Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[TheodoricFriede]

10 year old is a bit extreme as it's before puberty. But I've seen trans teens whose parents are in complete denial of their nature and...yeah, that's kinda abusive, like the parents who refuse to admit that their kid is gay. If there is no law whatsoever, then it leads to conversion therapies and other horrors like this.

Also, the parents who "prefer" that the decision be made after their children reach adulthood, in many cases, are just waiting until they can kick them out without having to be responsible for what happens - because once the kid is an adult, you can dump him out of your home and you won't be accused of mistreating them.

Ensuring that such situations happen as rarely as possible sounds like a wise move to me. I have never heard of "transgender" being a phase, like being a goth or a K-Pop fan, so if a kid is seriously questioning his identity, it's not to bother his parents or to look interesting.

Then what should the law be? At what point is a parent forced to give their child surgery and a cocktail or hormones? Who pays for it? The Parents? The Government? Why the hell should either pay for cosmetic surgery if gender is supposedly a social construct?

What do you propose is a suitable punishment for having your child leave the house when they are legally an adult? Does this rule only apply if the child is transgender? What if they are gay? Bisexual? What if the now adult conveniently reveals their LGBTQ status after their parents had them leave the house due to them disagreeing with their use of pot?

I thought I was straight until in my late teens. It's not a matter of 'phase', its a matter of coming to a better understanding of yourself as a person as you get older.

Your comment of conversion therapy isn't even worth my time, as only the most extreme even consider that an option anymore. You may as wall have brought up "Pray the gay away."

[Sinekein]

Then what should the law be? At what point is a parent forced to give their child surgery and a cocktail or hormones? Who pays for it? The Parents? The Government? Why the hell should either pay for cosmetic surgery if gender is supposedly a social construct?

What do you propose is a suitable punishment for having your child leave the house when they are legally an adult? Does this rule only apply if the child is transgender? What if they are gay? Bisexual? What if the now adult conveniently reveals their LGBTQ status after their parents had them leave the house due to them disagreeing with their use of pot?

I thought I was straight until in my late teens. It's not a matter of 'phase', its a matter of coming to a better understanding of yourself as a person as you get older.

I don't think it's about being "forced". What the parents should be forced to do is to listen to their children's interrogations and take them to medical professionals who can give them proper answers as to what they are going through. As it stands, parents can just say "no, you're straight/cis, shut the fuck up and stop complaining", and there is little if anything the kid can do.

Who should pay, I'm gonna give my commie European answer and say that should be the government because it should be part of medical care for all, but considering where the US is at at the moment it's not really the point. But parents can decide to pay for it because it's part of what makes their kids feel better in their skin, even if it's "cosmetic". Most good parents buy clothes kids like, they don't purposefully pick ugly, crappy ones because "it's just functional".

If there is nothing legally forcing the parents to listen to the needs of their non-straight or trans children, then the current situation with thousands being kicked out and/or committing suicide will just go on. The rule should be identical for all LGBT kids, IMO, it's no more or less horrible to dump your kid because he's gay, than it is to do so because he's trans.

As for the cunt using their sexuality as an excuse to sue their parents...I don't know, that's the kind of person that would find a way to screw with their parents no matter what. I'd rather have a law that protects thousands, but that one asshole can exploit, instead of having nothing, see thousands suffer, and realize that the asshole found another loophole to just ruin the lives of his parents.

[Raga]

I mean, are students allowed to call their black comrades "nigger" to their faces or not on campuses? Or to refer to them as "boy"? Or would a student doing that be liable to be prosecuted/expelled for racism?

It's ambiguous in operation because most people aren't super eager to defend virulent racists, but the legal answer is "no."

Also, I'd argue that there are not clear 1=1 comparisons possible between calling people racist slurs and misgendering, deadnaming, or refusing to accept statements like "men can become pregnant."

Nobody has to affirm *anything* by refraining from calling people "nigger." You can still hold and advocate whatever position you want without stringing a bunch of insult words after it. Being *required* to call somebody else something is forcing you to acknowledge their conception of themselves as superior and dominant to whatever your conception of them is.

This is a trivial example, but making hatespeech of misgendering would be like making hate speech of the following:

"Hi, Mrs. Baker, my name is Joe Smith. I'm pleased to meet you."

"Hi Joe. Call me Liz. Mrs. Baker is my mother."

"I appreciate the sentiment, Mrs. Baker, but I'm very old-fashioned and was raised to speak to women and my elders with deference."

Now, Joe might be rude here, sure, but on what grounds does Liz/Mrs. Baker get to insert an affirmation of who she thinks/feels she is into Joe's head?

This has huge philosophical and epistemological implications on a number of levels, but I'll refrain from digging into that unless that's actually a topic of discussion you consider worthwhile. Some people find such implications so esoteric as to not be worth bothering with even thinking about.

I find them imminently important because this is the level of pedantry and detail that academics and scholars deal in, and we very much live in a world in which the pet ideas of academics and scholars get put into practice in the form of various policies.

[Sinekein]

Nobody has to affirm *anything* by refraining from calling people "nigger." You can still hold and advocate whatever position you want without stringing a bunch of insult words after it.

