So are Cowboy, lameburger, Cliff, or flamesfever going to actually present any evidence regarding the widespread epidemic of trans women competing in women's sports at an elite level?
Just going to post this here because it was, for me, a good watch; the first openly trans member of congress talking pragmatically about how to win the argument on trans issues.
It just warms the cockles of my heart as a disillusioned cynic who has mostly retired from the front of the culture wars to see that there are people out there fighting the good fight in what I would once have thought was the right way to do it. I shall cheerlead these efforts from the depths of the woods I am currently in the process of retreating to.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Brilliant. Interesting how much of what McBride said echoes very closely what people like Pete Buttigieg have said on the matter, especially about 'meeting people where they are' to make inroads with them, to have a conversation where you can actually stand a chance to bring them over to your way of thinking, rather than constantly trying to beat people over the head with it.
That video should be required viewing for at least a few people on the board I can think of.
I think that's probably a pretty naive viewpoint though. Republican and right wing messaging has been effective because they have no problem lying to a generally angry electorate and blaming everyone's problems on certain out groups. A sober, liberal, centrist response to that really can't compete, because it's boring and no one really listens to it. It just comes across as out of touch to people who are angry.
And by largely trying to meet extremists in the middle in an attempt to attract voters who will never vote for you anyway (see Harris' dragging out Liz Cheney in the campaign), you're also conceding ground and/or basically ignoring important issues which allows the right to constantly pick away at what were once considered settled things. That's why you see things like Roe v Wade disappearing and LGBTQ rights being eroded.
You saw the same thing during the civil rights era. Slow progress while largely maintaining "separate but equal" was probably appealing to a lot of centrists because it didn't change things too fast. As a result, the civil rights movement that wanted more drastic change than that generally polled pretty poorly; even as late as 1964, polls showed people viewed large demonstrations for civil rights negatively at a 3:1 to 5:1 ratio to those who viewed them positively. And the only way meaningful change actually happened was with the federal government enforcing action on a largely unwilling populace.
What's the solution? I honestly don't really know. In terms of trans rights specifically, they really need to re-frame it as a question of liberty and freedom. But focusing on pragmatism and the marketplace of ideas when your opponents are anti-democratic extremists has never really been successful because you're working from a position of weakness relative to your opponents.
I mean, there's a reason why Charles Koch is helping fund the abundance movement that Ezra Klein is championing and that's because it doesn't present a threat to the increasing concentration of wealth and power that billionaires are after (and in fact supports it in a lot of ways). And the fallout from that (stagnant real wages, increasing income inequality, declining union membership, etc.) are really what's allowing culture war stuff to gain traction. So to win the culture war you need to improve the economic conditions for the working class, but no one with any power in either party seems particularly interested in doing that.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
I tend to broadly agree with your last paragraph but the rest of it suggests you didn't actually watch the video.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
So are Cowboy, lameburger, Cliff, or flamesfever going to actually present any evidence regarding the widespread epidemic of trans women competing in women's sports at an elite level?
Why would I provide evidence for something I never claimed is happening?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Sometimes when someone spends months or even years focused on a really minor wedge issue it can be difficult to ascertain whether they genuinely but mistakenly believe it to be a much bigger issue than it actually is, or if their bigotry is driving a need to make it out as much bigger. So you’d have to forgive someone confusing the latter for the former.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Cliff does have an almost decade long history of thinking the anti-trans thing is way overblown and attempting to sweep it under the rug as nothing more than left wing virtue signalling.
__________________ MMF is the tough as nails cop that "plays by his own rules". The force keeps suspending him when he crosses the line but he keeps coming back and then cracks a big case.
-JiriHrdina
Sometimes when someone spends months or even years focused on a really minor wedge issue it can be difficult to ascertain whether they genuinely but mistakenly believe it to be a much bigger issue than it actually is, or if their bigotry is driving a need to make it out as much bigger. So you’d have to forgive someone confusing the latter for the former.
I’ve made around five posts on the subject of trans participation in sports. And never initiating the conversation - usually just responding to some simplistic, antagonistic approach of the kind McBride calls out as unhelpful.
