American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[KelVarnsen]

Water is wet, Edmonton is no good and JK Rowling is transphobic.

[Barnet Flame]

Well, when you put it like that, there is a case to answer.

However, I believe her when she says “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.”

But I could be wrong - I’m not going to die in a ditch over it.

[Yamer]

I'm not entirely sure I would classify Rowling as outright transphobic, but there certainly seems to be a fascination with gender and sex presented under the guise of some fairly backwards thinking. She appears to come at the subject through a lens of abuse which colours her thinking of trans women, which I can understand, but the dog-whistling and aspects of false victimhood are troubling.

Cis gendered women's rights are not at odds with trans women. I don't understand how this became a rallying cry to hide behind forms of intolerance. "Sex and gender is a fact" is just silly on its surface as I don't think there are rational human beings arguing against it, and I really can't process why anyone gives a #### at all what someone else identifies as. Of course, I am neither a cis or transgendered woman, so it would be equally as silly for me to speak for them.

Personally, I think much like Dave Chappelle it's not necessarily transphobia or hate, it's just a specific skewed standpoint combined with certain levels of ignorance regarding the holistic experience of trans rights, movements, and personhood. At least Dave doesn't continuously go to the well of right-wing fearmongering such as the bathroom and pronoun issues, but that overwhelming fascination (or even obsession) raises some eyebrows. Having watched The Closer multiple times I can't find any tangible instances of hate, but his incessant need to troll the extremes of the community and roll around with the philosophical absurdity lingers as somewhat problematic.

Like, I get what both Rowling and Chappelle are saying, and the pushback can sometimes be disproportionate (death and rape threats, for example), but I'm just a wee confused why they're saying it. In Chappelle's case I suspect it's a problem with power dynamics and those extreme segments of the community, but Rowling sure seems unable to not trip over her own victimhood in battling a problem mostly made up in her own head.

[Matata]

if you wouldnt date a trans-woman, you're a terf. If those women shelters can ignore those hands and jawlines, so can you.

The fields wide open, boys. Go get'em.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Matata

if you wouldnt date a trans-woman, you're a terf. If those women shelters can ignore those hands and jawlines, so can you.

The fields wide open, boys. Go get'em.

This is repugnant.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Matata

if you wouldnt date a trans-woman, you're a terf. If those women shelters can ignore those hands and jawlines, so can you.

The fields wide open, boys. Go get'em.

WTF is wrong with you?

[Inglewood Jack]

Jealous that Yoho got his own thread and wants one too

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Matata

if you wouldnt date a trans-woman, you're a terf. If those women shelters can ignore those hands and jawlines, so can you.

The fields wide open, boys. Go get'em.

TERF? Gotta say, I don't think you're any kind of feminist at all, radical or itherwise

[Izzle]

Between his comments here and in the Alex Jones thread, Matata has to be the worst poster on this site.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I'm not entirely sure I would classify Rowling as outright transphobic, but there certainly seems to be a fascination with gender and sex presented under the guise of some fairly backwards thinking. She appears to come at the subject through a lens of abuse which colours her thinking of trans women, which I can understand, but the dog-whistling and aspects of false victimhood are troubling.

Cis gendered women's rights are not at odds with trans women. I don't understand how this became a rallying cry to hide behind forms of intolerance. "Sex and gender is a fact" is just silly on its surface as I don't think there are rational human beings arguing against it, and I really can't process why anyone gives a #### at all what someone else identifies as. Of course, I am neither a cis or transgendered woman, so it would be equally as silly for me to speak for them.

Personally, I think much like Dave Chappelle it's not necessarily transphobia or hate, it's just a specific skewed standpoint combined with certain levels of ignorance regarding the holistic experience of trans rights, movements, and personhood. At least Dave doesn't continuously go to the well of right-wing fearmongering such as the bathroom and pronoun issues, but that overwhelming fascination (or even obsession) raises some eyebrows. Having watched The Closer multiple times I can't find any tangible instances of hate, but his incessant need to troll the extremes of the community and roll around with the philosophical absurdity lingers as somewhat problematic.

Like, I get what both Rowling and Chappelle are saying, and the pushback can sometimes be disproportionate (death and rape threats, for example), but I'm just a wee confused why they're saying it. In Chappelle's case I suspect it's a problem with power dynamics and those extreme segments of the community, but Rowling sure seems unable to not trip over her own victimhood in battling a problem mostly made up in her own head.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I think some people are just trying to wrap their heads around it and be able to define things a little in a murky landscape. I view them as being uncomfortable with a new norm, not hateful, but many people view someone that shares an uncomfortable view as being hateful, and therein lies the problem.

But to the bolded, I will happily watch anyone take on the extremes of any viewpoint or movement. Many extreme viewpoints are dogmatic and have little to no actual critical thinking behind them, and they should be ridiculed if they haven't considered a counter-argument to their position for even a second. That's why free speech is good and important. We have to able to challenge each other's views. It's that challenge and critique that forces use to sharpen our logic and rhetoric, and it often leads to good and useful viewpoints that help to serve a cause.