Unless you were raised by a bunch of racist twats who always called black people "nigger". Would you advocate that such a person gets a pass because that's part of his culture to call black people "niggers" or "boys" or "crackheads" or whatever? Because he was raised like this?

Well, it's the same with misnaming. Many transphobic people misname trans people on purpose to remind them that they don't consider them to be "real" men or "real" women. Now tell me how it is different from having racial slurs thrown at your face: it's a wording used specifically to disparage a person and make her feel inferior. It should be treated the same.

Being *required* to call somebody else something is forcing you to acknowledge their conception of themselves as superior and dominant to whatever your conception of them is.

Superior and dominant? What the hell, that's just some paranoid conservative BS right there. Calling a trans man "he" or a trans woman "she" just means that you respect their existence and don't try to deny it. If you are a fucking transphobe, then you do like racists do, you refrain from using slurs in public, and you do so when you're surrounded by your transphobic pals where you can be free to be as shitty a person as you want to be.

There's really no difference between racial and transphobic slurs. Unlike Mrs Baker, trans people have in all likelihood actually suffered from being misnamed. Talk about an unbalanced comparison, jeez.

That would be like me going "I remember that one day I got put in the group of slow kids when we had to do long-distance running in school, it hurt my pride", and "it's similar to when nazis decided to put Jews and Gypsies in death camps, exact same thing, they used arbitrary criterias to create two categories of people". Well, no it isn't. Mild inconvenience does not equate actual pain.

[Vol]

Also, I'd argue that there are not clear 1=1 comparisons possible between calling people racist slurs and misgendering, deadnaming, or refusing to accept statements like "men can become pregnant."

Nobody has to affirm *anything* by refraining from calling people "nigger." You can still hold and advocate whatever position you want without stringing a bunch of insult words after it. Being *required* to call somebody else something is forcing you to acknowledge their conception of themselves as superior and dominant to whatever your conception of them is.

That is all hinged on the presupposition that a slur cannot be truthful in its pejorative description. If it is in fact possible for the target of a slur to embody the characteristics of the slur, either in the moment or innately, then restraint is a requirement to affirm, tacitly, the superiority of the external conception of the given group. In which case the negative consequence of the slur trumps the absolute value of the description and associated social power, which would then logically extend to disagreeing with trans definitions. Which is the intent of weaponized morality. If a given group slur is factually and totally incorrect, then there is no useful usage of it in non-combative or educational situations, but would still be worthy of protecting as free speech.

i.e., If you are told to call a pregnant person who looks like a man, "a man," that is equivalent to not calling someone a faggot if they are acting like a faggot. You are affirming the external conception in both cases.

In the real world sense, where logical decisions about word choice make you look autistic, yes, there is a difference between negative intent and uniformed intent, and only diseased minds would treat an innocent lack of information as a hate crime. But examples must be made of any transgression to demonstrate uniform compliance. It's not about the theoretical harm of slur/misgendering/whatever, it's about the harm to orthodoxy if you can say it without punishment, because that collective that maintains the orthodoxy is theoretically supposed to protect the individuals under their specific cause.

[Raga]

Unless you were raised by a bunch of racist twats who always called black people "nigger". Would you advocate that such a person gets a pass because that's part of his culture to call black people "niggers" or "boys" or "crackheads" or whatever? Because he was raised like this?

As a point of pure technicality, no, this hypothetical individual wouldn't be distinctive in a legal sense. However, the only people I know of who would ever make a point of insisting on this position on some philosophical grounds are white nationalists and Christian identity advocates and such. And frankly even the Richard Spencer's of the world understand that they get more done when they wear a tie and sound nice. Hardly anybody, even militant free speech defense advocacy groups, spend much time or effort defending the right of generic assholes to say generic asshole things for generic asshole reasons. Even the John C. Calhoun racists of former days who were advocates for slavery on the grounds of the ostensible biological inferiority of black people or biblical mandate or whatever never made inane arguments like "calling black people bluegums is part of my culture."

Likewise, nobody is seriously advocating for the cultural/philosophical right to call people "tranny."

However, there are literally *billions* of people who hold philosophical, ethical, religious, or academic positions that insist on the realness and intrinsic importance of the gender binary. If all it takes to commit a hate crime is refusing to use language that you believe undermines the realness/importance of the binary as a concept, you are not just asking people to keep their mouths shut because they have nothing nice to say. You are demanding they actively refute their own beliefs. And you aren't just asking this of some hypothetical (borderline mythological) redneck who feels a cultural right to insult black people.

Well, it's the same with misnaming. Many transphobic people misname trans people on purpose to remind them that they don't consider them to be "real" men or "real" women. Now tell me how it is different from having racial slurs thrown at your face: it's a wording used specifically to disparage a person and make her feel inferior.

Misnaming is closer to a slur than misgendering is. I'll give you that. Especially when you have the option of just calling the person in question by their last name. But *deadnaming* and *misnaming someone to their face* are not the exact same category of thing. Deadnaming is making the statement that "Caitlyn Jenner used to be Bruce Jenner." And where does a parent or family member who refuses to accept a kid's gender transition stand in this? Is it really the case that a parent refusing to use anything but a child's birth name must always be doing so "to disparage a person and make her feel inferior?"

Superior and dominant?

