Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 65)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I assumed the point of the Nixon example was that it’s evidence of intent, or to put it another way, there is a distinction between the deluded and the malicious.
Malicious is in the eye of the beholder.
I am sure many of the January 6th rioters were going in with the best of intentions. I believe that many honestly believed the presidential election was stolen, so there was no malicious intent, right? If you adopt their world view, they were heroic. If this happened in a banana republic where the people pushed back against a tin pot dictator, we'd celebrate, right? I think your distinction is kind of useless in practice when it comes to judging historical figures. I think extremely few people act out of sheer malice.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think that picking Nixon out and saying, "Is he extra racist or just the normal amount of racist" kind of misses the point and probably gives too much credit to the position of president. The existing power structure - be it people, political parties, corporations, lobbyists, religious leaders, anyone with influence - propagated a narrative that produced the reality we live in today. It wasn't just Nixon, and it wasn't just that administration.
That's a good point, Laminar.
Of course, I'd still fault politicians for intentionally playing into people's fear and prejudices like Nixon did instead of appealing to their better angels. But we should keep in mind that politicians like Nixon or Trump could only do that, because these racist attitudes and prejudices resonated within a significant part of the population.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2022, 05:15 AM
 
I agree that these people think of themselves as heroes, for the most part. I think there is a class of instigators/manipulators who know the score all too well and should be held to greater account somehow ideally. I saw a clip of Tucker Carlson saying categorically that the FBI were orchestrating the whole thing because he knew there was FBI agents undercover directing the mob. Something like that. That seems like the sort of thing the FBI could file a defamation suit for against Carlton and Fox News. They really ought to. The people doing the rounds on conservative media are the instigators/manipulators I'm talking about. Their roles in this should not be underestimated. If the authorities can get Trump for whatever incitement charges they have in mind, they should go after these lieutenants afterwards. Examples should be made.

Beyond that, how do you snap so many people out of such a strong delusional state? Being a racist POS is one thing, but if Trump was found guilty of sedition and treason and locked up for 1000 years they'd still refuse to believe he was the bad guy. I get the feeling they could watch him rape their own toddlers in front of them and they'd still find the mental gymnastics to blame Nancy Pelosi or Bill Clinton for it instead. Its beyond fanatical, its a cult. If Trump was sent to Guantanamo forever would they start a campaign of suicide bombing? I might be surprised if many of them were actually brave enough, I wouldn't be at surprised by their desire to do it. I wouldn't put it past him to ask them to either.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2022, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think your distinction is kind of useless in practice when it comes to judging historical figures. I think extremely few people act out of sheer malice.
Nixon was accused of acting with malice. The distinction of acting with malice is relevant when the claim is the person acted with malice.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2022, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think extremely few people act out of sheer malice.
The world would be a better place if more people believed this.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2022, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I assumed the point of the Nixon example was that it’s evidence of intent, or to put it another way, there is a distinction between the deluded and the malicious.
But it's a very fuzzy line, because the malice of a few leads to the delusion of the masses. I can't get too mad at my dumb, racist relative because all they know is what is pumped into their brains by social media and sensationalized news sources. Those producing much of the content categorically know for certain that what they're propagating is false, but they do it because it serves other motives - fun, disruption, money, power.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2022, 04:04 PM
 
Facebook must have noticed I haven't been on much the past couple weeks. They're going HARD.



NSFW:
 
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2022, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Nixon was accused of acting with malice. The distinction of acting with malice is relevant when the claim is the person acted with malice.
I think that this is mainly because malicious intent is a relevant question for you. For me it is not. I prefer to think in other categories such as whether one’s actions are deliberate and what kind of responsibilities a person bears. The President is held to a much higher standard than some yokel from the countryside who fell for misinformation.

