#politics
1 messages · Page 78 of 1
hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing
is this supposed to be a bad thing? from where I stand this seems pretty good
these are what the bill was against, none of this "compelled speech" bullshit
like, if you don't want to use some pronouns, don't talk to someone or just use their name
zero issue
sure, you understand his point right - just not the actual bill
Technically gender violation goes right to a human rights tribune, and non compliance of said ruling can lead to prison time
While pronoun isn't mentioned, this is what people refer to
" In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act."
said people don't really seem to care (Both in a positive or negative way) from what I know
I guess that's both good and bad in a way?
the article expressly states that the only time it could become problematic to use the wrong pronouns is multiple times on purpose, as in purposefully misgendering and harassing somebody
and even then, the guy says it's "unlikely" that even that would cause jail time
yep
so again, as is part of the playbook of those sorts of people, make up a big scary enemy in your head and then argue against that
I see no problem here, and since I would be protected (if I lived in canada lol) tbh it would be nice
what we really need is a common understanding between groups
vector against freedom of speech?!
demonizing the other side (No matter which side you're on) never helps
what? thats a weird way to say trans people were protesting a speech from a guy who was hating on them and refusing to acknowledge their gender identity
and to make things worse either side will always have extremist outliers
He never did hate on them?
he never did refuse to aknowledge their gender identity?
and then they get generalized to represent the entire community
and the cycle goes on
lmao he absolutely has spread and incited hatred of trans people like multiple times
the whole lobster analogy was literally his invention
he refused to use people's preferred pronouns
just because you can't find it cat doesn't mean it doesn't exist - we had this discussion before lmao
"At the time, the Canadian parliament was considering something called Bill C-16, a bill banning discrimination against people on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression.” In September, Peterson released a series of YouTube videos attacking the bill as a grave threat to free speech rights. He said he would refuse to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns; separating gender and biological sex was, in his view, “radically politically correct thinking.” He argued that C-16 would lead to people like him being arrested."
when did he refuse to use their preferred pronouns?
link to videos of him saying that in article
He said he would refuse to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns
nope, he said multiple times he wouldn't acknowledge trans peoples' gender identities
:|
becareful, lack of evidence doesnt go well
hello bois
there isn't a lack of evidence it's literally a video of him saying it lmfao
who we shitting on this time around
The video they link I can't watch as it's privated
Kezz has a point, from the way the article is worded it does seem like he means it that way, but I would be wary of drawing conclusions from this alone
gender
ah
I recall him specifically saying that in the case that somebody asked him to use their preferred pronouns that he would
nah we are "discussing" jordan peterson's blatant nonbinary and transphobia
video evidence >>> you "recalling"
Here's my take on gender: you should be able to choose your gender and people should respect your choices, if they don't then its on them and you should probably ignore them and move on
based
timestamps
gender sucks anyways
I just give up on genz need to be special, its just inefficient
fucking snoopa you made me hungry with the description of the oreo milkshake D:<
^^^
yas
lmfao what is this cat - what do you think happened - vox just lied?
Jordan Peterson told LBC's Maajid Nawaz he is refusing to let the government tell him what he can and can't say.
Subscribe to LBC: http://bit.ly/SubscribeToLBC
LBC: Leading Britain's Conversation
DAB Digital Radio | 97.3FM FM London
:D
"The media said it so you must believe them, they'd never lie to us, would they?!"
cat it was video evidence
theres VIDEO EVIDENCE lmao??
im so confused
are you some deep fake conspiracy nutter or something??
wat
absolutely hilarious
this stuff is why I'm a Centrist :P haha
if you don't trust a media article that cites video evidence than you got bigger problems
you mean you trust the media?
The private video they cite which can't be watched?

Ignoring the number of times that the media has been caught out on both sides of the political spectrum twisting words and snippets to their own twang
calm down y'all need to step back and look at it from the other person's perspective
he has a point
sure, the other perspective being "vox lied about easily provable evidence from a publically available interview"
Channel 4 News’ full, fiery interview with clinical psychologist and professor Jordan B Peterson, whose views on gender have amassed great controversy - and a huge online following. He discusses the pay gap, patriarchy and his new book "12 Rules for Life." Subscribe: http://bit.ly/2mFYm8e.
not to defend anyone we're talking about but that is true of media nowadays
you are all just conspiracy theory nutters lmao
Also we are talking about a guy whos profession is about mental health and the sort?
im out this is dumb :D
rather than spend five seconds looking up an alternative source you prefer to believe that vox lied about easily disproved evidence based on commonly available knowledge that a guy who made his career objecting to a bill enacted to make the lives of trans people just a little, teeny bit better
I mean, first setion of the first clip he said that he doesn't want the government to be enforcing words you use to address people
which they aren't, as the bill said
whats so wrong about the government urging people to respect other peoples' gender identities? if youre cis it doesnt affect you at all so why do you care
Well, I'm not exactly Cis I don't think
oh my god the bill doesn't compel you do to anything
what I'm saying doesn't reflect my views on this (In fact I have none lmao) but I think the general consensus is that it's better to go the route of understanding than through force
the imaginary enemy in your head is getting out again
other than that thats disrespectful to actual queer people i really dont care
man this vector person is dumb, IP is seriously silly af
I dont think its under perview of the government to enforce and dictate what people can say or associate with. I do think it is under perview that government doesnt discriminate against people with any underlying attribute, be mental, physical, etc.
Why are you guys getting so angry so fast
But, I mean, I generally don't want the government poking their fingers too much in stuff, I'm not exactly against it but I think that it's a potential slippery slope when you start enforcing laws around what people can effectively say
this is #politics , duh
cool, which would be fine if that was what the bill was actually doing
this still isn't healthy at all, politics or not
i beg you all to actually read the article linked a while ago
it's short
like 5/6 paragraphs
who reads in 2021 smh
why read when you can just continue arguing against a bill that literally doesn't do what i say it does
everyone in PaperMC when they're doing a PR obviously
no laff?
:(
I'm not arguing against the bill?
that is a very slippery slope there Vector
I get what you mean but that's a dangerous edge to lean on
I wouldn't say "on the spectrum" that tends to mean autistic but ok
what is so bad about identifying as something as for a bit lmao - people do it with sexuality all the time no big deal
not really?
and don't start on hrt/etc - that stuff is ridiciously hard to get
I mean, theres people who flip their gender every day they wake up
yes I'm definitely gender non conforming because society told me so, not because being gendered as my biological sex causes me extreme dysphoria and depression
I have genuine severe autism and I haven't heard anyone refer to me like that
I mean, there are many spectrums
@urban vector seems to depend on the country, there are some people who find it rather easy to start treatment, while other places find it more difficult
the gender spectrum, the sexuality spectrum, the nerological spectrum or however it was
thats why autism diagnosis is referred to as ASD formally? (autism spectrum disorder)
then by all means my bad
nah it fine fam
So hostile
I think its still ASD, but its more of a group of disorders that revolve around similar symptoms
something along those lines yeah
it's still called ASD in the dsm for what it's worth
and there are people who purely have social issues.
thats what I meant
do you have any evidence that this is an actual problem vector
like, any studies/articles/anything
Vector you need a common understanding between the 2 parties when talking about something like this
you can't drop something like that into an already heated debate and expect things to not spiral
do you not understand bias
I think thats female to male and back. male to female ive seen more transition backs to be rare
vector a youtube channel isn't a peer reviewed study lmao
we're talking about actual reputable news here, not some alt-right propaganda youtube channel
really? I thought it was the other way around
one guy still isn't a peer reviewed study or properly analysed statistics
you've gotta know that right
fuck me I've forgotten all my basics
some people have a rough journey but that doesn't mean its ok for someone to invalidate EVERY OTHER trans person ever
just because they found out they were actually comfortable with being amab
like, "65-95% will transition back" where has that data come from?
guys y'know you're both right btw
because as far as i can see he pulled it out of thin air
transition is not the solution for everyone but that doesn't mean it doesn't help anyone whatsoever
b- but the pretty numbers 🥺
heyyy >:(
transitioning is the best solution for gender dysphoria, as is accepted by most global/national health organisations and has been proven by multiple studies/articles
a man saying a stat isn't evidence vector
if i said "100% of cows are secretly robots" that isn't evidence
and this can be proven by more than some random ass youtube video made by an alt-right propaganda channel
I think we already know that Kezz Zyphys already mentioned that
vector are you purposefully just ignoring everything i say
again not taking sides here but you can't just say something is alt right propaganda just by a glance
like, you do know the difference between data and anecdotes right?