What else do you want to call it? More moral and ethical? More correct and truth affirming? No matter how you put it, it comes back to the same place. "Your conceptualization of my birth sex being more important than my gender identity is immoral/false/whatever. My conceptualization of my gender identity being more important than my birth sex is moral/true/whatever. And because they are mutually exclusive, mine is the one which should be defaulted to."

Calling a trans man "he" or a trans woman "she" just means that you respect their existence and don't try to deny it.

Oh boy. This shibboleth. What does this even mean? Denying the existence of gender dysphoria? Accepting that gender dysphoria exists but considering it a mental disorder?

Or does it mean what I actually think it means? To disagree with whatever self definition a person has of themselves, particularly in regards gender/sexuality?

If so this gets to the very heart of the matter. Queer theory turned into advocacy is not just a description of somebody's stance on the civil rights of sexual minorities. It's not just a position that people should be free to follow "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in regards their own idiosyncratic definitions of sexuality free from the coercion of the state or from discrimination in goods and services. It is a radical philosophical position that the only valid basis for *any* definition, categorization, or conceptualization of human sexuality comes from the self.

If you reject this as a philosophical position (and I do), then by default you reject the primacy of the individual as the sole arbiter and definer of their sexuality.

And this extends beyond sexuality. This phrase gets used a lot by lots of activist types. "You are denying my existence" really means "you are failing to treat me exactly as a demand you treat me."

There's really no difference between racial and transphobic slurs.

No, there's not. What's up for debate is what precisely qualifies as a "transphobic slur."

Unlike Mrs Baker, trans people have in all likelihood actually suffered from being misnamed. Talk about an unbalanced comparison, jeez.

So what then, what is and isn't hate speech should principally be determined by consequentialism? And what kind of consequentialism? The severity of historical harm against this group vs that group? Self assessments of the relative harm caused by speech directed at them? Suicide statistics based on some demographic grounds? If so, who gets to decide what a viable demographic category for such consideration is or isn't?

Civil rights are not based on consequentialism. Consequentialism is *sometimes* used to qualify the extent of certain civil rights, but the civil rights themselves are primary. Not the other way around.

[TheodoricFriede]

Who should pay, I'm gonna give my commie European answer and say that should be the government because it should be part of medical care for all, but considering where the US is at at the moment it's not really the point. But parents can decide to pay for it because it's part of what makes their kids feel better in their skin, even if it's "cosmetic". Most good parents buy clothes kids like, they don't purposefully pick ugly, crappy ones because "it's just functional".

My mother very generously bought me a six hundred dollar suit.

That isn't even a tenth of what transitional surgery costs.

Making the government pay for that? Awfully silly. Comparing it to the cost of clothing? Even sillier.

[Vol]

Trump has been officially impeached, the bonds of the republic suffer.

[Sinekein]

My mother very generously bought me a six hundred dollar suit.

That isn't even a tenth of what transitional surgery costs.

Making the government pay for that? Awfully silly. Comparing it to the cost of clothing? Even sillier.

I mean, since people don't choose to be transgender, I'd rather have the government pay for transitional surgery - this way, all transgender people are treated roughly equally - than having the cost be put on the families - in which case, trans people from rich families will be fine, and those from poor families will be screwed. That's pretty much my entire view on medical treatment anyway.

As for cosmetic changes associated with the surgery, then I wouldn't be shocked if parents pay for it to increase the QoL of their children - hence the clothes comparison, as silly as it is. Parents do tend to spend money to please their kids and make them feel better. That's part of the job when you do it seriously.

[Sinekein]

However, there are literally *billions* of people who hold philosophical, ethical, religious, or academic positions that insist on the realness and intrinsic importance of the gender binary. If all it takes to commit a hate crime is refusing to use language that you believe undermines the realness/importance of the binary as a concept, you are not just asking people to keep their mouths shut because they have nothing nice to say. You are demanding they actively refute their own beliefs. And you aren't just asking this of some hypothetical (borderline mythological) redneck who feels a cultural right to insult black people.

And there are billions of people who hold philosophical, ethical, religious or academic positions that insist on the realness and intrinsic superiority of the male gender, or the intrinsic superiority of the caucasian race. And yes, they commit hate crimes when they keep defending their outdated, moronic positions by referring to "tradition". So they can either shut up or adapt and realize that their fucking holy books are full of shit - either goes really.

And where does a parent or family member who refuses to accept a kid's gender transition stand in this? Is it really the case that a parent refusing to use anything but a child's birth name must always be doing so "to disparage a person and make her feel inferior?"

Parents who refuse to accept their children as they are are horrible people. I didn't think there was a debate there. If you refuse to acknowledge that your kid is gay, trans or bi, then you're a cunt.

And because they are mutually exclusive, mine is the one which should be defaulted to."

I mean, yeah. That's mine. Unless you're my partner - but then you should know about it - why in hell would you give two shits about my gender? Why is it fucking hurtful to use the gender I identify with to talk to me or about me?

So what then, what is and isn't hate speech should principally be determined by consequentialism? And what kind of consequentialism? The severity of historical harm against this group vs that group? Self assessments of the relative harm caused by speech directed at them? Suicide statistics based on some demographic grounds? If so, who gets to decide what a viable demographic category for such consideration is or isn't?

