest in the "pecking order". The group that other LGBT groups will bully and throw to the wolves. I.e. the most vulnerable group with the least friends.

[Azdeus]

7 minutes ago, Gorth said:

According to my LGBT friends, trans people are lowest in the "pecking order". The group that other LGBT groups will bully and throw to the wolves. I.e. the most vulnerable group with the least friends.

There definetly are some LGB people that are openly hostile to trans people.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

On 12/26/2024 at 4:08 PM, ShadySands said:

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

Honestly I think we're dealing with an addiction to anger/outrage that's reached a place where the real non-issue things they'd get in a frenzy over don't do it for them anymore, so they're having to make unhinged **** up like immigrants eating pets or whatever trans conspiracy is big this week to keep up their high. I'm not sure if there is a real solution here because the places they go to get their fixes are reinforcing and most of their other circle end up getting too turned off by whatever weird **** they're on about now to stay around.

The trans stuff specifically is weird because chances are the biggest interaction they've had with a transperson is online, either fighting on socials or viewing videos of a.....sexual nature*. It's not a good time to be talking to a guy about work stuff only to have them derail the conversation with some **** about the gubbermint paying for transgender operations or whatever.

*please read this in the voice of Matt Berry's Laszlo Cravensworth

[BruceVC]

19 hours ago, rjshae said:

I think trans people are an easy target for the exclusivity party to target. It's not like trans people weild a significant economic or voter clout, so they're not much of a threat for a backlash. Yes it's strange to politically obsess so much over what's effectively a tiny minority with little influence. It may be an indirect rallying cry; like the opposite of virtue signalling.

The reasons for all the  Trans political and social attention is because of several  issues and  there significance on broader US 

Because  they a few small community

I would say the main  issues are and concerns 

 

 

 

[majestic]

33 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The reasons for all the  Trans political and social attention is because of several  issues and  there significance on broader US 

Because  they a few small community

I would say the main  issues are and concerns 

 

 

 

Did you forget to switch to user uuuhhii? I mean this is a garbled, incoherent mess of a post... even for you.

[HoonDing]

Going after the most vulnerable group first is what the right does.

Edited December 29, 2024 by HoonDing

[uuuhhii]

41 minutes ago, majestic said:

Did you forget to switch to user uuuhhii? I mean this is a garbled, incoherent mess of a post... even for you.

 

remove punctuation make nonsense language like english far more coherent

but that post wouldn't make sense either way

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Did you forget to switch to user uuuhhii? I mean this is a garbled, incoherent mess of a post... even for you.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second here... While I probably only fully understand uuuhhii like half of the time (because the consistently flat writing style usually makes it difficult to confidently parse/guess tone and emphasis, which often leads to less than perfectly clear intent and meaning), I can't say that I've ever wanted to hit them a rusty iron rod after finishing reading one of their posts. That's a pretty important distinction that I don't think anyone should forget. They're totally different styles of incomprehensibility anyways.

Edited December 29, 2024 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, majestic said:

Did you forget to switch to user uuuhhii? I mean this is a garbled, incoherent mess of a post... even for you.

Nah, uuuhhii's got way different politics and never uses caps at all. Besides, saying nothing at all with weird spacing is on brand for Bruce.

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, majestic said:

Did you forget to switch to user uuuhhii? I mean this is a garbled, incoherent mess of a post... even for you.

More like someone asking an AI to make a summary of a Bruce post.

Which would be one way to make me feel sorry for chatgpt.

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, majestic said:

Did you forget to switch to user uuuhhii? I mean this is a garbled, incoherent mess of a post... even for you.

Sorry I wasnt suppose to make the post yet  and I did leave out the  Trans issues that are the reasons for the political  attention and the Trans issues become issues for many Conservatives because they are often seen in a negative light that they believe  wants to really undermine functional American values and  the Trans rights is just  an excuse to do this. I dont personally believe this but I can how some Trans rights laws can intentionally undermine some positive values that do work  

So for  many people its not a dislike of Trans people so much as certain   realities and state laws that say they about protecting Trans  rights but the outcomes influence other things 

So the main points  around this are 

• the whole pronoun debate and also  how you now find multiple terms in many forms around your identify reference    : seen badly  because it overcomplicates normal identification and is used to get attention as opposed to being something that was necessary
• Trans athletes in sports: I would say its the "biggest "  issue because it is seen as a decision that can undermine the  fairness of women's events, we do have solutions  around this but  its an active talking point 
• When young people  can  or should transition and states have different laws around this but end of the day I believe parents have a  right to say  no to a school that they dont want there child to transition. California has  laws where a child can decide to transition and the schools dont have to notify  the  parents or get   parental permission and this  differs from school to school because  several schools are challenging this because they have a view that parents must be involved 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/californias-ban-lgbtq-parental-notification-policies-faces-legal/story?id=112038082

 