I do think we need safeguards before we allow people to transition, as its a life changing process that seems to require medical intervention. This is also rather why this is much more common in larger population groups than in the middle of nowhere or developing nations.
100% ^^^
one guy's story isn't evidence of a society-wide problem
just a glance??? have you seen the channel
look at the other videos
trans regret is real, but, this is seemingly not an area which is studied all too well, 60 minutes got raged upon when they did an episode talking about it
it is studied... very well
But, it's a complex situation, you don't wanna prevent those who need help from getting it, and trying to work out what all is going on is complex
Thats one of the major problems with trans regret, it seems to get covered up as soon as something gets published
if you've done a detailed analysis before then yes, you can make that distinction, I'm just helpfully reminding you that if you didn't it's a dangerous pithole to fall into @ vriend
I mean, the numbers from studies I see seems to swing around
ranging from like .5% - 11%
I mean there is this study but it isnt saying 65-96% https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/03000/regret_after_gender_affirmation_surgery__a.22.aspx
The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of regret in transgender individuals who underwent GAS and evaluate associated factors.
Methods:
A systematic review of several databases was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.
Results:
A total of 27 studies, po...
bear in mind that the largest reason cited for detransitioning is "societal pressure"
But, the reasons are also complex and not all of them are permanent detransitions
this looks like a site with a clear agenda
it literally links to the studies
as they provide services
or you can read nomana's linked study
couldn't this also just be falsely reported impostor syndrome?
a lot of trans and gender-nonconforming ppl struggle with feelings that they dont belong
myself included
Might be I'm not sure if that is covered by the study
I havent read all of it
I'm also not sure of the timespan since operations/stuff that they questioned the people in the study
omg no way - literally misreporting a stat from the lead study linked on that website
myself included
putting all the politics aside, none of that means you don't belong, if that's any reassurance
trust me, I know how it feels
Although a 2.2% prevalence of regret after SRS thus represents a
conservative estimate
somehow becomes 20% in his website's byline hahaha
and that somehow also became 65% in the video
quality maths
so that's article 1, article 2 is a 17 year old guardian article linking zero academic sources
so he's just pulling numbers out of his ass lol
0.5% * 100 epic poggers / jordan peterson height + ligma = 65% (if you round up)
bulletproof statistics
if you put the 2 upside down and add a zero and draw another little line it kinda looks like 65%
therefore we need to end trans healthcare.
you have to squint a little but yeh hrt is clearly a scam
I think you have the order mixed up
The good news is that we're well on the course to an idiocracy
I mean
I literally never knew that was even a thing
I mean, idk what can really be said on it
loneliness is a really big issue in the elderly population
I's a real issue in which defo needs a better solutuion but it's not like our government has done a good job
Things like the tv license is a good show for that where many elderly people used the TV as a means just to even have a voice in the background
how have you summarised it's a result of secularisation?
I don't see how that is relevant
I mean
Yea, sure, the church for some elderly is the only place where they actually interact with people
im sure it's possibly had an impact, but nothing is really stopping these elderly people from going to church if they wanted to
But, people losing their way with religion is not really the issue here, the primary issue is finding places to help these people meet and interact with others
most people I know who are religious don't use religion as a purpose in life
loneliness isn't really a complex issue - it's people who are lonely, connecting it to some loss of purpose in life seems like a massive leap
just as a book they read and try to follow as conveniently as they can
and a place they're expected to visit every so often
religion and the culture which was brought up around it isn't free from issues either
arranged marrigies are still well and alive even in the UK
pretty sure yes
a lot of people also get essentially forced into marriage in christianity where they probably wouldn't get married otherwise
just so they can have sex/etc
The muslim community, at least my experience with it, is sloooowly being westernised in some respects but theres still many "hard line" families where a woman smoking is practically grounds for removal from the family
the muslim stuff is kinda talked about on the extreme side of stuff often as it's somewhat more visible and talked about in a sense, the families which are being more open are kinda like, more open behind closed doors given the views of the community
In christian families its more the other way around, christian families are happy glory all fun, love marrigies are generally the norm outside of the typical "we'll find you somebody, how about X son of X family friend" type stuff which is less, "sit around in a family as they basically discuss trading children to others" more or less
But, somebody gets pregnant and daaaamn does shit hit the fan
The thing is that so many wrongs happen in the church and the whole foundation basically protects its own ass
isn't the vatican still refusing to work with the agencies in regards to their own members praying on children?
Lol, I just did a google
So,
not having the jab:
no job
noncing:
job
Well
I the church is firm about it's decisions of punishing those who refuse to take a jab
iirc in the UK it's pretty normal to call it "the jab"
In the US that started as only anti-vaccine people saying it but now it seems pretty common
Yea, vaccinations have been called "jabs" for years here
the yearly flu jab is something I recall the advertising for using those terms for as long as I remember
i thought it was always called a jab from the start haha
Never gonna guess who said kneeling for the national anthem shows “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents & grandparents to live a decent life.”
Well really, I think the larger story is why no one heard that from RBG when she said it, but
Well, turns out Sputnik V was safe and effective because... Russia was the good guy for once and stole the blueprints of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-astrazeneca-vaccine-blueprint-sputnik-b1935992.html
(I still find it bullshit that we give drug companies massive sums of public money for private profit.)
I thought that was a complaint about public funding for basic research and even sometimes grants to work on specific things that are then privatized
Like Oxford developing the vaccine then giving it over to AZ to produce and sell
Tbh the pharmaceuticals industry is fucked
Studies are never done on existing drugs, even if it could be massively life changing for some people, because there is no financial incentive
AZ had to figure out how to mass produce and distribute it and had to run the trials but they were getting tons of funding and help from governments for that stuff too
Can't patent an existing drug
It was handed over to them because that was the way people thought it would get out the fastest
Pharmaceuticals is something that would be substantially better if publicly run
This motherfucker is trying to prosecute a journalist for pressing Ctrl-U
oh the individual was the journalist? lol
decoded html
Lmao
Every kid knows how inspect element works
Every kid with a computer I guess
students are starting to steal each other's notes with iOS 15 and it's... kind of genius https://t.co/klE992DuBn
2413
11436
Related I guess
Kids just found out iOS copied google lens
if kids were humble, they would just share their knowledge with each other
decoded the HTML source 🙂
oh shit guess i gotta stop putting my ssn in the html of my website
what's next, I can't put my bank password in my bio so I can remember it faster?
the rest of his tweets since then are even more hilarious lmao
imagine being such an incompetent clown you choose to focus on a reporter pressing f12 and seeing your incompetence instead of, for example, updating your old and extremely vulnerable voting equipment
State government IT is often an incompetent mess. People in IT often find much better and much more lucrative jobs in the private sector, so state agencies usually wind up with the bottom of the barrel.
If they're lucky, they have some old fart who is willing to take a big pay cut because they have FU money.
In addition, due to states that like to cut their budgets a lot, there's little room to advance. So in the end, if the right private sector job offer comes in, they'll leave.
But, yeah, the governor's behavior here is incompetent AF
but that's just standard issue GOP shit
The website should not had access to social security numbers in the first place, though.
Plus state governments, naturally, offer less perks to their employees. If you're lucky, you might get a pension, otherwise they will give you a 401(k) with high mutual fund fees and no match.
I mean, if you can score a pension and that's a part of your retirement plan, and you can deal with the otherwise barebone benefits, then that's a probably good trade for the future.
For instance, I'm currently looking for a job, and one of the companies I'm looking at offers a truly dizzying amount of benefits, such as the ability to work from home, an education and wellness budget, and a 401(k) with a 100% match on 4% of contributions, a budget you can use to upgrade your office, and fully covered health insurance. Another offers not just that but also stipends to pay for internet connectivity, an one-time budget to upgrade your home office, and a stipend to help defray moving expenses.
(Oh, and both companies offer 401(k)s with low fees.)
Isn’t that because people are having a hard time finding good workers? (so they will put more effort/money to compete)
Meanwhile, the state of Georgia offers... very little. There is a pension, if you're lucky, a 401(k) of unknown quality, a "wellness program", and state holidays off/some paid leave but that's about it. And I would have to commute to work.