I'll come back to you about the "absolute rule" when I'll have heard of a Mrs Baker committing suicide because she was repeatedly called "Mrs Baker" instead of "Josephine" or whatever. Right now, one misnaming is part of an ostracization that causes deaths, the other is a mild inconvenience, so it's pretty fucking easy to draw a line.

Accepting that gender dysphoria exists but considering it a mental disorder?

If you consider that being trans is a mental disorder, then fuck you and this conversation is over.

[TheodoricFriede]

I mean, since people don't choose to be transgender, I'd rather have the government pay for transitional surgery - this way, all transgender people are treated roughly equally - than having the cost be put on the families - in which case, trans people from rich families will be fine, and those from poor families will be screwed. That's pretty much my entire view on medical treatment anyway.

Once again, if we are going under the assumption that gender is a social construct, its not the job the the government to give you cosmetic surgery.

Nor is it a parents obligation to do so.

Or do you also think it is the job of the parent (or government) to give ugly people cosmetic surgery?

[Raga]

That is all hinged on the presupposition that a slur cannot be truthful in its pejorative description. If it is in fact possible for the target of a slur to embody the characteristics of the slur, either in the moment or innately, then restraint is a requirement to affirm, tacitly, the superiority of the external conception of the given group.

Which was historically gotten around by applying indirect clinical description. The difference between pointing at a news report of black people looting a store after Katrina and saying "Those people are acting like chimpanzees" and simply muttering "Monkeys" under your breath.

You can argue that that's a distinction without a difference and there would be some truth to that as the only difference behind the intent of the person stating either thing is almost assuredly that one puts a slightly more sanitized filter on their racist disparagement than the other one does.

However, once you accept that indirect clinical description can be equally as racist (and therefore hate speech) as hurling insults, it begs the questions of precisely *how* indirect and descriptive you have to be before it *isn't* racist?

So if "those people are acting like chimpanzees" is racist, is "black culture doesn't condemn hooliganism" racist, or what about "black culture has been degraded by years of poverty and discrimination" racist? All of these statements imply there is something *wrong* with black people culturally as such.

Certainly, the newest most militant strains of activism *are* trying to classify all of these strains of description as racist and thus off the table for consideration or validity.

I'm making an appeal to an older standard of usage in which it was obviously off the table to call people "nigger," but you could still quote the Bell Curve without the two being regarded as morally equal.

Blah, blah, TLDR

Everything I said could be repurposed with the understanding that there's a fundamental difference between allowing somebody guilty of wrongthink to escape the consequences if he agrees to keep his mouth shut and/or rephrase his wrongthink, and demanding that he actively use correct speech with silence or rephrasing not being an option at all.

[Sinekein]

Or do you also think it is the job of the parent (or government) to give ugly people cosmetic surgery?

Well, if you have a hare's beak, then yeah I'd say it's your parents' job to pay for cosmetic surgery. Or if you get mangled by acne when a teenager. Or if you have a crazy eye.

If you are rich enough to pay to make your kid look and, more importantly, feel better, yeah, it's your duty as a parent to do so. It's more important than getting a new pick-up, rifle or TV screen.

Also, social construct =/= "I choose to be transgender". People don't ask to be trans, they just are, so I think someone should be there to help them go through it, instead of just shrugging and saying "deal with it when you are wealthy enough to do so", libertarian style.

[Raga]

*snip*

This conversation has deteriorated in quality to not be worth pursuing if this is the only line of argument being used. But inasmuch as pretty much all of this could be paraphrased as "the position of GLAAD type advocates is right and any other position is wrong and should be crushed," I don't see how it undermines anything that I said at the beginning of this conversation.

I believe the exact phrase of mine you took issue with was that I said GLAAD type activists wanted to "pursue a radical endorsement of wholesale queer theory that stigmatizes and tries to exterminate all public displays of disagreement with it."

I'm not really seeing anything in your above statements that contradicts that phrase of mine as apt.

[Raga]

If you consider that being trans is a mental disorder, then fuck you and this conversation is over.

I will address this at least just so there's not a misunderstanding of what I actually think. My official answer to this question is that "I don't know" and moreover that it probably doesn't matter if it is or isn't. I've tried to read on this subject and it's about as useless as trying to read about what does/doesn't cause homosexuality or if there is/isn't an overlap between race and intelligence. The underlying causes appear to be so complicated and so subject to interpretation as to more or less beggar meaningful identification. And on top of that, so many people with agendas come in and try to cram filters on top of what research is done that it makes it very difficult for a layperson to really understand what the science that does exist actually says.

Because of that, you have to deal with the ethical questions in a vacuum of verifiable facts and start making decisions on other rules.

So even though I can't honestly say whether or not it's a disorder, I *can* say that there's clear reasons to extend basic courtesy and civil rights protections to transgender people for their own happiness and health, and there doesn't appear to be serious reasons not to do so.

All of the above hoopla for me is in defining precisely what "basic courtesy and civil rights protections" means.

If it's just "should they have the same legal protections from discrimination as black people?" than yes, absolutely. Beyond that it gets messier.

