United States Politics Thread 46

[Linguoboy]

I really like how this pulls no punches, for a change.

My only criticism is that I wish they'd addressed the GOP's obsessive anti-trans agenda. Like this is the party that believes the solution to the made-up problem of children using the "wrong" restrooms is to have adults inspect their genitals. That is off-the-scale creepy. I'm still hoping that if this ad does well they'll work that into the follow-up.

[MacAnDàil]

I really like how this pulls no punches, for a change.

My only criticism is that I wish they'd addressed the GOP's obsessive anti-trans agenda. Like this is the party that believes the solution to the made-up problem of children using the "wrong" restrooms is to have adults inspect their genitals. That is off-the-scale creepy. I'm still hoping that if this ad does well they'll work that into the follow-up.

And the GOP now accuse women from Algeria supposedly bein trans and that would supposedly be the Dem's fault. And Trump doesn't want pronouns.

[xxx]

And the GOP now accuse women from Algeria supposedly bein trans and that would supposedly be the Dem's fault. And Trump doesn't want pronouns.

this case is trouble indeed...

[MacAnDàil]

And the GOP now accuse women from Algeria supposedly bein trans and that would supposedly be the Dem's fault. And Trump doesn't want pronouns.

this case is trouble indeed...

The key part is this:

the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released their own statement in response, stating that the IBA's decision was "sudden and arbitrary" and "without any due process".

[xxx]

The key part is this:

the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released their own statement in response, stating that the IBA's decision was "sudden and arbitrary" and "without any due process".

and that one:

While the IOC does not test athletes for gender, it stated that all athletes competing in Paris comply with the competition's eligibility and entry regulation, and that Khelif "was born female, was registered female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport"

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ha¨·¶

[Linguoboy]

Essentially, transphobes needed a trans controversy to push their message about "keeping men out of women's sports" so badly that they were forced to invent one.

Khelif will be going home with at least a bronze. But who knows how long she'll be dealing with death threats.

[xxx]

no, this kind of femininity test is as old as women's sports,
and evolves with science...
________________________________________________________
,ª·«¶p¨¦©Jªe·«cªÉ¨

[rotting bones]

no, this kind of femininity test is as old as women's sports,
and evolves with science...
________________________________________________________
,ª·«¶p¨¦©Jªe·«cªÉ¨

No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published.

[Emily]

no, this kind of femininity test is as old as women's sports,
and evolves with science...
________________________________________________________
,ª·«¶p¨¦©Jªe·«cªÉ¨

no, it's only as old as nazi germany, and evolves with increasing hatemongering about trans people

[Raholeun]

Have you read the article linked? By that logic, the NSDAP were valiant fighters in the progressive fight for non-binary athletics.

[xxx]

except that the only documented case of sex fraud
was carried out knowingly by the Nazis in 1936
at the Berlin game with a presumably intersex athlete...

but even without talking about fraud,
hiding behind one's finger so as not to see
can only lead to sports that would once again
concern only men as they did originally...
_________________________________________________
>¼)d«q§ª>¼Cd«q§ªKdÊIIg§f¸d«Ê©OÊ©-©¬§»q§ªLf¸ZId«Ê

[Linguoboy]

but even without talking about fraud,
hiding behind one's finger so as not to see
can only lead to sports that would once again
concern only men as they did originally...

Sports only "concerned" men originally because they systematically excluded women. Several Olympic sports (e.g. skeet shooting) used to be open categories until some uppity woman happened to perform too well and, lo and behold, the IOC suddenly decided there needed to be separate events.

Sex segregation in sports exists because men have felt threatened by women's performance, not because there'd be no medals left for the ladies if they competed together.

[Raholeun]

Sex segregation in sports exists because men have felt threatened by women's performance, not because there'd be no medals left for the ladies if they competed together.

Yeah, as if one could forget all those iconic moments when women swept the world championships in the mixed-gender sports...

Snooker? The highest-ranked woman, Reanne Evans, has never made it past the first round in the World Championships. In darts, Fallon Sherrock made headlines for being a women and reaching the quarter finals in a male-dominated event; hardly a takeover. Even Judit Polgar, who is admittedly very good can almost beat the best of the men. Feel free to keep dreaming of a grand conspiracy, though.