It also helps I am looking for a job in tech, therefore I do enjoy a significantly higher salary than a state government would be willing to part with for all but the highest-level employees (and, uh, college sports team coaches), and a chronic undersupply of talent.
NEW: A school administrator in Southlake, Texas, advised teachers last week that if they have a book about the Holocaust in their classroom, they should also have a book with an "opposing" perspective.
Listen to the audio recording obtained by @NBCNews: https://t.co/vS0IjlROMu https://t.co/yPtM1ncjgV
7262
14624
WTF
Though it's funny. I can see a case where this policy compels the school to also offer, say, Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States
that kind of book would not go over well being in a GOP hotspot in Texas
I mean, that's, sus
Make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, that you have one that has an opposing — that has other perspectives
I mean, we have many books about the treatment of the jews when that started to hit them, we have many books about the rest of the worlds fight and triumph to free them!
Books in my school where over rated and then work life sapped away free time so my reading kinda like, stopped happening, but, is there any quality books about the german prospective? I hear mien kampf said a lot, so, maybe? 🤷♂️
I mean, I would not complain if my school had me read mine kampf, if nothing else then to further solidify the fact in my brain that hitler was a psychopath.
i fucking hate it here
That’s not exactly what it does, trans people can still participate in sports, but I get your point.
I mean, it's a complex issue, but, painting it black and white is just bleh
AAThe purpose of this Act is to further the governmental interest of ensuring that sufficient interscholastic athletic opportunities remain available for girls to remedy past discrimination on the basis of sex.
There are inherient advantages that males have when it comes to specific sports, which yea, are negated to a degree when you start taking hormones, etc, but, many of the traits which make men men don't exactly go away
That’s interesting, didn’t see that route being taken
Theres been a pretty big kick off from women being pissed that trans people are basically taking the opertunities, especially as they have no real means to compete on a fair playing field there
I mean, this is all kinda new in the scheme of things, but, theres many cases of like, a high league womens team in X losing against against a team of k12 males or whatever
trans women/men arent any different from cisgender women/men
there is no evidence whatsoever that trans people's participation in sports is bad for cis people but ok
source: just trust me bro
Yea, just ignore all the women who say that they've lost opertunities due to it and such, k
Who cares what they have to say
thats just deadass transphobic?
what?
trans women participating in sports doesn't take away from cis women at all, same with trans men
You're literally dismissing what people who are actually impacted by this say
You are literally dismissing the accounts of women whom many are saying have lost out on opportunities due to people transitioning over and taking the #1 and #2 spots
I know this is a story https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294
Theres much science which states that, yes, when you transition, you do lose some of the gains from just being a male, but, you still retain a much better foundation which for women can be hard, if not impossible, to make up for
people don't transition because they want to have an advantage in sports, they transition because their assigned gender causes them extreme mental anguish
Literally not what I said
you are being ignorant and blatantly transphobic
what am I being ignorant against?
i honestly dont have the energy for this
Cat hasn’t said anything of the sort, you can’t put that label on any viewpoint that is different from your own.
Sports are separated for physical reasons, even if trans women should be socially the same as cis women that doesn't mean no physical differences exist
It's not a clear cut thing either way
I suspect the later you transition the more of an advantage you'd have but I haven't looked for any studies, that's just a guess
as I said, it's a complex issue; One one side, trans females have an inherient advantage over cis-females if they went through puberty, some of which gains are lost through transitioning but there are many aspects towards male pubertity which has massive implications in some sports, it's why sports are seperated by gender, and many sports are seperated by weight class, because it's to protect people involved; Imagine a heavyweight male against a lightweight male and picture how that would end; At the same point, you don't wanna punish and ostricise trans people for being trans, but, especially in regards to sports, it brings up a lot of questions and concerns, a massive one being the advantages which males pick up during puberty which drastically wipes the floor
I was reading a while ago, I forgot the like, rough ages, but, you'll note that school sports are seperated into male/female groups around when people start going through puberty as there starts to be a demonstratable difference between the two genders and especially in how they like "move up" going through puberty
I think before that it was mostly an even playing field
or he's being rational. trans females do have an advantage over cis ones in sports, this isn't something new lol
idk about several athletes, there has been some rare cases but you are right that those drugs are banned
category divided by biological sex and then category divided by gender maybe?
nah, that would still exclude trans males and trans females as "trans"
and not their own gender identity
i believe the default should be biological sex for selection and different competitions based on gender identities
ao now you know there could be trans females who'd just dunk on you
in what?
Oh, but biological females would be able to know that's a risk when joining gender divided competitions
instead of sex divided ones
if you get what i mean
why?
as i said, you divide by sex by default
and you could have gender divisions as a secondary
female athlete joins -> pick between sex and gender
trans female athlete joins -> pick between sex(as biological male) or gender(female)
excluded? no, but would adhere to their biological sex as the name of the division entails
it's more fair if it's divided that way i think
it's hard to come to a consensus though you're right
i just hope with better advancement we can close the gap with trans females and biological ones so they don't have a competitive advantage
what i mean is that newer hormone drugs and stuff could be used by trans females to be on par with a biological female to make it fair
but it would be difficult to mandate that stuff in sports wouldn't it 
problem is somebody's gotta be excluded to make it fair
just like we don't expect people who had their legs amputated to be on an olympic track
unless it's paraplegic tracks(i think that's how it's said)
exactly, so excluded can have their own thing, so it's not unfair for them
i'm just glad i don't make sports rules kek
you'd be shown the door for any suggestion at all tbh
Is it wrong to keep sports separated based on biological gender? They were separated for physical, not social reasons.
Well, that's not really true - if they were separated solely on physical reasons then you'd just have weight classes and other forms of specific categories for various sports (similar to the paralympics/other sports with weight classes) instead of separating them by sex
there's no reason why a man and a women with identical physiques/etc can't compete together, it's just we were lazy and decided "eh women tend to be weaker so lets just split it up like that ig"
Issue is that within weight catagories you're gonna have differences in between where women and men qualify between each group, which creates a lot of nuance
That's not really got anything to do with men/women though, just that class-based categories are complex and hard and very arbitrary anyway
it's just easier to say "well men in one group women in another done"
despite being not as fair
Yea, I mean, sports are complex anyways, as it's like, a lot of it boils down to training as much as it just boils down to your gene pool
for most sports it's just like, that's what it is; You have mens soccer and you have womens soccer, and, like, from what I've heard there is generally a good difference between the plays of both genders to the degree that it makes a lot of sense to split it
and then you've got the more, contact type sports where weight divisions come into play, and, you don't wanna split the groups up so much that somebody goes for a piss and they're disqualified, but, the current sorting weight probs isn't ideal either, but, I mean, the nuance is, what do you do? split it up even more?
i quite like what they do in chess tbh
bc i don't think we're at a point where it would be beneficial to just abolish sex categories for sports as a lot of sports would just completely lose all competing athletes of a certain gender (even with perfect categorisation) just due to how hyper masculine/feminine certain sports are
but allowing a mixed competition whilst also having a women/mens category (depending on who dominates the sport) in order to encourage and help fix that gender imbalance is great and works well in the sports that do that already
Well in the chess system, the best female chess player isn’t even close to the top male player. Don’t quote me on this, but I think the top female is down 300 ELO
Not really sure what that has to do with anything, many female chess players have competed and won/performed well in many tournaments against men
With chess and that sorta thing it’s more to do with women being less accepted in the sport tbh
If less people enter less people will get to the top
(Plus people being driven out before they’ve reached what they could have)
yes let's categorize trans people into a league for disabled people, nothing problematic about that
you suck at reading comprehension
i wanted to draw a picture of how classification could work in those cases
you can join the gender divisions as your preferred gender without any requirement of your biological sex
im confused as to why it would be under the paralympics tho
if there's no disabilities involved
it wouldn't be?
this is exactly what i'm saying about your reading comprehension skills being bad
nvm James said that but you still said sports should be divided into biological sex
yes please control your outrage lol
eg trans women would have to participate in mens sports (which makes no sense)
i said divisions should be created between biological sex and gender
as in you have a sport division for biological sex, and one for gender
in gender it's fair game for everyone to join as what they identify, in sex it's only fair if they have that biological sex
make sense?
that still excludes trans people from sports and makes no sense
they wouldn't be excluded, they'd just have to either compete as their biological sex or their preferred gender in another division
by implementing something like that you're essentially saying that trans women arent real women and they're just choosing what they identify as?