[TheodoricFriede]

Well, if you have a hare's beak, then yeah I'd say it's your parents' job to pay for cosmetic surgery. Or if you get mangled by acne when a teenager. Or if you have a crazy eye.

If you are rich enough to pay to make your kid look and, more importantly, feel better, yeah, it's your duty as a parent to do so. It's more important than getting a new pick-up, rifle or TV screen.

Also, social construct =/= "I choose to be transgender". People don't ask to be trans, they just are, so I think someone should be there to help them go through it, instead of just shrugging and saying "deal with it when you are wealthy enough to do so", libertarian style.

What if someone just wants bigger breasts? Or a bigger penis? Surely we aren't that far away from penis augmentation surgery. Men with enormous penises certainly seem to feel more confident.

Here's the thing about special treatment. It isn't equal.

It's special treatment. And it isn't the governments job to do anything more than to treat people equally.

As far as parents go, I'm sorry but until a child is an adult, parents get to make the decisions. Or at least have some level of control over the huge, life changing, expensive surgeries and hormone injections.

[Sinekein]

What I take issue with is people behaving like having to call a trans woman "she" is a personal attack against them.

And if GLAAD - who does not strongly advocate for the punishment of hate speech towards trans people - is seen as "radical" by...well, trying to force people to behave decently towards their fellow citizens, then yeah, I take offense with it.

People have been used to changing the way they refer to others. When Miss Smith married Mr Williams, she became "Mrs Williams" - now the reverse is even possible, a man can take his wife's last name, imagine that. When the Duke of whatever became the king of Idontcare, people went from "Your Grace" to "Your Majesty". Today, when Robyn tells everyone that she transitioned to become a man and wants to be called "he" or "Robert", I fail to see how it's harder, or more offensive to just agree and do that.

I understand the first time error, or even the error being repeated out of good faith because you used to know the person before transitioning, but to refuse to use the proper pronouns because it "hurts you" just means you are deeply lacking in human decency. That's basic courtesy, the kind any human being should be entitled to from his peers.

[Sinekein]

What if someone just wants bigger breasts? Or a bigger penis? Surely we aren't that far away from penis augmentation surgery. Men with enormous penises certainly seem to feel more confident.

Here's the thing about special treatment. It isn't equal.

It's not about equality, it's about equity. Granting people enough to allow them the same quality of life than others.

I mean, in France, you don't pay for glasses, or dental braces, because the State considers that it's not your fault you were born with crooked teeth or myopia. However, the State does not pay for the laser surgery that allows you to stop wearing glasses, because that's way more expensive and that's seen as a comfort, not a necessity. So if you're rich and ready to spend some money, you can still get the "best tier" of healthcare, it's just that you're not left on your own if you are not wealthy.

The examples you gave are also rather far removed from the kind of thing that makes people "ugly". Those surgeries are similar to the aforementioned laser surgery to cure myopia: if you have the money, then go for it, but that's not something that anyone should feel entitled to. However, I think that women who have to go through mastectomies to treat breats cancers can get breast implants payed by the State, because having only one breast is kinda noticeable and something that can make people feel rather uncomfortable.

[Raga]

What I take issue with is people behaving like having to call a trans woman "she" is a personal attack against them.

And if GLAAD - who does not strongly advocate for the punishment of hate speech towards trans people - is seen as "radical" by...well, trying to force people to behave decently towards their fellow citizens, then yeah, I take offense with it.

People have been used to changing the way they refer to others. When Miss Smith married Mr Williams, she became "Mrs Williams" - now the reverse is even possible, a man can take his wife's last name, imagine that. When the Duke of whatever became the king of Idontcare, people went from "Your Grace" to "Your Majesty". Today, when Robyn tells everyone that she transitioned to become a man and wants to be called "he" or "Robert", I fail to see how it's harder, or more offensive to just agree and do that.

I understand the first time error, or even the error being repeated out of good faith because you used to know the person before transitioning, but to refuse to use the proper pronouns because it "hurts you" just means you are deeply lacking in human decency. That's basic courtesy, the kind any human being should be entitled to from his peers.

I don't really disagree with this for the most part. But the question isn't just "does doing this make you an asshole?" It's "should doing this constitute a crime by virtue of being hate speech/discrimination?"

[TheodoricFriede]

I mean, in France, you don't pay for glasses, or dental braces, because the State considers that it's not your fault you were born with crooked teeth or myopia. However, the State does not pay for the laser surgery that allows you to stop wearing glasses, because that's way more expensive and that's seen as a comfort, not a necessity. So if you're rich and ready to spend some money, you can still get the "best tier" of healthcare, it's just that you're not left on your own if you are not wealthy.

Then it would make much more sense to offer those people therapy to better deal with their current situation. When they reach adulthood, they or (their parents) can make the decision to pay for the comfort.

[Raga]

My hangups on extending actual body altering care to minors (whether surgery or hormone blockers) is that the data on the efficacy of this is relentlessly ambiguous and anybody claiming otherwise hasn't really been trying to read about it.

The argument tends to go something like "the emotional trauma caused by gender dysphoria is so severe and so potentially harmful or lethal that it trumps whatever physical or mental side effects, permanent of otherwise, that might be caused by the hormone blockers or surgery."