You’re a wiz at digging up comments people have made in order to dunk on them. But you haven’t dug up any anti-trans comments from me, because there aren’t any. I’ve challenged some of the more simplistic, dogmatic takes on the issue, and you respond with personal attacks and accusations of bigotry. Because that’s who you are.
It’s funny that you thanked the video link. You know your behaviour on this forum is exactly what McBride is calling out in the interview, right? You could be the poster child for “abandoning persuasion.”
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-23-2025 at 04:49 PM.
I’ve made around five posts on the subject of trans participation in sports. And never initiating the conversation - usually just responding to some simplistic, antagonistic approach of the kind McBride calls out as unhelpful.
You’re a wiz at digging up comments people have made in order to dunk on them. But you haven’t dug up any anti-trans comments from me, because there aren’t any. I’ve challenged some of the more simplistic, dogmatic takes on the issue, and you respond with personal attacks and accusations of bigotry. Because that’s who you are.
It’s funny that you thanked the video link. You know your behaviour on this forum is exactly what McBride is calling out in the interview, right? You could be the poster child for “abandoning persuasion.”
Cliff, ten years ago when you were on here suggesting the idea of being anti-trans was made up, I was patiently persuading people and talking people off the ledge as they were being fed ridiculous misinformation about which washrooms transgender folks would use.
When you were complaining about trans activists and citing NP opinion columns quoting anti-trans mommy blogs, I was patiently dissecting the harm certain laws do, and quelling fears over doctors cutting kids’ genitals hp on a whim.
For the better part of the last ten years I’ve been very patient on topics like this. You can re-read Sliver’s post for a personal example. I’ve also exercised my right to have no patience and decide certain people aren’t worth the effort to persuade. So save your commentary about “my behaviour.”
Perhaps you should actually watch the video and see where you see yourself and ask yourself if it’s where you actually are, because you’ll notice she doesn’t advocate attempting to continue to persuade hate-speech peddling bigots (which is who you are, if you want to talk about who each of us happens to be). Answer honestly: who but a bigot would purposely, unapologetically use hate speech toward someone? Who but a bigot would double down on it when called out?
I don’t know, maybe you didn’t watch the video at all. People like Sliver, Corsi, Torque, IronMaiden, even fotze don’t use the right language (especially fotze, jesus) or don’t always agree or see where I’m coming from, but these folks are examples of the good people with good intentions. There’s so many examples of these types of people here. You on the other hand, there’s something rotten about your obsession. And it’s not your language or how slow you are to come around. Your heart ain’t right. There’s something ugly underneath. And it’s been the same for ten years.
Either way, grow up already and cut the “oh you do personal attacks!” stuff. On top of the hate speech, you’ve called me mentally challenged and lol’d at someone hoping I get murdered. If you want to dish it out like that, be a big boy and take it when you’re getting called out.
If you don’t think you’re a bigot, don’t lash out. Prove it. You can start by owning what you’ve said and genuinely apologizing, like an adult, without some backhanded comment or insult to go along with it. Or you can be exactly who pretend you’re not. Let’s see it. Because who but a bigot would find it difficult?
Last edited by PepsiFree; 06-23-2025 at 09:24 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Cliff does have an almost decade long history of thinking the anti-trans thing is way overblown and attempting to sweep it under the rug as nothing more than left wing virtue signalling.
That thread was a wild re-visit. Feels like it could have ended a lot earlier if more people caught this slice of knowledge shaved off in the opening third:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I actually think that home-schooling is a very valid, and increasingly, desirable option for many intelligent parents.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
That thread was a wild re-visit. Feels like it could have ended a lot earlier if more people caught this slice of knowledge shaved off in the opening third:
Looking back at some of the things peter12 and CaptainYooh posted is downright embarrassing. It took them pages to still not understand that gender and sexuality are not the same thing.
This is funny, exactly ten years later.
Quote:
Sweden is, probably, a good canary in a coal mine. By all indicators, Canada is moving the Swedish way, politically, on the issues of sexual education and policy towards gender identity. Swedish children are no longer indicated as boy, girl, he or she, but "hen" - "it". The words "father" and "mother" are no longer used in government documents. Cross-dressing is encouraged for all children regardless of their sexual identity. The idea is to raise the first generation of gender-neutral individuals.