[Linguoboy]

Sex segregation in sports exists because men have felt threatened by women's performance, not because there'd be no medals left for the ladies if they competed together.

Yeah, as if one could forget all those iconic moments when women swept the world championships in the mixed-gender sports...

Snooker? The highest-ranked woman, Reanne Evans, has never made it past the first round in the World Championships. In darts, Fallon Sherrock made headlines for being a women and reaching the quarter finals in a male-dominated event; hardly a takeover. Even Judit Polgar, who is admittedly very good can almost beat the best of the men. Feel free to keep dreaming of a grand conspiracy, though.

It's not a "conspiracy"; just look at the history of sports, particularly Olympic sports. In general, the organisers are quite open about what they're doing.

Just like the current controversy, where we're being treated to the unedifying spectacle of one group of old cisgender men arguing with another group of old cisgender men about which young women should be allowed to compete in the "women's division".

[Linguoboy]

But back to the actual subject of this thread:

• I'm really enjoying the Tim Walz honeymoon. I deliberately didn't pay much attention to the Veepstakes because I didn't want to get too attached to a particular candidate only to see him sidelined. But if I had chosen one to root for, it most likely would have been him. The commentariat have decided he embodies "Big Dad Energy" and now the Internet is being flooded with heartwarming memes about his affection fatherly behaviour--from true stories about him sponsoring the gay/straight alliance at the high school where he coached football to endless cute jokes of the format "Tim Walz finished tying down America and said, 'That's not going anywhere!'." Vance is already desperate to paint him as a coastal liberal, but that dog won't hunt with someone who once won a Congressional Hotdish Bakeoff.
• AIPAC really is spending an obscene amount of money to primary progressive Democrats. The latest victim is Cori Bush, thanks to about $15 million in super PAC funds, much of it from Republican donors. As she said in interviews, she wouldn't have minded the opposition if they'd only been honest about what they were doing, but the endless barrage of attack ads never mentions her stance on Israel because her enemies know this isn't something her average constituent cares much about. Infuriating.

[Travis B.]

I'm of the view that Walz definitely was the all-around better choice, while Shapiro simply would have been a matter of selecting a VP to get his home state's electoral votes rather than anything really being added to the ticket. And the contrast between Walz and Vance could not be greater (while they are from "middle America", that is where the similarities end).

[malloc]

AIPAC really is spending an obscene amount of money to primary progressive Democrats. The latest victim is Cori Bush, thanks to about $15 million in super PAC funds, much of it from Republican donors. As she said in interviews, she wouldn't have minded the opposition if they'd only been honest about what they were doing, but the endless barrage of attack ads never mentions her stance on Israel because her enemies know this isn't something her average constituent cares much about. Infuriating.

That one especially stings. She was literally the only halfway good thing about this horrible state and metro area. It was nice having a politician here praised rather than condemned by the news I read though.

[Dune]

It's not a "conspiracy"; just look at the history of sports, particularly Olympic sports. In general, the organisers are quite open about what they're doing.

I only recently tuned into this issue in the context of skeet shooting and plan on looking into it more (there are certainly plenty of people claiming the ISSF sex-segregated the sport as a direct response to Zhang Shan's '92 win, but I also haven't found any high-quality reporting on that, either published then or now). For skeet shooting, it could well be true.

But come on. It's more than a little disingenuous to bring that up in response to a boxing controversy, a sport where men have a massive advantage even over women in the same weight class. Sex segregation clearly exists in many sports for a reason, which has nothing to do with men feeling threatened by women.

[MacAnDàil]

Now that Trump has come out against EVs, will Musk switch to Chase?

[jcb]

(Ironically, in some other contexts, such as fiscal policy, center-left people are perfectly aware that what works for individuals doesn't always work for entire societies.)

Indeed, but as you said, this situation personally benefits liberals in the establishment (AKA the elites). Because they are part of the elite, they believe the ideology (education(ism)) that got them there. Therefore, they have little sympathy for those that this system tramples on.