The easiest solution is certainly to just ban trans people from sports so that's what's happening
they're not biological women, and therein lies the rub with sports
I don't think any other solution to the problem looks like what we have now
I've seen arguments about categorizing based on testosterone levels which would filter some outlier cis women over to competing with men too
i just dont understand the need to descriminate against trans people instead of just let them participate with other members of their gender
all of this conversation just happens under the pretence that trans people actually have an unfair advantage when competing in sport when they actually don't (at least, once they've started hrt)
yep
idk if this is true or not, but some cases were provided up there where they absolutely shredded the competition
wasn't it just some sports that they advantage still exists after transition?
not all, just a few
nope, to begin with (the first few years) you're at a disadvantage due to reduced muscle mass and bone density, it eventually evens back out after that, but not to the point where you will be consistently stronger
the times i've seen the argument is in stuff like weight lifting and wrestling(?)
The rules for the olympics required testosterone levels to below a certain level for over a year before they could compete
That's probably closer to leveling the playing field
like, obviously there will be outliers - but there are outliers in every sport.. michael phelps isn't a great swimmer because he just put more effort in, he is actually biologically built better in terms of his joints and some thing he has about lactic acid build up/etc
including trans people in sports puts nobody at an unfair advantage and is just an excuse to hate on and ostracize trans people
this is such a loud and angry argument i can hear it from my headphones
people just don't feel comfortable with stuff like this
I mean, there was a recent fight between a trans woman and some woman, the former was more wild swings and basically took out the latter with a choke hold, after having taken so many hits that probs woulda seen most others on the deck, and she just took them like it was nothing
has nothing to do with being trans, one could fight and one couldnt lmao?
yeah, things like that can appear "shocking" but you can't draw conclusions from that without looking at actual data
one could fight
that article says it best
yall mfs will do anything to put down trans people even when there's no substantial evidence
“Transgender athletes, and particularly transgender girls, face so much resistance and discrimination within sports, as well as the rest of society,” Mosier said. “We can’t just assume that these athletes are winning because they’re transgender. It’s possible that they’d be beating these other student-athletes if they were cisgender.”
the one who was fighting properly lost due to a choke hold
facts
cis women can choke hold too?
i am confused as to how that has anything to do with transgenders
After making several dozen blows to the other opponents face
you're kinda stuck where the actual research is saying one thing, but you'll obviously have a random few articles like this every now and again which will make it seem absolutely terrible when outliers exist in a world with 7 billion people
of course you're going to see trans people winning stuff, and sometimes by large margins - that's just how numbers work
The link I gave is from a transwoman who actually studies this and advises the IOC on it
She says for at least the first three years there are advantages over cis women
The trans person walked off the punches like it was literally nothing, and then basically worked by overpowering the woman on the floor after getting in like a handful of mystical connections from what I can only compare to being on par with a drunken pub brawl
literally this is the dumbest hill you could choose to die on
"a trans woman won a fight once!!!!!!"
cat please what are you actually talking about here lmao
It's not that she won
that article is actually really interesting though amaranth, it definitely goes into the whole point about having to really look at it on a point by point basis
It's that there was a massive difference in terms of skill and seemingly in terms of power
both of which dont necessarily have anything to do with her being trans
okay cool then that was bad or whatever but like no idea what that has to do with them being trans
this is probably the worst possible "evidence" you could have chosen to make your point here
Theres many instances of trans women basically coming on and stomping the competition
citation needed™️
right cat you gotta actually read what this conversation has been about though
I know that it's not in all cases, but, there are some right outliners there
yes, outliers exist
theres outliers everywhere
I’m just reading that webmd article and found this, still reading so if it’s out of context feel free to say so
There's absolutely no question in my mind that trans women will maintain strength advantages over cis women, even after hormone therapy. That's based on my clinical experience, rather than published data, but I would say there's zero doubt in my mind.
unsafe sport events are unsafe sport events regardless of who participated - it's up to the organising bodies to ensure that stuff is safe
and the people on the receiving end of the outliers aren't happy they're being massively overpowered by biological males who identify as women
one of the fundamental rules of statistics is removing outliers from your analysis and basing your conclusions on the data that falls within two standard derivations of your line of best fit
nice transphobia you got there
Please stop mentioning
i feel bad for the people who have conversations with you lol
so why base an entire argument on a few outlier cases
So you're not okay with the testosterone level requirement?
i'm not being transphobic, i'm outlining that's how anyone would see it
there's quite a lot of actual published research that's gone into the physiology of people on hrt/etc which does show reduction in muscle mass and bone density/etc
Are trans women as strong as cis men? No. Are they stronger than cis women? Apparently they are for at least the first three years after starting HRT
why is it so hard to just let trans people participate in sports? they arent trans because they want to gain an advantage over cis people, theyre trans because their assigned gender causes them extreme dysphoria and they only feel comfortable as the opposite
Nobody said it's because
cis people need to move aside and make more efforts to be inclusive and tolerant
Kezz, that interview that amaranth posted, listed studies that showed trans women were “substantially” less strong than cis men.
Also Amaranth, that article says that even after hormone therapy strength advantages remain
because? Why are you twisting the argument?
It's not because but it is an unwanted side effect
i think that's the real point though tbh, you can have safe sporting environments if you wish (through multiple ways, categorisation, higher oversight, etc) but at the end of the day athletes have got to be able to do the athletics lmao
It's not entirely about safety
Oh I don’t think anyone here is advocating for barring people from sports altogether
We can have meaningful competition between left-handed baseball players, and right-handed baseball players, despite the advantages. In fact, many would say that the lefty/righty combination is one of the most important factors in baseball. But there's no meaningful competition between big boxers and little boxers; the big boxer wins every time.
imma make this real simple
are you trans or gender non-conforming?
yes -> your opinion is valid because this issue affects you
no -> this issue doesn't affect you so your opinion shouldn't affect or speak for others
yeah this sums it up really, which is why people have got to invest in time spent actually thinking about how to do this safely and competitively
blanket or knee-jerk reactions help nobody
it fucking does if i'm an athlete tho, doesn't it
exactly - despite differences, trans people and cis people can have fair competition
if i'm a cis female athlete then it's a problem
Was about to say that Idriz
have you ever competed against trans people out of curiosity?
its the same "replacement" scare tactic used with all sorts of issues, racial, lgbtq+ and more since the beginning of time
The whole “your opinion is only valid if something directly affects you” is weird.
Except the rest of this article would suggest for some sports trans women are more like that big boxer than the lefty pitcher so...
So, are cis females not allowed a discussion on it?
Also, that article talks about height sports. Trans women don’t get shorter over time, so not sure you can have an effect on that.
trans women competing in sports doesn't put cis women at a disadvantage, there's no evidence to suggest they wouldnt have been better than you if they were cis
the point is where your discussion is coming from, if you're only coming at it from the angle of "it is bad for me" then you're not really doing anyone any help
you're right, it's bad for many people
namely biologically female athletes who get overpowered at every turn
terf moment
god damn it
😬
it's really not every turn lmao
idriz, what i meant is you have to consider both sides - not just one
i like that interview amaranth
I don't think I ever got an answer to my question earlier
You're not going to, lol
i am considering the other side Kezz, I gave an idea on how you could divvy it up properly
and the best solution is clearly to change the categorisation/sports themselves
that's also what i suggested
Are you okay with a testosterone level requirement for participation?
gender based divisions and sex based divisions
and to stop reacting like "OH MY GOD IT'S SO TERRIBLE" every time one trans person beats a cis person in a sport lmao :')
@shy gulch
testosterone isn't really enough, nor is it useful enough to be used in all sports
don't think i'd overreact like that, but I would keep in mind that if this trans person was a trans female, they have a bit of an advantage
you didn't lose because your opponent was transgender, you're opponent was just better than you.
plenty of sports where it won't matter, plenty where it does
the thing is, this isn't fair because not every trans woman has access to hrt or trans healthcare in general
It might not be enough but it's a start, best we've got so far
based
ok so now you see how fucked this would be, right?
it's not the best we've got though, any sport could spend a bit of time working out what aspects provide an advantage and draw a line on these aspects, based on how you test
specifically because in places like where I live conservatives and lawmakers are trying to make HRT, SRS, and other trans healthcare harder to get
if you put them in the same category then the trans female would overpower the female in many areas because they haven't taken HRT
like, the discussion is kinda wasted on us discussion what lines would be drawn and where, when none of us are sports scientists (i assume anyway)
divvy it up between gender based divisions and sex based divisions and done-done
If you can't get HRT you don't get to do sports, I guess
but that still invalidates trans peoples' identities as a choice?