As for safe betting on future: I am betting that in 2025 Canada, just like Sweden, will be way more left of centre, than it is today. It is inevitable.
The whole mother/father thing Yooh talked about wasn't true then and still isn't true. And when it's discussed the replacement is... PARENT omg! scary
What's the solution? I honestly don't really know. In terms of trans rights specifically, they really need to re-frame it as a question of liberty and freedom. But focusing on pragmatism and the marketplace of ideas when your opponents are anti-democratic extremists has never really been successful because you're working from a position of weakness relative to your opponents.
McBride is operating on the assumption that a significant proportion of the population are persuadable, and that it's her job to persuade them. She also supports incrementalism, citing the civil rights movement as an example of gains made in many steps over decades. And she says that while drawing stark lines on maximalist positions is great for ginning up affirmation from your friends on social media, it's not good politics.
Really, just watch the video. She does into a lot of depth on the subject of liberal discourse in a pluralistic democracy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-24-2025 at 07:00 AM.
That thread was a wild re-visit. Feels like it could have ended a lot earlier if more people caught this slice of knowledge shaved off in the opening third:
Is it just me or does anyone else go back to these things when they're necro bumped and do the "search for all posts by..." to see if I said anything hilariously stupid?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
OK, I listened to it. I think it exposes a sense of naivety in her optimism, and I'd love to see it revisited in 5 years.
It's easy enough to look at this issue in it's own bubble, as they do, referencing gay marriage success. But it ignores the reality of the world we live in today, which is not 2008. I'd point to something like how our views on climate change swayed to the point people almost cared enough to do something, before throwing it all away, even as the world boils around them. The problem is that you are asking people to go against their best individual interests for the good of everyone. That takes a lot of work to convince, but near zero effort to blow over. And social media has made it super easy to blow this stuff up.
Truth and facts are largely irrelevant to the opinions of most people, as we've seen in vaccine debates. If you can tie it back to faith, all the better, because then facts REALLY don't matter. You are now using their eternal soul as a weapon, and it's near limitless what you can get away with when you do that, because people have had a lifetime of indoctrination to believe the unbelievable. But even without religion, you can easily generate massive amounts of lies and deceit that are close enough to being believable that the caution principle comes into play, and people grasp to not changing for safety, either from fear or uncertainty. Play it safe.
Education is the way out of this, but we've accepted 45 person classes, religious indoctrination as a valid educational path that even the average CPer puts their child into because it's not so bad, or it's the easiest geographic choice, and symbolic book burnings so we are moving farther from that path succeeding too.
Anyway, I think the core idea that if you just be nice and meet people where they are that you will eventually get there may have worked in in the past, but it's far to easy to take all that work and bulldoze it with one lie today. Or maybe I've just watched the world turn to #### and I'm far to jaded with humanity to expect them to do any selfless good anymore.
I think she's in a tough spot. She's a politician where it seems to her the best approach is to try and work with the people who aren't on the far political sides of the spectrum. I agree with her, that there's a lot of people who just want to be met where they are and have a conversation. To try and enact change and turn the tide by steadily picking away at it, and not using fiery, loud language to do so.
But then, there's the real and present danger of the current US administration and the changes they're making that affect trans people right now. Affects their livelihood, their health, their well being. Along with all the other battles that they have been battling for years. And so those people don't want gentle and inch by inch converstion, they want alarm bells and help right now.
I don't envy her position. I think she makes some really solid points, but also can understand why many in the trans community are not happy with the interview.
*I'll caveat the above by stating that I am not deeply educated in this matter, so if there are any gaps in my knowledge or statements which might not be valid, I'm always open to learning more. Thanks Corsi for the video.
OK, I listened to it. I think it exposes a sense of naivety in her optimism, and I'd love to see it revisited in 5 years.
It's easy enough to look at this issue in it's own bubble, as they do, referencing gay marriage success. But it ignores the reality of the world we live in today, which is not 2008. I'd point to something like how our views on climate change swayed to the point people almost cared enough to do something, before throwing it all away, even as the world boils around them. The problem is that you are asking people to go against their best individual interests for the good of everyone. That takes a lot of work to convince, but near zero effort to blow over. And social media has made it super easy to blow this stuff up.