We have tapes with Nixon expressing freely what he thinks, and irrefutable evidence that he did what he did deliberately. It is fair for people to make up their mind whether they consider that malicious or not, although I don’t find that too useful. Knowingly propagating falsehoods and lying to the public are reprehensible as well as crossing other lines, and if others want to call that malicious that’s ok with me.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2022, 11:12 AM
 
Haven’t bailed, just busy!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2022, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
We have tapes with Nixon expressing freely what he thinks, and irrefutable evidence that he did what he did deliberately.
We don’t. We have one quote from the President’s counsel (John Ehrlichman) which wasn’t revealed until 15 years after he died. This is not irrefutable evidence.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2022, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
But it's a very fuzzy line, because the malice of a few leads to the delusion of the masses. I can't get too mad at my dumb, racist relative because all they know is what is pumped into their brains by social media and sensationalized news sources. Those producing much of the content categorically know for certain that what they're propagating is false, but they do it because it serves other motives - fun, disruption, money, power.
I’m not denying the existence of malice, however my experience has been people consistently over-attribute malice to those they dislike.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2022, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Facebook must have noticed I haven't been on much the past couple weeks. They're going HARD.
Tangentially related, eBay has stumbled across the ideal way to get me to engage with their banner ads. Simply put up random photos from auctions with no descriptor whatsoever, and I’ll spend 5 minutes trying to figure out what it’s a part to, or what it’s a schematic for.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2022, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I’m curious: why do you view Milo’s implosion as a cancelation?
To crib from the Wikipedia definition (even though I hate Wikipedia), cancelation is a form of ostracism. Milo has been ostracized. This began with getting kicked off Twitter.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2022, 06:50 PM
 
So Milo wasn’t "cancelled" in the sense that tends to apply to de-platforming as a way to silence someone.

He was ostracised for being a piece of shit, and lost access to virtually all platforms as a result of that.

One could argue that the result is the same, but the whole discussion implies intent — especially, the intent of limiting presentation of particular viewpoints as part of a political agenda.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2022, 07:22 PM
 
I’m not so sure I can casually separate Milo being a piece of shit and his politics.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2022, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not so sure I can casually separate Milo being a piece of shit and his politics.
Of course you can, and as someone with lots of experiences on forums, you easily should be able to: he was a Jedi master-level troll, getting a rise out of inflaming people, he visibly loved bullying others. That’s independent of his political beliefs.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2022, 11:02 PM
 
Milo was always a piece of shit. As I recall, the only reason he was finally "cancelled" was after some comments about sleeping with underage boys. Had it been girls, I expect his followers would have been comfortable with that but it was just a bit too gay for them and so he was done.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2022, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Of course you can, and as someone with lots of experiences on forums, you easily should be able to: he was a Jedi master-level troll, getting a rise out of inflaming people, he visibly loved bullying others. That’s independent of his political beliefs.
What he trolls people about is politics.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2022, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Milo was always a piece of shit. As I recall, the only reason he was finally "cancelled" was after some comments about sleeping with underage boys. Had it been girls, I expect his followers would have been comfortable with that but it was just a bit too gay for them and so he was done.
We can narrow things to “canceled from Twitter”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2022, 03:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What he trolls people about is politics.
Trolling is a tactic, whether it is about World of Warcraft or politics.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2022, 06:13 PM
 
If we consider trolling as solely a tactic, is not the same thing true about cancelation?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2022, 08:10 PM
 
To toss out another idea, if the right is supposed to like cancelation because it’s free market, shouldn’t the left hate it for being gatekeeping?

FWIW, I’m not trying to do a “gotcha”. I have issues with gatekeeping.


Edit: though I should say the marketplace of ideas has a “gate”, and not letting people in is “gatekeeping”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2022, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If we consider trolling as solely a tactic, is not the same thing true about cancelation?
I agree insofar that cancelation has nothing to do with ideology. Although I’d say cancelation is an outcome, not a tactic in and of itself.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To toss out another idea, if the right is supposed to like cancelation because it’s free market, shouldn’t the left hate it for being gatekeeping?
IMHO seeing this through the left-right lens is obscuring things rather than enlightening. “Cancelations” are nothing new, there have been times when the right used it quite a lot. Remember the discussions about song lyrics when we were teenagers? Or the endless fines Howard Stern has received for saying “forbidden” words on his radio show? Or the pressure some people or organizations have felt for supporting certain causes. This is true for a lot of things, including e. g. “identity politics” — what was Bush 2’s campaign aiming at Christians but an incarnation of identity politics?

We’d be much better off remembering that few things are new. Yes, Twitter is a thing now, so the manifestation is different.