We don't have an answer there that would be fair
how does that solve any problem idriz? people just won't compete in the ones they think they'll have a disadvantage in lmao
I mean, that's the thing though is that theres never gonna be a truly fair setup I don't think
and what the hell are you gonna do to know if a transwoman is trans? assuming she's fortunate enough to be able to get hrt, srs, name change, legal gender change, etc
We don't need a 100% level playing field, we just need it to be possible for someone other than a trans women to win
same for transmen
and it still is???
Not if the trans women isn't even doing HRT...
Like, with HRT for some amount of time things either level our or at least get closer
and even in the mean time, trans-only leagues would be great as they'd provide a safe space for trans people to compete and still feel excluded in the places that have just blanket banned them anyway
there's plenty that can be done and nothing is being done at the moment other than things which, on the surface, are transphobic
which is what it all boils down to really, and why people get so vocal and upset about it
fair, but for instance in a school environment the trans team would likely not be funded as well (schools can't just 2x athletics budget out of nowhere) so you fall back to "seperate but equal" de facto segregation based on cis/trans (which would probably not be equal)
yeah definitely, and i think even things like (at least at the less professional levels) an increased focus on individual performance over competitions would be helpful as well
Oh yeah, in school trans people likely would never be able to participate at all
Maybe in college if they started HRT early and were able to train and practice on their own
being queer in school already sucks enough
we shouldn't make it harder, we should make it easier
Sure but ruining things for cis women doesn't fix that
theres so much transphobia in that sentence I cant
You’re saying, that a trans women with no HRT has no competitive advantage over a cis woman
nobody is saying that
Then you're saying trans women in high school should be allowed to win all sports
bruh
nobody is saying that either
bc trans = instant win!!!
definitely no skill or technique involved in winning sports, its all abt whether youre trans or not
I said “advantage” not “instant win”
vriend wasn't replying to you
I would love to get to the point as a society to where there is no difference between cis and trans women/men but archaic ideologies like y'alls are the reason that isnt happening any time soon
you spam transphobia so much and offer no substance in a counter argument
But, there are differences, as much as it sucks, there are
youre literally a textbook trans-exclusionary radical feminist
What are you comparing when you say “no difference”?
nobody is saying there aren't
I mean, there comment was literally, "I would love to get to the point as a society to where there is no difference between cis and trans women/men"
you're just being loud. Please do tell how having an innate biological advantage that trumps the competition is fair. This is assuming the trans athlete has not taken HRT of course
How do we do that? ignore the differences?
the point is, reacting in a way which is, at least in how it gets portrayed, unfairly demonising a specific group just for existing is not the ideal solution, especially when there are many that i and others have mentioned that even can help get things in a better spot in the mean time
and acting like there is 0 difference doesn't help the discussion either
nobody said that
I don't think anyone is demonizing anyone here for simply existing. It's just a problem when you train your whole life and a person with a quarter of your physical training curbstomps you
"I would like to live in a society where X" does not imply society is X
for example
No good solutions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it
like, whether intentional or not, the way that many of you have been reacting can be very easily be perceived as transphobic, which is why it's often helpful to just consider how you're going about talking about situations, if that makes sense
In 2017 there were at least 124 cis men under the age of 18 who did better in the 100m than the world record for cis women
especially when you say outlandish stuff like this
Well ok, if there are advantages to being a trans women competing against cis-women, then that is what Amaranth was talking about when you said there’s so much transphopia in his sentence
I would like to live in a society where I won't get murdered for my gender identity, sexuality, or ethnicity, but where I live this is not the case and these things happen all the time
So if an athletic 16 year old trans woman who hasn't started HRT was doing track they'd likely dominate
People like Idriz contribute to a culture of intolerance that is quite literally deadly and emotionally scarring
and that's a society which I strive for to
Not guaranteed win but I'd certainly put money on it
How else do you think a cis female athlete would see it?
This sentence
potentially sure, but there are solutions that are better and that don't unfairly demonise minorities
If there are differences now, then how is what amaranth said wrong, or bad, or whatever
Wtf are you on about
most of the mfs in this conversation are cis and/or straight and have literally no perspective on what its like to be oppressed lmao
yikes
because it's needlessly provocative to say that trans people are "ruining things" for cis people, it's not intentional or their fault or anything
No one said that
as i said earlier, there are just more thoughtful ways this conversation could be had
It wouldn’t be the people ruining it, but the system
which i agree, which is why it's important to be careful how you are wording arguments and discussions around this topic
bad side effect of having a bigger biological advantage, it's unfortunate but it is
Sure but [the system] ruining things for cis women doesn't fix that
So what’s wrong with that? Why is it transphobic at all?
it doesn't seem to matter because i got called every phobia under the sun for suggesting that trans females have an advantage and that we should try to find some middle ground
wanting to die and hating yourself is a bad side effect of being born in the wrong body but you don't seem to care about that 🤔
that's not why you have been called that
only "oh no trans women are ruining sports and overpowering cis women"
as i keep saying, it's how you go about arguing this topic
how do you know what I care about and what I don't?
Suffered from that for as many years as I can count
especially when you're literally having a discussion with two trans people
it's easy to be careful and considerate in how you phrase things in order to avoid being seen in a certain way
Bit of a straw man here? No?
thats what you have to say abt that? seriously>
it just makes me so sad and angry to see people who have very little insight and perspective trying to control things that dont affect them because of their personal beliefs
I mean, I'm brain tired so explaining stuff too well is like, not a skill right now; so, sorry about that
Easy? I find it rather difficult to voice my thoughts without being called a terf or transphobic though. I'm constantly saying we should find middle ground for this kind of stuff so no one is at a disadvantage because of their biology
It doesn't seem to matter what we say or how we say it, I'm pretty sure any answer that isn't trans women should be allow to complete in every sport regardless of their circumstances will result in @shy gulch saying we're terfs
From what I've been reading for the last 10 minutes, people have been literally saying there have been apparent biological differences that have been recorded that could possibly disrupt a competition among women when some are trans and some are not. Is simply pointing this out enough to be labeled as transphobic? Because if it is then there can be no discussion about this at all.
ahh #politics , where cis people explain to trans people why they shouldnt have certain rights
Oh boy, another straw man
that's not what I said, in fact this is my first message in the conversation
Everytime you do this your credibility in your argument falls. Please respond with something better besides name calling and making unsubstantiated claims. Please outline where I said trans people should not have a certain right.
the "right" to compete in sport is what is being actively threatened at the moment, when you take into account all things and all arguments (not just the ones that have been said here). it's not hard to see how inflammatory statements and cherry-picked examples are enough to make it seem like the arguments you are making come from a place of transphobia
now im not accusing any of you of being transphobic
just that it doesn't cost anything to be a bit more careful and considerate in your discussions, especially when you are just talking with actual trans people
Well, going back to what Amaranth said, I think it’s correct. Anything other than that answer would get labels thrown at us by @shy gulch regardless of how it was said.
The IOC's rules on this appear to work, the trans woman who competed in weightlifting in Tokyo didn't dominate (she lost right away, even)
What is the IOC rules? 1 year of HRT?
That's why it's important to find a middle ground. This is my argument for tonight. You may call me transphobic now.
NCAA rule is 1 year of HRT, no testing required
that hasn't really been how your argument has been presented idriz, if that was your intention
IOC rule is 1 year of test results showing less than 10 nanomoles per liter of testosterone
That right can technically be in violation of the first amendment, the right to freedom of speech and assembly. While I am against bans, I do see where people are coming from. Transwomen do have some advantages regardless, mainly muscle/bone structure (this will vary depending on how early in life the person in question gets treatment), and there have been reports in the past in which women come out with fractured bones and injuries, more severe than going against biological females.
it's a good rule, it's far, far, from perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than excluding them outright - it's definitely progress :)
Idriz offered solutions like 20 mins ago, they might’ve been bad, but surely that signaled a compromise approach
I've said that exact same sentence about three times now. Don't know how much clearer it could get.