Truth and facts are largely irrelevant to the opinions of most people, as we've seen in vaccine debates. If you can tie it back to faith, all the better, because then facts REALLY don't matter. You are now using their eternal soul as a weapon, and it's near limitless what you can get away with when you do that, because people have had a lifetime of indoctrination to believe the unbelievable. But even without religion, you can easily generate massive amounts of lies and deceit that are close enough to being believable that the caution principle comes into play, and people grasp to not changing for safety, either from fear or uncertainty. Play it safe.
Education is the way out of this, but we've accepted 45 person classes, religious indoctrination as a valid educational path that even the average CPer puts their child into because it's not so bad, or it's the easiest geographic choice, and symbolic book burnings so we are moving farther from that path succeeding too.
Anyway, I think the core idea that if you just be nice and meet people where they are that you will eventually get there may have worked in in the past, but it's far to easy to take all that work and bulldoze it with one lie today. Or maybe I've just watched the world turn to #### and I'm far to jaded with humanity to expect them to do any selfless good anymore.
It’s true, the world is different, but some of the rules are still good rules to follow and I think still work now. I think being nice and meeting people where they are still works, but it doesn’t work on everyone, and being able to identify the difference and basically who you can work with and who is going to work against you no matter what is important. As McBride says, it’s important to identify who is just looking for attention and ensure they don’t get it.
As I mentioned, there are lots of people (this forum is rife with them) who have good hearts but “imperfect” ideas and/or language. There are times where I read the way things are said, or the ideas people share, and it feels a little gross. But instead of jumping to conclusions you ask questions and see where someone’s heart is at, and if it’s good, most people can be persuaded, even if you can’t do it. But most of the time you can.
There’s people like Cliff who really can’t be persuaded, who haven’t evolved in a decade, who see challenges as attacks and resort to hate speech when confronted. I agree, you kid of have to write those people off and focus on the trees that are actually going to bare fruit because it’s too easy for any efforts to be wiped away by a tweet or blog that confirms their negative bias. If you look at civil rights movements, progress wasn’t made by convincing the people who hate you that they’re wrong, it was by convincing the every day, normal people that you’re just like them. Black civil rights have made immense progress over the last 100 years. But the KKK and white supremacists still exist. At a certain point, you realize a certain portion of people who lead with hate are never going to be convinced by the people they hate, so you hope you can convince other people and it spreads over time.
There are other examples here in the Israel conversation as well. Like kudos for all the effort some of you put in, but someone who hates Palestinians and think of them as sub-human so they seek out only info that confirms that isn’t going to be convinced by an AP article that they’re wrong. Eventually you have to write them off and focus on people with good hearts. That doesn’t mean they can never change, but put the effort toward something meaningful.
A couple other things discussed in the video which I think are important are the facts that:
- People are too prone to going down academic rabbit holes: there needs to be a better effort toward having real, normal conversations. People online love to list the five studies that prove their point, but what’s going to sway a normal person is just speaking in terms they understand and relating to them. That doesn’t mean it WILL sway them, just a better chance. How do you talk to your friends at the pub? Some people are disgusted by the idea of that being allowed here, but it’s probably better than overly academic nonsense.
- We cannot take progress or public sentiment (when it’s in our favour) for granted and skip or stop doing the work. The right is making the same mistake now, so hopefully it swings back in time, but anyone who says “they’re not going to roll back _____” is disingenuous or a fool, because we’ve seen that people absolutely will if your progress isn’t built on a solid base of support.
The policing of language thing I think is very important. I feel like we’ve kind of gotten to the point where the people most focused on it are stuck five years ago. For others, I think there’s been a shift from what is said to focusing on the sentiment behind it, which I think is good.
It’s genuinely a relief to see people call out hate speech on here. A few instances recently. And if that collection of people isn’t perfect in their views? Or say something kind of gross or not “politically correct”? That’s fine. I’ll take people who make an inappropriate joke or accidentally misgender people but stand up when they see hate 10/10 times. I think the shift is going that way in general. And embracing it is what is going to build that foundation of progress.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