That could very well be true, but considering we trust parents to make the yay or nay decision in other comparable situations where they have to chose between two different, potentially scary things with permanent consequences, I don't see where this is magically exempt somehow.

*Edit*

Also, I'm done for tonight I think. It's already 9 o'clock. The last I looked it was like 5. Yeesh.

[TheodoricFriede]

Trump has been officially impeached, the bonds of the republic suffer.

The good news is you get to laugh at people who dont know what Impeachment is, and are assuming that Donald Trump is no longer president.

[Vol]

You ever get roped into doing something stupid, and you know it's stupid, but you can't get out of it, so you try to mitigate the damage, but then it keeps going?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics ... _term=link

Obviously they will send the articles of impeachment over, but it's not mitigating the stupidity to imply these things.

[Mobius_118]

Trump has been officially impeached, the bonds of the republic suffer.

Not really. Trump being impeached in the house means he can't be pardoned and the House of Representatives, meaning the states, shows that he's not above the law.

The Senate will kill it, because the senate is full of sycophants, but to the rest of us that do care, he is done. Just like President Clinton, the stain of impeachment will hang over trump like the sword of Damocles.

Either way this will all go down in history. Whether or not the facts will prevail or if the false narrative that he did no wrong is almost immutable. Almost.

If he was hoping for a pardon, he should've resigned before the articles were voted on. He's clearly, publicly, defiantly guilty of everything he's accused of. If the US populace that supports him continue to do so, they do so at their own peril.

[Raga]

A Stunning Vote Reversal in a Controversial First Amendment Case

I'm surprised I haven't heard about this. It's a huge First Amendment case and the verdict handed down by the Fifth Circuit is bullshit. Basically it holds that the organizer of a nonviolent protest can be held accountable for the actions of a random asshole in the crowd who turns violent. I'm either really oblivious or this has flown under the radar.

@ Pelosi delay

Apparently, the Senate has to vote on another spending bill by the end of the week or there will be a government shutdown. She might have delayed it to prevent the Republicans from letting that slide and then claiming Democrats shut down the government because they were so eager to shove impeachment in front of budgetary stuff.

[Mobius_118]

Well yeah. The GOP loves to blame others for their own failings then sabotage those that do what they can to help others.

That's been their gameplan from before I was even born.

[Sinekein]

I think Trump should rejoice of this impeachment, because while in the short-term it makes him look bad, in the long-term, the Congress stating that you cannot conspire with a foreign power to find (or create) dirt on a political opponent means that he will be relatively immune to the next Democrat president doing exactly this and putting him in a mountain of hurt over his own various shady dealings.

Because that's the problem when you elect a businessman with assets all over the globe: he'll put his own financial success over what's best for the country without a second thought. When you look at the location of Trump Towers in the world you get a list of leaders Trump suspiciously never picked a fight with - like Turkey, or Russia (even though that one was probably a bit too cheeky and the Tower might not be built after all). Meanwhile, he has no issues insulting ally leaders from countries he has no financial links with.

I honestly think there will be an overhaul of what is allowed and what is not regarding personal fortune once he is not in office, because he highlighted a number of glaring issues.

[Vol]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/iow ... d-67824683

15 years for destruction of a church's (???) rainbow pride flag. Habitual offender apparently, but whatever stack of mandatory sentences that could lead to 15 years behind bars for destroying someone else's _flag_ is obscene and abusive.

[Vol]

Either way this will all go down in history. Whether or not the facts will prevail or if the false narrative that he did no wrong is almost immutable. Almost.

That being the point. Unlike the other ones, this one is split pretty cleanly down the middle. There is no common grounds, no agreement on basic facts, no agreement on if Schiff's control of the process was fair or not, no agreement on whether the hearsay of the witnesses was fact or opinion, no agreement on the power of Congress, and the resultant impression we have of the masses is that they're following the split. A completely party-line impeachment that will absolutely fail in the Senate is a bad thing for republic, just like with Clinton, and at least that one had factual perjury, as stupid as it was.

Which was historically gotten around by applying indirect clinical description. The difference between pointing at a news report of black people looting a store after Katrina and saying "Those people are acting like chimpanzees" and simply muttering "Monkeys" under your breath.

You can argue that that's a distinction without a difference and there would be some truth to that as the only difference behind the intent of the person stating either thing is almost assuredly that one puts a slightly more sanitized filter on their racist disparagement than the other one does.

However, once you accept that indirect clinical description can be equally as racist (and therefore hate speech) as hurling insults, it begs the questions of precisely *how* indirect and descriptive you have to be before it *isn't* racist?

In an intellectually honest sense, there is no distinction between calling someone the worst possible slur (Nigger in this case) and the lightest possible slur (Colored?) if the meaning and intent are the same. But that's an irrational position to hold, as the actual weight of the slur is on what we are told it is. Ergo, the former can and does result in attempted murder when spoken, as if it were magically endowed to incite strong emotional reaction, and the latter does not, as it's usually read as antiquated or ignorant (POC being the term de jure).

You can argue that any sequential step between them are identical, all the way down the line, which is factually true, but untenable, because language and the people that use it are not logic-based. You are not going to convince people that the extreme opposites of offensiveness are equal as a matter of principle, unless they're prone to radicalization. Hence the herculean effort from the wackos to enforce that paradigm instead of debate it.