To answer your question: I would advocate that instead of making storms in teapots about cancelations and crying how bad these times are compared to the glorious past, that we look at the issues. Why is someone receiving pushback for something they have said? Is the pushback correct and proportionate to what they have said? Does it matter whether the person is famous or not? Etc.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2022, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I agree insofar that cancelation has nothing to do with ideology. Although I’d say cancelation is an outcome, not a tactic in and of itself.
It’s both. It’s a state (outcome), and it’s the actions (tactics) needed to arrive at that state. Canceled is a state. Canceling is an action.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 15, 2022 at 03:47 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2022, 06:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It’s both. It’s a state (outcome), and it’s the actions (tactics) needed to arrive at that state. Canceled is a state. Canceling is an action.
Not the way I understand and use the term, but we can agree to disagree here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2022, 12:25 PM
 
You need to present an actual argument before we can agree to disagree. You made an unsupported claim, and then ended the discussion when challenged.

In English, a verb with the suffix “-ing” is an action. The word “canceling” can only describe an action.

Use the word “canceling” to mean a state in a proper English sentence. You can’t, because that’s not how the language works.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2022, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Is the pushback correct and proportionate to what they have said?
What I’m concerned with is when the pushback isn’t correct and proportionate. Specifically, what causes it to happen.

As one example, I can draw a pretty straight line between the deficiencies of Twitter as a medium and the deficiencies in the justice it dispenses. Twitter disfavors context and nuance, both conditions which suppress the consideration of exculpatory evidence.

This is a lousy justice system regardless of which ideology opts to use it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2022, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You need to present an actual argument before we can agree to disagree. You made an unsupported claim, and then ended the discussion when challenged.
???
I told you the way I understand and use the word “canceled”.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In English, a verb with the suffix “-ing” is an action. The word “canceling” can only describe an action.
Yes, but you can also use the verb cancel in different ways. You could say “X has been canceled.” which describes a state. And if you are consistently using a description of a state, you can use the verb cancel — just use the right conjugation
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I’m concerned with is when the pushback isn’t correct and proportionate. Specifically, what causes it to happen.
Here is where I would delineate between famous people or public person and people like you and me who also happen to have a Twitter account. Like I wrote before, that’s why I am more concerned of people we haven’t heard of when it comes to people having been canceled. The time Milo published the name of one of the Republican interns who asked him critical questions is a cancelation in my book: she wasn’t a public person before and he used it to have his followers dump ungodly amounts of manure on this teenager.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As one example, I can draw a pretty straight line between the deficiencies of Twitter as a medium and the deficiencies in the justice it dispenses. Twitter disfavors context and nuance, both conditions which suppress the consideration of exculpatory evidence.
It isn’t just Twitter, if you look at Reddit and forums it can be just the same. Just look around, how many big, well-managed forums do you know? Few. In our heyday, we struggled (and I feel like we didn’t do a great job because we were too tolerant of trolls who poisoned the atmosphere).

Yes, Twitter exacerbates the issue by its even larger brevity and the fact Twitter has more users than any forum ever had.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2022, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, but you can also use the verb cancel in different ways.
Which is what I said. Canceled is a state. Cancelling is an action. The verb cancel can apply to either. The claim canceling is limited to outcomes (states) is false.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2022, 07:35 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2022, 08:56 PM
 
I read this to say he’s declaring medically assisted transitioning illegal for minors.

I didn’t read super closely. Does he ask CPS to investigate every trans child, or only purported cases of medically assisted transition?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2022, 02:14 PM
 
All trans children and their parents. He also instructs doctors, reachers, etc. to report any trans children they see. Basically, the Texas Attorney General wrote an opinion that helping a child transition is child abuse, and, thus, makes parents abusers. Additionally, doctors, teachers, and anyone else with knowledge of a child being trans can be held accountable if they do not report the child and their parents to authorities.
From Abbott’s letter...
Texas law imposes reporting requirements upon all licensed professionals who have direct contact with children who may be subject to such abuse, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, and provides criminal penalties for failure to report such child abuse. See id. §§ 261.101(b), 261.109(a-1). There are similar reporting requirements and criminal penalties for members of the general public.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2022, 03:34 PM
 
Said abuse is defined as “a wide variety of elective procedures” [emphasis added]. It then goes on to provide examples, like HRT.