I realize the California decision was well meaning because they wanted to address cases of suicides where parents said no to the  child transitioning so  the legislation  is basically about reducing how Transphobic parents could create  suicide 

But its too much to now pass a law around this  because the reality now is a child can decide to transition and the parents wont have any influence in this decision but end of day its parents that raise children and  its not the schools that end up doing this 

And also parents can have a myriad of reasons to not support a child from transitioning  until  18 and its not because of transphobia 

The reason for this post was the original and legitimate question around "why is there so much political and media attention on Trans people when they represent such a small group "

Because  its about the laws and decisions around Trans right that can impact other things outside of the objective of just being about Trans rights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

On 12/29/2024 at 2:36 AM, majestic said:

Did you forget to switch to user uuuhhii? I mean this is a garbled, incoherent mess of a post... even for you.

I was laughing about  this joke about uuuhhi because its funny when I have been accused  of being  an alt-account its been with people that I have very little in  common around our posts 

So I was sometimes accused of being Obys alt-account  Oby was someone who I dont think I ever agreed on one thing he ever raised and thats unusual. I would hope my alt-account had somethings in common with me 

 

I do agree on uuuhhii on certain things and I do read his posts and he raises issues that are a concern

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-orleans-attack-latest-fbi-dhs-warn-copycat/story?id=117290889

Im sure everyone is aware of the ISIS affiliated  terrorist attack in New Orleans, terrible event especially during this holiday time 

 

Its been a while since the US has had an ISIS domestic attack?

 

 

[Azdeus]

14 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Again they can do it, in an unfair arena, but they can still do it.

How are they valid, because China is the evil enemy? There was no shred of proof shown to corroborate that claim. To me it just seem like they had the better and cheaper product that the west couldn't compete with. Same as what is happening with the car industry nowadays. Every country is fighting to keep their industry alive and thriving, there is no playing fair in that game.

Effectively they can do business asmuch as Huawei can.

Please tell me that you don't consider what China is doing to the Uighur population (With aid from Huawei btw) fair or in line with modern values? Slavery, forced sterilization? As for the validity, I'm not basing this on only US security actions, but also from what others like my own government and independent journalists has said, there are more countries than the US that stopped them from doing business. While I know that the western designed electronics are just as bad with their spyware, but for now most of our governments arent the CCP.

Just to be clear, I do think that the west should have stamped down hard on companies moving stuff to china ages ago, even more so since they ramped up their militarism and dictatorial leanings. Not only for cars and tech but also clothing and such. **** child labour.

[Zoraptor]

Hah, let's see if this actually works.

For anyone wondering the discussion was originally in the random video games thread.

1 hour ago, Sarex said:

Again they can do it, in an unfair arena, but they can still do it.

How are they valid, because China is the evil enemy? There was no shred of proof shown to corroborate that claim. To me it just seem like they had the better and cheaper product that the west couldn't compete with. Same as what is happening with the car industry nowadays. Every country is fighting to keep their industry alive and thriving, there is no playing fair in that game.

Yeah, you can't really label a security concern 'valid' just because your side repeatedly states it. It's not like a meter ticks up 1% every time and once you get to 100 assertions it becomes proven.

Adage #1 always applies to such things:

"That which is asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence"

Easily the most important thing to remember on social media at least.

(Ironically, the sort of evidence they should be providing is indisputably there for the US forcing backdoors onto the computer chips and network infrastructure that they sell to everyone else. You know, the 'essential security' of IME/ PSP that is so essential it's absent from US government computers and- coincidentally no doubt- the CIA had a hacking tool specifically tailored towards. Oh yeah, and it was essential (apart from US government computers) right up until the Russians leaked that hacking tool. That is of course quite apart from the CIA/ NSA operatives who got busted soldering chips onto Cisco network equipment.

Why does it quite literally seem that every accusation is an admission?

Occam's suggests the reason for the targeting of tiktok/ telegram and huawei etc is the absence of western backdoors and other control, not the presence of 'unfriendly' ones)

[Sarex]

8 hours ago, Azdeus said:

Effectively they can do business asmuch as Huawei can.

Please tell me that you don't consider what China is doing to the Uighur population (With aid from Huawei btw) fair or in line with modern values? Slavery, forced sterilization? As for the validity, I'm not basing this on only US security actions, but also from what others like my own government and independent journalists has said, there are more countries than the US that stopped them from doing business. While I know that the western designed electronics are just as bad with their spyware, but for now most of our governments arent the CCP.

And that isn't moving the goal post?

If that is true it's absolutely condemnable. So we should also stop buying from Canada for their treatment of the indigenous population (forced sterilization, poor medical treatment, racisam) or from the US for their treatment of Muslims and black people (fyi the US has the largest slave population in the world, ie. the prison system)?

Everyone was ok with China's slave labor when it was building the west and when China was weak and under their control, now that the power balance is at risk we keep hearing about the bad guy China. Funny how that works.