Which concludes with there not being an end point. No amount of indirect, sanitized language will suffice so long as it still refers to the group in a possibly negative way. Because the new word is equivalent to the previous word is equivalent to the previous, all the way up the chain to the origin slur. This is why "dog whistle" has been taken from academic retards and made common parlance, so that everyone can know the Nazis really mean X when they say Y, despite the actual meaning of words. And thus back to the original point of tacit affirmation of the external conception by playing the game of the shifting slurs.

So if "those people are acting like chimpanzees" is racist, is "black culture doesn't condemn hooliganism" racist, or what about "black culture has been degraded by years of poverty and discrimination" racist? All of these statements imply there is something *wrong* with black people culturally as such.

Certainly, the newest most militant strains of activism *are* trying to classify all of these strains of description as racist and thus off the table for consideration or validity.

I'm making an appeal to an older standard of usage in which it was obviously off the table to call people "nigger," but you could still quote the Bell Curve without the two being regarded as morally equal.

Generally the acceptable method seems to be to ascribe absolutely no agency to the group when describing their troubles. Everything is external and forced upon them, and thus no culpability or possible malicious intent. Unless you're a devious sort and trying to subtly convince people of the white man's burden, I suppose.

In a very general sense, when is it ever acceptable to insult someone though? We can point to the commonly accepted worst case scenario, as you have, but functionally what purpose does any serious insult serve (Outside comedy)?

[Mobius_118]

I will continue to state, as a fact, that if trump had any exculpatory evidence that would've for sure absolved him, we would've seen it already. He would've cooperated with the process, supplied all documents and witnesses, and wouldn't be buttoning up. The Senate would not be willing to shut down the process without even deliberating on the impeachment. The would not be on live TV saying as such.

This isn't the liberal stating this out of conjecture, this is the Law Enforcement Professional who's already had to go to court to testify. No defense like trump's would fly in any courtroom.

[Sinekein]

A completely party-line impeachment that will absolutely fail in the Senate is a bad thing for republic, just like with Clinton, and at least that one had factual perjury, as stupid as it was.

The main reason Trump hasn't committed perjury is that he hasn't been forced to say anything under oath so far. If he does, he is likely to end up saying something incriminating or contradictory.

But in all likelihood, Clinton is indeed the likely outcome of this. He won't resign but the stain will stay. And IMO the problem is way more important here, if now politicians are free to cozy up/strongarm foreign powers to try and find dirt on their opponents, the battlefield is going to become real ugly real fast considering how many of them have ties to various shady powers or individuals. And as a consequence, foreign influence in U.S. politics will hit an all-time high, because knowing something about influential U.S. citizens will be liable to allow people to get a say in U.S. foreign (or domestic) affairs.

[Mobius_118]

He blocked people from testifying and withheld evidence. Any other courthouse would've charged trump with Spoliation of evidence, which is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.

No one is above the law, not even the president.

[Vol]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/british-l ... january-31

Well, there you go. Brexit at long last. Took a while.

[Rune]

-

[TheodoricFriede]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/british-lawmakers-approve-boris-johnsons-brexit-plan-uk-to-leave-eu-by-january-31

Well, there you go. Brexit at long last. Took a while.

Even after all this, I'll believe it when I see it.

There's still time for the queen to dawn very tasteful pink sith robes and proclaim that the monarchy has returned to take over.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/british-lawmakers-approve-boris-johnsons-brexit-plan-uk-to-leave-eu-by-january-31

Well, there you go. Brexit at long last. Took a while.

It'll be a lot more painful getting back in next decade.

Anyone who thinks they're going to go crawling back after this abominable process is insane.

[Mazder]

We will if we find it's a total fuck-up.
Which there is a potential for.

We're not a big country. We're a small island nation with all our importance as either a remnants of the old Empire days or basically having to slide up to America.

What we will find most likely is that once we have to sidle on up to America we'll find your standards of living are shit (duh, we knew this), your food standards are shit, and your deals are not really in support of us and are just out for yourselves.
None of which sounds like a mutual partnership and none of which sounds like we'll actually make any progress.

I didn't like the EU and big power blocks are the way things are going, which I also don't like, but at least we had the potential to course correct if we were a part of it. In a trade deal with mainly America I don't see things getting any better.

Especially seeing as the Torries have supported continuing to fuck over basic things like the NHS. I do not believe for one second that the NHS won't be under further threat from American influences in the near future because I don't trust the rich fuckers as far as I can throw them.

Basically it all hangs on potentials.
Yes, potentially we can get back to where we were 4 years ago, before this whole mess, but the potential is not all that greater than failing.
Especially when the United Kingdom isn't United in it.


One thing I am annoyed by is that the only Party who was for voting reform was the damned Brexit Party.
The First Past the Post system is fucked and we need a better alternative.

[TheodoricFriede]

What we will find most likely is that once we have to sidle on up to America we'll find your standards of living are shit (duh, we knew this), your food standards are shit, and your deals are not really in support of us and are just out for yourselves.
None of which sounds like a mutual partnership and none of which sounds like we'll actually make any progress.
.

Sorry I cant hear you over the sound of me telling you to go fuck yourself.