1 year of HRT probably isn't enough to level the playing field for something like boxing because trans women are still likely to have height, reach, and size advantages but hopefully weight classes will be able to even that out
My initial solutions didn't account for the lack of participation. That was a bad idea. That's why I'm hoping we can find one.
Dunno how it'd do for basketball, the extra height and reach would help a lot there but there is also a lot of skill that isn't dependent on size, maybe it's close enough?
I was reading some article earlier which basically talked about being able to pipe stuff into some mystical algo and penalise people across various dozens of factors to be more on-par with one another, which sounds, er... blinky bloop bloop
biological male reflexes are also known to have an advantage over female.
Depends on a person's physique.
Theres many individual areas which are nuanced
Blocking would be very difficult i'd wager
some seem to balance out to a degree which for most spots is close enough, many other sports are highly nuanced when certain factors come into play
The 1 year of HRT requirement still pretty much shuts trans people out of high school sports though, I don't have a solution for that
Like for things like boxing, I'd imagine that there's potentially have to be some shuffle between weight divisions and such which ofc creates it's own set of headaches
Yeah, which sucks. There has to be some compromise, which I also morally abhor because you shouldn't have to compromise because you're a trans person, but reality is unfortunately not so kind
im just going to wait for schools to say fuck this and dissolve competitive sports
The thing is is that that is where a lot of scollarships come from
This will just be an administrative headache.
and has been a massive area where cis women have been kinda upset about :/
Everyone just has to be equal, read Harrison Bergeron
this is what i mean about inflammatory statements
comparing trans people wanting to compete with a dystopic fiction book is not a helpful comment
have you read the book?
ages ago yeah
im 6'5 and still suck ass at basketball, stay mad
Today is the 15th, mail takes 2 or 3 days now, I just now got a letter telling me if I want to vote absentee I have to have my request form in to their office by the 18th
But I can't go drop it off, I have to mail it
Hey, I'm 6'5" and suck at basketball too
You're not an athlete lmfao
Coaches tried to get me to play, told me I could just stand near the hoop with my arms up 😄
height helps with basketball for various reasons but it doesn't automatically make you a winner
But yeah, I'm not saying any random trans woman could win at women's sports, we're talking about athletes here
There is a reason why most people in the top leagues of basket ball afaik are basically lanky
got a friend who's crazy good but isn't tall haha
so he has no chance in competitive sports because they don't get short players 😭
Yea, I mean, you can kinda out-skill the height but, especially when you start getting towards the top end, every little helps, and being able to tower others or be at the same height massively helps there
They gotta keep that NBA average height up!
Can't let it drop any more!
Athletic shoe reviews
It took them 2 months to realize you can't teach someone to be taller?
hate how 6 foot 4 is at the bottom 😭
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990) - S03E19 clip with quote They're not lifts. I doubled up on my Odor-Eaters.
Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote.
Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share.
Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.
Well, idriz, based off the trends, they'll have a chance, some day
they'll probs be basket baller age of walking with a cane, but, one day
Oh I love when this happens
The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8
Gotta vacate the stay of the injunction, how many more layers can there be?
hey any approach that's a middle ground is progress in my book
being called out for transphobic behavior isnt a personal attack
get a grip
i am trans
what
what questions?
of course its a bad thing
if someone is being transphobic its not a personal attack to call them on it
sounds like something someone whos never experienced dysphoria would say 
"personal bias" as in I literally experience dysphoria on a daily basis, hate when people refer to me with he/him or call me by my name, feel ostracized and so much more
guess I'm biased then, but I'm right.
we do tho, hrt and srs often make dysphoria go away or reduces it significantly for trans people
we do? every major health organisation agrees that transitioning is the most (and only) effective way of treating dysphoria
like, unless you know something they don't lmao
You can’t really make all-encompassing definitive statements like “best” or “most” in science without including “with current knowledge” or something like that. James said that he doesn’t think we know enough yet, and that’s probably true. There’s still tons we don’t know specifically about the brain. We don’t even know exactly how general anesthesia works (And that right there is an example of using something we might not fully grasp to benefit society).
You can’t compare effectiveness to unknown methods, and that’s what James is taking about. He said doesn’t think we know enough to say what the best solution is. But humanity works with the knowledge we currently posses.
This does, in a way, wrap around to the whole Right to Try thing. Idc what people do to try and alleviate their own suffering, experimental drugs, transitioning, whatever.
That is a bizarre way of looking at it
We don't preface every single statement we ever make with "based on the current state of scientific understanding" do we?
It's a fact that, of all methods currently available to us (including doing nothing), transitioning is the most (and only) effective treatment to alleviate dysphoria. If you want to hypothesize about some future unknown science then sure, but that is ridiculously unhelpful and an utter waste of time unless you're a scientist actually doing the research.
I would argue not (Assuming a hypothetical fully effective cure is a thing), but I'm not sure how trans people would feel about that
personally I would view it as a way to help them
like what Machine said, so long as it alleviates suffering
I would argue that's more of a treatment than a cure, but at the end of the day you're right (For the time being until medical knowledge improves anyway)
but i mean your comment was kinda dumb too - gender dysphoria is an incredibly specific term and to equate it with something vague and completely unscientific like "feeling like you were born in the wrong body" just really shows you're talking about something you have actually zero knowledge and understanding of
which is why people keep brining up transphobia, it's okay to just not talk about things you have zero understanding of, it's okay to ask questions. what's not okay is to come out and see completely baseless and unscientific statements like this
are you a doctor? do you study psychology? have you dedicated your academic career to research on a particular topic? if not, listen to what those who have are saying.
a cure fixes the root cause of the problem; a treatment takes care of the resulting symptoms
(Note that I'm not in any way saying that transition is not valid)
That's... not the difference between a cure and a treatment :')
A cure is a type of treatment that completely alleviates whatever is being treated
it sort of is? no idea why this should bother you though because it doesn't challenge your viewpoint anyway
pretty sure you get my point though
I mean, if your point is to not use the common meanings of words as used in medicine then yes I do get your point :')
Transitioning can be a cure as it can completely alleviate gender dysphoria
I respectfully disagree but I don't want an argument to start
On what basis do you disagree with every major health organisation and a plethora of academic studies over many years?
I'm not sure how I'm doing that when I'm not calling the effectiveness of dysphoria treatments into question, but the last definition I remember from my prior course of being a Bio student defined both as
Treatments improve a condition and improves the patient's quality of life
Cures completely remove the disease and the underlying cause, targeting the pathophysiology of the condition rather than just the resulting ailements
but that's what I'm avoiding mentioning because I don't want to call people with dysphoria mentally ill
that would just be a dick move
(And yes, I get your point of the hypocrisy of saying what being a trans person is like as someone who isn't, which is why you rarely see me making conclusions early on)
We say the current scientific model when we know it is incomplete. The scientific model of the atom changes, the scientific model of the universe changes, etc. If somebody were to ask me how the universe started, I would probably cite a few scientific models.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume we don’t know enough about the topic.
But, to support your point, we believe our current model of the atom is very close to complete, so we probably wouldn’t mention the older models.
The problem is dysphoria, the cure is transitioning which can remove dysphoria. I'm not really sure what you can disagree with here
CJ, it is not reasonable to say we don't know enough about it. If that was the case, the scientists, medics, psychologists would all be saying that. But they aren't.
The great thing with our current model of the universe, it can explain so many aspects of the universe with extreme precision. It’s reasonable to say our model is incomplete, despite, since there are things cannot explain yet.
I do not know about gender dysphoria. I am only refuting the idea that we don’t say, “the current scientific model”
It's not that we don't say that, but when someone says "XYZ says" you don't have to constantly add "in our current scientific model" and you don't have to correct someone who doesn't say that because it's just assumed that obviously that is what you mean.