It’s not illegal or abuse in Texas for a minor to be trans, What’s illegal and abuse in Texas is medically assisting the transition.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 01:16 PM
 
How is a teacher or random person supposed to know if someone is medically transitioning? Check to see if the boobs are falsies/stuffed vs surgical? If someone is using a binder vs surgical? Check them out in the locker room?

That crosses a line that teachers are not supposed to cross.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 01:59 PM
 
Perhaps teachers are only expected to report what they overhear from the kids. Kids are notable for talking without thinking first. A few never grow out of the habit.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 02:53 PM
 
Yeah. It’s saying if a minor confides in a teacher, they’re legally obligated to rat them out.

I’m curious? What is the general feeling here on minors medically transitioning?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 03:27 PM
 
It is my understanding that today's medical tech cannot do the job for real. The result is sterile, and likely not reversible.

I'll agree with the conservatives on banning it for minors. Such a decision should only be made by an adult, about themselves.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 03:47 PM
 
My understanding is in certain cases the sooner such things are done, the better the individual will “pass”.

Okay, that’s not an unreasonable point to make, but the point has also been made the entire societal construct of “passing” is garbage and should be abandoned.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It is my understanding that today's medical tech cannot do the job for real. The result is sterile, and likely not reversible.

I'll agree with the conservatives on banning it for minors. Such a decision should only be made by an adult, about themselves.
I am trying to be supportive of teens questioning themselves, and fully acknowledge that our ideas of gender roles are messed up... but consider this: I did not let my child pierce their ears until they were 12yo, an age which seemed appropriate both for maturity and responsibility, which translates to ability to maintain the piercing for cleanliness, not lose expensive jewelry, etc. That was just for an investment of $130, for something that isn't necessarily permanent. Changing your mind about pierced ears is as easy as stopping wearing them. Hair dye washes out.

Being trusted with a $300 phone: age 13.

Getting a job: 16 (or sooner if your area has those jobs)

Tattoos, nose jobs, boob jobs, other cosmetic surgery, etc are decisions for adults, for both maturity, costs, health, and relative permanence.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 06:08 PM
 
So, is Texas doing anything wrong in your opinion?

As an aside, I got my ear pierced at 16 without asking permission. My dad’s response was “you look like a fag”. My mom’s response was to give me all her singles.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 09:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Said abuse is defined as “a wide variety of elective procedures” [emphasis added]. It then goes on to provide examples, like HRT.
I think you are missing the point: as far as I understand the intent all trans children are to be investigated “to make sure they aren’t doing something illegal.” That’s turns due process on its head, parents and doctors of trans children are guilty until proven innocent.

Just imagine if all gun owners were forced to register their weapons to make sure nobody had done anything illegal with them. (I’m using this example, because I think you are against that.) Trans children are targeted because they are a small minority that does not have the numbers to fight back in force.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It’s not illegal or abuse in Texas for a minor to be trans, What’s illegal and abuse in Texas is medically assisting the transition.
One big point is the issue of puberty blockers, which prevent permanent changes in the body structure that would make it more difficult to transition later on.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think you are missing the point: as far as I understand the intent all trans children are to be investigated “to make sure they aren’t doing something illegal.” That’s turns due process on its head, parents and doctors of trans children are guilty until proven innocent.
Does it say that somewhere? What is this reading based on?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2022, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does it say that somewhere? What is this reading based on?
I think the most in-depth coverage I have heard was on the podcast Pivot.
The legislation addresses an issue that is mostly of symbolic value to a share of the GOP electorate. It addresses an issue that doesn’t actually exist in the way that it is portrayed, and is taken from the same playbook that homosexuals were treated for a long time. The situation in Texas specifically moves something that was pretty well-regulated by existing medical codes and the like into a legal gray area. It seems that the basis is in part a non-binding legal opinion that declares that hormone therapy, puberty blockers and other medical treatments constitute child abuse. From the quoted text it is not clear whether e. g. psychological treatment is allowed or not. That makes it rife for unequal application of the law, for parents, children and doctors to be harassed and/or being forced to test whether this legal opinion has legs to stand on.