8 hours ago, Azdeus said:

Just to be clear, I do think that the west should have stamped down hard on companies moving stuff to china ages ago, even more so since they ramped up their militarism and dictatorial leanings. Not only for cars and tech but also clothing and such. **** child labour.

There would have been no computer advancement then, or at least nowhere near to this extent and the economic gap we have between the US and the rest of the world wouldn't have been anywhere near as wide as it is today.

@Zoraptor There is that too, but I think it's mostly down to economics. The telco business is big and Huawei was starting to push out the western alternatives even in European countries. Their networking gear is just as good if not even better than what Ericsson has to offer and it's much cheaper.

Edited Monday at 08:21 AM by Sarex

[Zoraptor]

Economics is the main factor for sure. I do have some sympathy in that (the economic) regard as China has a pretty terrible record of running massive loss leaders to force competitors out of markets then jacking up prices once the competition is limited, especially in 'strategic' areas which telecommunications certainly is.

(I had a Huawei wireless modem up until a few months ago which was absolutely fine. And also wasn't controlled by a fricking phone app unlike the new TPlink one I got sent as a mandatory replacement.

Seriously, what's the point of controlling a wireless modem via a phone app that connects via the same wireless? Took an hour to set up because it didn't perform as the manual said it should; the old one took five minutes tops. If the old huawei wireless went down I could control it/ troubleshoot via network cable and its IP which saved a lot of hassles given skodafone's and our electricity supply's unreliability. With the new one if wireless is down you... use the wireless from your covid vaccine microchip to connect temporarily? Nope, hard reset and go through the 1 hour set up process again. Guess it's great for TPlink/ google since they can sell your collected data and provides yet another avenue for TLA snooping though)

[uuuhhii]

fair competition in trade was what great power decide it is

or are history class skip that part now

[Azdeus]

10 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Hah, let's see if this actually works.

For anyone wondering the discussion was originally in the random video games thread.

Yeah, you can't really label a security concern 'valid' just because your side repeatedly states it. It's not like a meter ticks up 1% every time and once you get to 100 assertions it becomes proven.

Adage #1 always applies to such things:

"That which is asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence"

Easily the most important thing to remember on social media at least.

(Ironically, the sort of evidence they should be providing is indisputably there for the US forcing backdoors onto the computer chips and network infrastructure that they sell to everyone else. You know, the 'essential security' of IME/ PSP that is so essential it's absent from US government computers and- coincidentally no doubt- the CIA had a hacking tool specifically tailored towards. Oh yeah, and it was essential (apart from US government computers) right up until the Russians leaked that hacking tool. That is of course quite apart from the CIA/ NSA operatives who got busted soldering chips onto Cisco network equipment.

Why does it quite literally seem that every accusation is an admission?

Occam's suggests the reason for the targeting of tiktok/ telegram and huawei etc is the absence of western backdoors and other control, not the presence of 'unfriendly' ones)

From what I can tell from Swedish court hearings, it's not only based on their chips, but also on the fact that China is a hostile nation. Having them build up even parts of a 5G network when there is a good chance that they would be literal enemies would be a security concern per definition, and would be a disruption of services that no nation would want to have. Huawei is subject to CCPs intelligence services laws. As for wether or not China is hostile? I don't know what goes on in your guys countries, but almost every year here in Sweden we've had Chinese spies been arrested for spying against Swedish companies.

That our western governments are spying on us is indisputable, but atleast we can use democratic processes in the EU and for a few more weeks the US, to curtail or even stop those things.

2 hours ago, Sarex said:

And that isn't moving the goal post?

If that is true it's absolutely condemnable. So we should also stop buying from Canada for their treatment of the indigenous population (forced sterilization, poor medical treatment, racisam) or from the US for their treatment of Muslims and black people (fyi the US has the largest slave population in the world, ie. the prison system)?

Everyone was ok with China's slave labor when it was building the west and when China was weak and under their control, now that the power balance is at risk we keep hearing about the bad guy China. Funny how that works.

There would have been no computer advancement then, or at least nowhere near to this extent and the economic gap we have between the US and the rest of the world wouldn't have been anywhere near as wide as it is today.

@Zoraptor There is that too, but I think it's mostly down to economics. The telco business is big and Huawei was starting to push out the western alternatives even in European countries. Their networking gear is just as good if not even better than what Ericsson has to offer and it's much cheaper.

The Uighur situation is pretty well known, I'm surprised it has flown past you completely.

The mistreatment of indiginous people in western countries historically and today, doesn't mean we can't **** on the CCP for doing those things actively in the present. Me and others have continually criticized governments and companies for decades for doing this kind of business, it's not a new thing. China isn't the leader in computer sciences, and while computing would've been more expensive I don't think it would have been much less fast at this stage. And that the economic gaps we have today beeing smaller is a huge thing, it is not a good thing anywhere or at any time.