We have an MP over here who's basically been placed on unconditional bail and is awaiting sentencing for threatening harassment of some other woman by threatening to toss acid on her, she basically said that "I'm not mad, I'm a member of parliament" and, just...
taiwan is a country
i would insert a -99999999 social credit meme here but i'd probably be removed from this channel immediately
what is taiwan? (+1000 social credits)
sharvesh was never seen again
Speaking about Taiwan, came across this report recently https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/2021 Taiwan Brief.pdf
Good news for Taiwan in terms of U.S. backing, specifically the use of the US military to defend it
thats not how wars in this century work
well, look how russia invaded hungary
or azerbaijan armenia
didn't trigger world wars, just people paying militia
What? I wasn't replying to you there.. I have no idea what you were saying
"I dont like what youre saying so I will simply throw big words 'straw man' into the mix"

I agree that straw man is thrown around too often, but if you create a position on an issue, attribute it to someone else who never indicated it was their position, and then attack that position, that is what a straw man is
Thank you for kindly explaining this to everyone machine. Still completely confused as to why I was mentioned..
"I don't like what you're saying so I will simply call you a transphobe"

there are too many nukes in the modern day
help i have been kidnapped to sleep
india timezones are super badd
there isn't a politician insane enough to start WW3 today (Except Kim Jong Un probably)
When did I say that?
the most we'll get are the typical skirmishes and conflicts when relations get a little sour
very wise decision lmao
i have ascended to the fifth plane of consciousness and am no longer able to read messages from transphobes
MAD makes people go to other avenues to start wars
Because you can't use nukes, everything else is fair game
Humanity collectively decided nukes are too op
Yes I did say that.. Do you disagree with anything there?
i don't think that's how it works though?
you push someone too far they will eventually have to resort to their nukes as a last stand
Cool, well I'm happy to have educated you
You don't have to commit human casualties in order to cripple a nation and its people.
Well, if they have any at least
that's... not what it is either lmao
hmm
good point
would you like me to google the definition of gender dysphoria for you? 🤔
gender identity yes
Wars are already happening all over the globe. The US has been heavily affected. Look at how split the population is on practically every decision.
also i find it funny that you use the word "debate" lol, you haven't debated anything, you've just cried transphobia and TERF at everything and everyone
Look at how split the population is on practically every decision
It's been getting progressively worse from what I know
What's happening to the US today was the soviet union's wet dream
I still do have the naive belief that it's a loud minority on either side and most people have common sense
but people always tell me I'm too optimistic
You need a loud minority to make generalizations and to define somebody as the "them" you have to fight
does somebody hear some vague transphobic buzzing??? meh probably nothing
sums up the world today pretty much
kinda wish Humanity all could work together at some point but that's just wishful thinking on my part
What are you on about
I think the most sobering thing is reading how soldiers in the first world war felt about enemies they fought in hand to hand combat. They only killed because of the flag they wore and because it was their duty, and most had severe trauma because all they saw were people just like them, just from different cultures.
The demand for healthcare is intertwined with the demand for rights - they are essentially one and the same
Idriz have you heard of the Christmas Truce of WW1?
one of the most heartwarming things in history in my opinion
Yes. Most soldiers had to move units because they couldn't fight the people they were drinking beers with a few days ago.
Yes, so why does the call for healthcare not come with the stipulation that you also get rights, whatever that even means
But that's what's so dangerous about weapons today, everything is impersonal. You drone strike a guy from a hundred kilometers away, so what? It's just a blip that goes boom to you.
Nuance exists in the world. That's why we have lawyers and judges and laws. Not everything is binary.
I mean, I also see plenty of people calling for improved healthcare for those with ADHD
Drone operators are known to suffer from heavy PTSD from what I remember
The people calling the shots only need to move tank figures from one place to the other and relay instructions to real men with real families and real aspirations.
ah that's what you meant
I would argue that it's been like that even before stuff like drones though
Nah, I was just making a point.
Have you heard of those stealth plane operators listening to ground comms?
It's so interesting to hear their thoughts on war.
as the old saying goes "War is old people talking and young men and women dying"
nope, unfortunately not
Very interesting person. You should look him up.
I'll look him up, thanks for the recommendation
If people who hate a certain group of people got to talk 1 on 1 with the people they hate, they may find themselves to find more in common than they think, and may change their opinion.
And that's exactly what military leaders hate, and that's why the next christmas after the christmas truce of 1914 was so bloody.
So, your proposal would have been to sit down and see what the jewish people had in common with nazis?
okay
no shit
Davis eventually went on to befriend over twenty members of the KKK, and claims to have been directly responsible for between forty and sixty, and indirectly over two hundred people leaving the Klan.
give this man a fucking medal
I'd quite like to hear you propose that to a holocaust survivor tbh
I'm sure they'd have some choice words
Kezz does have a point- You can't just mash 2 sides in a room together like this and expect it to work out
They're both groups of people with families who want to live lives, potentially have children, and leave a legacy for themselves. That alone should be something in common. But military leaders will hide that aspect and make a group "the enemy" or the "them" that must be rid of in order to live a good life. Nazis were brainwashed by their military leaders to believe that the jewish people were a threat to their life.
that's the reason why I now have so much respect for a man you 2 just told me about
doing that sort of thing is no joke
ah yes, the famous Nuremberg defense
In 1996, Gregory Stanton, the founding president of Genocide Watch, presented a briefing paper called "The 8 Stages of Genocide" at the United States Department of State. In it he suggested that genocide develops in eight stages that are "predictable but not inexorable". Stanton first conceived and published his stages of genocide model in the 1...
It's genuinely like you lot have literally zero comprehension of the fucking tremendous horrors that the victims of the holocaust went through
Like, literally zero understanding of history
you guys also have to remember that "Nazi" mostly refers to the NSDAP and not the actual majority of the German forces
Who are you talking to?
mainly vector
I mean, yesterday was bad but you're literally sitting in this channel today saying "why couldn't we have just spoken to the nazis im sure they'd have got on with the jews" and it's actually leaving me speechless
IE the Wermacht weren't Nazis
or rather the soldiers usually weren't
a lot of this boils down to the dehumanization of people too
much like what Idriz said
There's a big difference between having things in common and suggesting putting murderers in the room with their victims to talk it out. 🤔
No, they weren't.
I wouldn't exactly call that accurate- The armed forces were slaves to his ideology, but I can't say the same for the party members
This level of nazi sympathising is unbelievable - even I can't believe what you're actually saying here
how is this shit allowed here lmao
This is getting heated for no reason.
I can see where Kezz is coming from. You're sympathizing with full blown murderers.
Your flamebait "just have nazis talk to jews I'm sure that's all that's needed to have stopped the holocaust" isn't helping 😉
I can sort of understand where Vector is coming from, being too optimistic about inherent good in people, and it does help to correct someone's misguided thinking rather than responding like that
and Vector, they're right, the Nazis were not good people
not everyone is brainwashed into believing this sort of thing
there are ultimately those who do said brainwashing
You're literally sympathising with nazis, humanising their actions, suggesting they could have been reasoned with, arguing they were just following orders and brainwashed
This is literally textbook nazi sympathising
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why hate speech is banned.
Well you're not trying very hard
No vector, literally no amount of discussion is going to make me believe that holocaust survivors sitting in a room having a conversation with Nazis is a good idea
Here's a change of pace for what Vector's trying to advocate.
Trying to make it a little less terrible sounding.
Vector i think the issue is more that once past a certain people can't be saved through talking it out
that is unfortunately the harsh reality of people
Remove their military or prisoner clothing, make them wear the same clothing, and disallow any talk about nationality or ethnicity.
That's what Vector's thinking about, I believe.
What clothes you wear does not stop this from literally being nazi sympathising
I guess so too
honestly a miracle this conversation is still going on
Literal Nazis aren't the enemy in your head
They are literally Nazis
We have to stop the system of indoctrination that makes people think that a certain group is the "them" you have to get rid of. That's all this conversation should be about.
I think Vector's saying the nazis had an enemy in their head, Kezz.
Right yeah, in that case I guess I agree
So how do we resolve the issue of a percentage of any given population being so easily susceptible to easy enemy-in-head-ification? It's a similar sort of issue today with a frightening percentage of the world population thinking vaccine mandates are some conspiracy, covid's fake, etc.
Not every enemy in the head can even be talked to.
And that's the problem, right? Social media has made this even worse.
Things being impersonal causes shit like this.
Do we start with dismantling propaganda? Would shutting down Fox News and OANN help save lives? How would that be done in a safe way that doesn't make further in-head enemies?
I mean, that's the issue with tryna resolve these issues is what do you do about it, without basically just making their fears come true or doing the "uno reverse" on them, as mbax is saying
No. We have to make people face each other in real life.
How? Don't know.