[Mazder]

Sorry I cant hear you over the sound of me telling you to go fuck yourself.

Compared to the EU, your living standards and food standards are shit.

Your country has an acceptable tolerance level for rat shit in food.
You know what the EU's tolerance level is? They don't have one.

So of course if it's stuff like this that my country can look forward to I am 100% going to say go fuck yourself America.

[TheodoricFriede]

There's rat shit in your food too Mazdar. They just dont tell you about it.

Also remember what you voted for jackass.

[Mazder]

There's rat shit in your food too Mazdar. They just dont tell you about it.

Also remember what you voted for jackass.

Yes, most likely. However the measures to mitigate it are better in the EU than in the USA. It's not just fecal matter though. Chemical additives and other crap is also managed better than in the USA.
Hell, your basic white bread tastes like some of our cakes.

Yep, I did. And I was wrong.
I am a big enough person to say I did not know the full picture when I voted three years ago.
I also know that three years of trying is enough time to say "hmmm, maybe we were wrong and the attempt has been made and we failed".

I still think we should have voted policy by policy on a hypothetical basis before the "in or out" vote. I mean, the whole thing has been enough of an earache that it couldn't have been much worse doing it the slow and methodical way.

[TheodoricFriede]

Yeah well on behalf on the United States of America.

Bite my ass.

[TTTX]

Yes, most likely. However the measures to mitigate it are better in the EU than in the USA. It's not just fecal matter though. Chemical additives and other crap is also managed better than in the USA.
Hell, your basic white bread tastes like some of our cakes.

Yep, I did. And I was wrong.
I am a big enough person to say I did not know the full picture when I voted three years ago.
I also know that three years of trying is enough time to say "hmmm, maybe we were wrong and the attempt has been made and we failed".

I still think we should have voted policy by policy on a hypothetical basis before the "in or out" vote. I mean, the whole thing has been enough of an earache that it couldn't have been much worse doing it the slow and methodical way.

that generally happens when people are not happy and vote with something they think will fix the problem, in the old days before voting was a thing they would probably just riot or try to start a rebelion.

[TTTX]

Yeah well on behalf on the United States of America.

Bite my ass.

well you are not the president so it won't be up to you, if your country will help england or not.

[TheodoricFriede]

well you are not the president so it won't be up to you, if your country will help england or not.

Thats what you took away from it, huh?

This group is really something.

[Raga]

The living standards in the United States and in most of the rest of the developed world are not radically different. Unless you're on the outliers of being either very sick or very poor or both, existence of average Joe is really not notably worse or better here than in pretty much any other average place you name in Europe or the UK.

Making out like the United States is Somalia is a very favored tactic in various circles but it's just objectively untrue.

If I make a point to point comparison between my lot here and my lot in various places in Europe I think I'd come out about average. In Europe I'd probably have less student loan debt but I'd also be paying way more in taxes. I might pay way less for transportation because I'd live in a denser city but rent and housing would be much more expensive. And so on.

[Mobius_118]

At least Mazder realizes he fucked up. A few more like him in the US and we'd not have to deal with trump's potential second term.

[Sinekein]

The living standards in the United States and in most of the rest of the developed world are not radically different. Unless you're on the outliers of being either very sick or very poor or both, existence of average Joe is really not notably worse or better here than in pretty much any other average place you name in Europe or the UK.

Making out like the United States is Somalia is a very favored tactic in various circles but it's just objectively untrue.

If I make a point to point comparison between my lot here and my lot in various places in Europe I think I'd come out about average. In Europe I'd probably have less student loan debt but I'd also be paying way more in taxes. I might pay way less for transportation because I'd live in a denser city but rent and housing would be much more expensive. And so on.

Maz did not claim Europe was richer than the US. But here, by "living standards" we mean "how much help can you get if you end up in financial or medical trouble". Because that's a good way to check how low you can potentially fall.

And you can get way more in the UK than the US, despite the UK being far from the most generous country in the bloc (and suffering a lot from income inequality already, which is only going to get worse under WTO rules).

[TTTX]

Thats what you took away from it, huh?

This group is really something.

I'm probably missed some in the translation since you are Theo and I'm not english.

The living standards in the United States and in most of the rest of the developed world are not radically different. Unless you're on the outliers of being either very sick or very poor or both, existence of average Joe is really not notably worse or better here than in pretty much any other average place you name in Europe or the UK.

Making out like the United States is Somalia is a very favored tactic in various circles but it's just objectively untrue.

If I make a point to point comparison between my lot here and my lot in various places in Europe I think I'd come out about average. In Europe I'd probably have less student loan debt but I'd also be paying way more in taxes. I might pay way less for transportation because I'd live in a denser city but rent and housing would be much more expensive. And so on.

We pay more in taxes so we can go to the doctor without costing an arm, a leg and few a internal organs and get help from the government when you lose a job, something the USA isn't known for.

At least Mazder realizes he fucked up. A few more like him in the US and we'd not have to deal with trump's potential second term.

Your country were going to vote in a bad leader eventually, not every President is going to be a good for your country.

[Mobius_118]

Well ya, in just my lifetime alone it was 2000, 2004, and 2016 where we fucked up as a nation voting someone in who was unqualified.