[cheevers]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...509313?lang=en

There you go.

Happy now?

Maybe I'm missing something but she is applying this women who menstrate term as a woman who is probably in menopause these days, and therefore does not menstrate? So she is anti herself too apparently. And young girls because to hell with them I guess?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I agree with pretty much all of this. I think some people are just trying to wrap their heads around it and be able to define things a little in a murky landscape. I view them as being uncomfortable with a new norm, not hateful, but many people view someone that shares an uncomfortable view as being hateful, and therein lies the problem.

But to the bolded, I will happily watch anyone take on the extremes of any viewpoint or movement. Many extreme viewpoints are dogmatic and have little to no actual critical thinking behind them, and they should be ridiculed if they haven't considered a counter-argument to their position for even a second. That's why free speech is good and important. We have to able to challenge each other's views. It's that challenge and critique that forces use to sharpen our logic and rhetoric, and it often leads to good and useful viewpoints that help to serve a cause.

I agree with that. It's why I loved The Closer, but it's also why most people will only ever hear that Dave is a rabid transphobe and exercise no further critical thought. Of course it's exactly the response he was banking on.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is an interesting take. Is the NFL right or left wing? I mean yes, they are owned by bazillionaires but also they bring awareness to many causes.

They are a microcosm of the US, a Corporatocracy. The left wing/right wing construct is largely just a way to get people riled up in tribalism so they ignore the fact they're just voting for whatever group of corporations they want to enrich at each election. No one actually gives a crap about the causes they afford lip service to. Of course, this is paired with convenient nationalism to conjure up blind support for corporate ambition abroad, as evidenced by a bunch of players in literal tears during the national anthem at this year's superbowl.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Matata

if you wouldnt date a trans-woman, you're a terf. If those women shelters can ignore those hands and jawlines, so can you.

The fields wide open, boys. Go get'em.

You do realise, you’re talking about people?

I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances and issues surrounding what people are going through, but at the end of it all, I just want to treat people with respect and to not hurt and certainly not for the hell of it.

What purpose is served by what you posted there?

Is conflict and attention that important to you that there is no level you won’t sink to?

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by cheevers

Maybe I'm missing something but she is applying this women who menstrate term as a woman who is probably in menopause these days, and therefore does not menstrate? So she is anti herself too apparently. And young girls because to hell with them I guess?

You don’t genuinely think that do you?

Because this is just taking what someone says and twisting it beyond the ridiculous.

[Lanny_McDonald]

I'm shocked there hasn't been any commentary about Scott Adam's comments and Dilbert being cast to the proverbial ash heap of history as a result. I expected a Yoyo drive-by and a full-throated defenses from Matata and White-out. Come on boys, you're letting us down.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Barnet Flame might be correct in that saying she hasn't actually made any clearcut transphobic tweets. But to argue she isn't transphobic would be hilarious.

Maybe she, like all women in the UK, have reason to fear these people. In the UK men who identify as women are 4-5 times more likely to be convicted sex offenders than normal men and 600 times more likely than real women.



https://imgur.com/VvEbDm3

[GGG]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Maybe she, like all women in the UK, have reason to fear these people. In the UK men who identify as women are 4-5 times more likely to be convicted sex offenders than normal men and 600 times more likely than real women.

You understand why that stat is a poor stat to base your transphobic comments on right? Like you can think about why trans status would be over reported in the prison population and under reported in the general population.

Secondly the data hasn’t accounted for economic circumstances. Without adjusting or analyzing the data you might just be showing that transgendered people have a lower socioeconomic standing or just suffer from other issues which contribute to rates of crime.

And even if transgender women did commit sex crimes at a higher rate that isn’t a reason to descriminate against them.

And even if those stats are accurate are discrimination and hateful language like “real women” isn’t going to protect anyone.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Between his comments here and in the Alex Jones thread, Matata has to be the worst poster on this site.

Matata 101 for anyone that has intentions of using up their valuable time constructing responses

Originally Posted by Matata

I've taken the plunge on moonlanding conspiracies and I'm 50/50 on the whole thing, it's certainly conceivable, but there are good reasons to doubt the legitimacy. Did you know that NASA destroyed all the original technology and footage from the first moon landing? For no good reason at all. It's also very odd how up to the moon landing, the USSR was leading the space race and had all the space "firsts", up until the US suddenly shot way past them and completed a flawless moon trip. The Van Allen belt is another tricky one, radiation experts are all over the place regarding what they think it would take to safely pass through it. Radiation is very hard on film, so it's also conceivable that they went to the moon AND faked the footage. I have no doubt that the purpose of NASA, to a degree, is funneling money into black operations. There's a ton of fake NASA footage out there (air bubbles on space walks, astronauts green-screening out, etc.)


Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field.



But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.

[MoneyGuy]

Maybe I missed this at the time but I’m reading the Trump, when he was president, tried to get Jimmy Kimmel fired because he was mean to him. LOL