Covid denier? Look at this person who's currently dying of COVID, listen to them, they might have something to say.
The further you aim to push these narritives out of peoples heads, the more you push on against the ideology, the more convinced they thing it is
That's not gonna work when places produce those like scare mongering adverts
when push comes to shove
And why w$ould t$hey $do th$at?
I don't think that people should be pushed into doing what people like Daryl Davis did, but, you've gotta give him some props of what he did
I can confidently say that sort of thing doesn't work
It's hard enough to stop individuals from spreading nonsense, how do we stop corporate entities (glances at Fox) from super effectively spreading fear?
Not through a video call. Right there. Hospital ward.
More then just fox spreads fear
Covid denier and person on their last breath because of it.
you've gotta give him some props of what he did
I've only known Davis for 5 minutes and I already respect the man a metric ton
Seconding this. Many of these deniers think it's all made up no matter what they're shown.
Yea, I mean, that's the complex nature of it, especially as if fox was destroyed it would just instill a "they're coming for us"
🤷 Just don't call me an insult and I'm good with names.
not entirely sure how to call you sorry :/
bax, mbax, we've call him worse
ah ok
I've polled around my school, and the left news networks have done an amazing job getting people to think death rates/hospitialization rates are much higher then they actually are. The left and the right lies.
Please define "the left news networks" in the context of your message, thanks in advance.
I've always been sad that no one understands that both sides lie yeah
inb4 a bunch of moderate-at-best networks are named. 
I mean, this conversations can happen. But when you approach them with literally negative sensitive and care like you did it's kinda hard to actually engage with the argument at all.
stuff like this drives people apart
left of fox
Left of fox can still be pretty off to the right. 😛
I'm sorta curious, anyone more of a centrist nowadays?
I mean, it's not even just chinas, am sure the politicians love it
^^
Their politicians are sure good at pretending they do, though.
The sad part is is that people forget that there is much in similarity between me and you and you and the big shots who call things
This is what we were talking about earlier.
I guess I can understand
Absolutely. The 'moderate' dems in the US can be all 'moderate' and nothing gets actually done to fight corporations hurting people and the planet.
both parties basically do fuck all on the issues they claim to care about
^^^
The US parties are doing exactly what China and Russia wants. Create a boogeyman. "Those damned libs want to kill babies!", "Those damned conservatives are LITERALLY nazis!"
Like, they'll take the odd "for the camera" shot here and there to score points for elections and stuff, but, at the end of the day, do they really solve day to day issues?
I miss when times were simpler xd
In the US we have a far right party and a moderate party that has some progressives in it. Far right only gets votes because they make up enemies for people to fight in their heads, so they can't actually win against those enemies or people wouldn't vote for them, so they don't legislate much when in power other than huge tax breaks. The moderate party has so many viewpoints in it that nobody's going to agree on anything successful, so we just get smaller tax breaks and no significant progress. 😦
maybe i only remember it that way because I was young back then though
I do wish that more people had a "live and let live" attitude towards many social aspects, theres many things that we'll never agree on, but, I hope that one day we can at least get to a base which allows people to live their own life, so long as they're not harming others
Who's to say the left doesn't create enemies too?
Both of them do. Break the cycle. Become a multi-party system and be sane like the rest of the planet.
yep
Issue with multi-party is that you need to convince people that there is another party worth voting for
Like, people will vote for the greens, etc, but the media will always make it GOP vs DNC, Labour VS the tories
and, both of those options stink on both sites so it seems
as I say, voting for a party is practically just deciding whom might be nice and use more lube
In the US the democrats don't really need to make up enemies recently. Enough exist already without needing some fakes. But I'm interested in what you think are made up left enemies of any significance.
I wonder why'd they make it GOP vs democrats? Can't seem to know why. $$$.
I've always seen it as either side cancelling each other's flaws out and amplifying the good traits that both have tbh
Sure. Conservatives. Boogeyman of the left. They're literally Nazis.
One of the left vs right arguments that really gets on my nerves is when people say that right aligned news agencies are getting further to the right. Go back 50 years... what do you think the democrats would have thought of the lgbt community, for example? They wouldn't be "as left" as they are now.
Issue is that nether party is interested in actually getting along these days
Why would they? The politicians in both are lining their pockets full of cash.
I can tell :(
When the average man is struggling to make ends meet they're buying their fifth yacht for the year.
either a part has good amounts of power so they can get shit done, but, as soon as something happens which removes that "edge", you just basically get into thumb twiddling season
And then they'll go talk about how bad the average man has it, or how he has to pick himself up by his bootstraps.
normally I always give people benefit of the doubt, but even I can't argue against that
But in the end they'll just go back to eating their expensive dinners and sleeping on their expensive beds.
They'll fight about the budget, maybe get the government shutdown for a week or something, agree on that they wanna pay themselves money and sort it out somehow and we're back again
Could that be solved by having government funded races? e.x. Somebody with $0 to their name can still run and have a shot?
No
I don't really see that coming up in 'left wing' media. Republican actual actions coming up as highly problematic, sure. I don't think I've seen anyone actually refer to the GOP as nazis other than when talking about white nationalists (which I think you'd agree would be pretty fair for nazi analogy territory), like say Stephen Miller.
Your first mistake is assuming the government wants to change the two party system.
there's going to be issues from elsewhere if you do that CJ
Well it's hard to fix the problem. You need a lot of money to run for any office.
Because a lot of what you need is the media presence, and the media is often designed to like, where they get the money; and they don't really get paid for local level "heres a canidate who's just showing up!"
and even if there weren't practical issues you'd have one side calling it a communist manifesto or something
And then people get into power, start doing dodgy dealings, etc
No. I've seen plenty of articles from left leaning media calling conservatives the closest things to Nazis.
I think a report came out recently and like 37 politicians where caught violating the STOCK act
Just go to reddit's front page of r/politics and read the comments, for crying out loud
I think part of the thing is that you need a certain like, set of traits to go into politics in general
Oh yeah, they're paid for "major insurrection at the capitol building!" and "These CRAZY HOOLIGANS are destroying our stores under the disguise of PROTEST!"
from what I hear Obama was pretty decent but I haven't really made a conclusion on that due to lack of information
That'll get you more money.
Like, I bet every politician who goes in sorta like, ends up going in as I "I'm gonna do good for the world!"
I hate every president the US has had the past twenty years. Fuck all of them. I'm only thankful to Bill Clinton because he essentially saved my country, but even he was flawed.
The issue is that, 'good for the world' is subjective, and, hey, either I take the cash or get thrown out of the party, you know
(By lack of information I mean that I can't tell what's a smear article and what's actual objective facts anymore)
everyone does have flaws I guess
Bombing children was such a good pastime for both Obama and Trump.
Yes, but they need money. They take money from donors/companies, and then they owe them something. Before long, they don't even think for themselves
War criminals, the lot of them.
at the end of the day ruling a country isn't easy, that's all I can say
You do have to note that one of these two bombed 400% more than the other - the "both sides" stuff always comes with caveats
Sounds like something the families of those bombed by Obama wouldn't give a shit about though.
To the average person, that looks like a lot of money, but in the grand scheme, that is nothing
which like I said, I don't demonize people for mistakes they make straight away
I mean... there's considerably more families that aren't able to consider that under Trump's campaign
The thing i that they both did the same shit, I don't think that the # of people they killed in the quest is relevant at all
Of course it is
The sad truth is that generally if they're on your side, who gives a shit
Doesn't mean they both aren't pieces of shit, but there are always differences
sorry mate I don't wanna I don't like people hearing my voice ;-;
oh, so you know it's horrible, thank god we didn't need to tell you
I kinda hope that the US and the UK see a new party rise up
Something born from the common folk; I mean, it'll probs one day turn into just the mess we've got now, but, one does hope that a party forms which can actually aim to start tryna bridge people rather than just fueling the wedge
Shamefully nether of us really seem to have a party which actually wants to do that
in the US? I don't know how possible that is. We need to see a movement against the radicalization of both sides for that to happen, and even then...
cat for president?
I feel like the US voting system was designed to prevent multi party
I guess I just don't like comparing people as numbers and I think that anyone who bombs civilians has committed a war crime and should be sent to the Hague but hey, Drumpf Worse so don't say both sides am i right?
What
Did you literally read the part where I said it doesn't not make them both pieces of shit
sorry wasn't referring to you was talking about the scammer