But I think you don’t need to look at the details: this is symbol politics. Trans people are being targeted just to find a condensation point for the outrage they want to generate. Outrage that is meant to show “how bad the other side is”. Just like CRT, which is a niche scientific field of study, whose definition is distorted beyond recognition and its importance is inflated. This is all on the back of a small minority who is already struggling because of bullying and the mental health issues that come with not feeling at home in your own body.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2022, 10:40 AM
 
Meanwhile, Florida makes a play for “most intentionally cruel” honors with the Don’t Say Gay bills.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2022, 04:21 PM
 
Sorry again for the massive delay! I’ve been ridiculously busy, and also wanted to give my position some consideration.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It addresses an issue that doesn’t actually exist in the way that it is portrayed… The situation in Texas specifically moves something that was pretty well-regulated by existing medical codes
This seems the best place to start.

This is a reasonable point to make if the Democratic/liberal/progressive position is we should maintain these regulations in existing medical codes as the status quo.

Is that the Democratic/liberal/progressive position? I get the impression they would see these procedures being far less regulated due to the potential of regulation denying the treatment to a deserving trans patient.

A regulation which denies treatment to a deserving trans patient is de facto state mandated conversion therapy.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 7, 2022 at 05:32 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2022, 04:59 PM
 
To put this another way, the more we insure the people who need these procedures have access, the more they will be accessed by those who shouldn’t. Likewise, the more we keep them away from those who shouldn’t, the more we end up denying access to those who should. Any position we take has an unavoidable downside.

The same can be said for #MeToo and “believe the woman”. The more we believe the woman, the more cover we give for liars to take advantage of. The more we focus on the liars, the more we unjustly dismiss those who tell the truth.

My perception is most involved in the debate wish to sweep their respective downsides under the rug. Honestly discussing downsides entails making oneself vulnerable. Since neither side in the debate trusts the other, there’s no incentive to be vulnerable.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2022, 06:00 PM
 
Downsides are important but the most important part is scale.

Taking the example of believing women, or rather not believing them in case they start to lie more often, this strikes me as akin to banning condoms because some people have a latex allergy.
Another good (bad) one would be the stupid argument about trans women in public bathrooms raping children. The right has a way of taking a tiny downside and blowing it out of all proportion in order to get their way on an issue.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2022, 06:21 PM
 
Apologies. My #MeToo example was very poorly phrased. What I meant was “the more we believe the woman, the more we convict innocent men, the more we protect innocent men, the more we unjustly dismiss women telling the truth.” Lying is a reason an innocent can get convicted, but by no means the only reason.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2022, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is a reasonable point to make if the Democratic/liberal/progressive position is we should maintain these regulations in existing medical codes as the status quo.
You are assuming that there is a massive difference of opinion among the majority of the population.

According to some polls the various (proposed) laws that enact restrictions on transgender people do not have even majority support amongst Republicans. Yet according to other polls there is a partisan divide. Others are mixed. I realize that these different polls were (in part) about different topics, I am just saying that it is not clear to me that it is clear that there is a clear Democratic vs. a Republican position.

My impression is that this is meat for the hardcore base of a particular strand of Republican voter, but not necessarily something that has as broad of a support as they seem to think. I reckon it’ll push some Republican voters further away, e. g. those living in the suburbs or dcities and women. (Why are us men so much more stuck-up on topics like homosexuality and transgenderism?)
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A regulation which denies treatment to a deserving trans patient is de facto state mandated conversion therapy.
Right. And it is a solution in search of a problem just like transgender bathroom bills. It is manufactured controversy. Hormone blockers aren’t doled out like Reese’s peanut butter cups. Gender reaffirming surgery isn’t performed on 12-year-olds because they “have a difficult phase”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2022, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To put this another way, the more we insure the people who need these procedures have access, the more they will be accessed by those who shouldn’t. Likewise, the more we keep them away from those who shouldn’t, the more we end up denying access to those who should. Any position we take has an unavoidable downside. […] My perception is most involved in the debate wish to sweep their respective downsides under the rug. Honestly discussing downsides entails making oneself vulnerable. Since neither side in the debate trusts the other, there’s no incentive to be vulnerable.
What I hear is “The pendulum could swing too far.” and some people use that as an argument to change very little to nothing. We should solve problems when we come across them. It is fine to let the pendulum swing, as long as we keep an eye on it and adjust it if it has gone too far one way or another. But usually we don’t even know how far we need to let it swing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2022, 02:56 AM
 
When it comes to dispensing treatments to trans minors, which side should we err on at this juncture? Permissiveness or restriction?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,