But the problem with that approach is that it's simply not possible for all people or even most people to make it to the top, because it's part of the very definition of "the top" that most people can never be a part of it.

https://youtu.be/hiGEh7UoMYg?si=rafJnpcP-kIKf5xq&t=35

So, yes, opportunities for upwards social mobility are important. But the most important priority of progressive policy should be to improve the lives of people who are not upwardly socially mobile.

But this would require liberals to identify with the poor, struggling, and uneducated instead of the rich, successful, and educated, so it's unlikely.

Dude, I've been ranting about the turn toward plutocracy for thirty fucking years.

So why do you keep defending and making excuses for liberals when they help plutocracy continue? Why won't you admit that (Bill) Clinton passing NAFTA hurt tens of millions of Americans? Why won't you admit that Obama alienated unions with his fetish for education and Wall Street? Why won't you admit that when (Hillary) Clinton said that she thinks that minimum wage workers deserve only 12$ / hour, she meant it? (I doubt that she's ever had to try to live on a part-time job making 12$ / hour.)

The general answer to your question is that there aren't enough liberals. Or progressives or democratic socialists or labor activists or whatever you like. See this Gallup chart: in 1994 the percentage of liberals in the Democratic Party was 25%. That means 1/8 of the whole electorate. Not a good basis for progressive policy.

Yes, and by helping attack organized labor over the years, liberals have decreased their own ability to win elections, yet they did it anyways.

Education has benefits beyond getting better jobs, though. It makes people more open-minded and better at critical thinking and thus less receptive to conspiracy theories and far right ideology. There is a well-known correlation between higher educational attainment and leftward political alignment. It makes strategic sense for left wing politicians to favor higher education. You don't see many high school dropouts discussing LGBT rights or how to stop global warming, let alone with much sympathy. Humans in their natural state are basically bipedal chimps with all the cruelty and tribalism that entails. Education helps lift us away from that.

(1) This is a classist myth that liberals tell themselves to justify abandoning unions and working class people in general. ("They're all just bigots anyways, therefore we shouldn't try to help them, because helping bigots is equivalent to helping their bigotry. Therefore, we should focus on appealing to graduates with fancy degrees, because they already have the right views about LGBT rights (or whatever).")
(2) Maybe high school dropouts are too busy surviving (working multiple minimum wage jobs, caring for kids) to think about things that don't personally affect them.
(3) Uneducated workers are capable of supporting LGBT rights if it's framed correctly, making them realize they're both being crushed by the same boot: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/a ... -interview
(4) Likewise, educated workers are capable of supporting republicans. Until very recently, more doctors were republicans than democrats: https://www.wsj.com/articles/doctors-on ... 1570383523


(5) It makes strategic sense for left wing politicians to favor unions ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ic-voting/ ), but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had no qualms about picking on them and making their lives worse despite that. (Thus why I hesitate to call either of them "left" or even "center-left".)

but "just make education more accessible" is a way to provide opportunity for individual improvement instead of setting the conditions to actual collectivel improvement. I don't think liberals, democrats or the global 'center-left' has failed to consider this: maybe voters are fooled, but the nobles are AOK with loans that provide chances for individuals to do better while ensuring the same proportion of people remain poor: they, after all, often own the unis, the land the unis operate on, and a host of other ancilliary services to the diploma mills.

Indeed, it's quite the good con.

You have a point: education does not in itself create jobs (except educational jobs). This can be seen in a number of developing nations, where there are far more educated people than there are jobs. And humanities majors in the US are often in no better shape.

You don't have to look at the developing world to find a situation where there's more people with degrees than jobs: https://www.businessinsider.com/big-tec ... ers-2023-5

Or to be blunter: college was intended to get people into the middle class. And it was foreseeable that the middle class was, in the future, all that would exist. (In the 1960s corporations were run by salaried managers, not omnipotent CEOs.)

Sure, college was intended to do that, but was it actually doing that? I think it was actually the unions doing the heavy lifting. (Also, keep in mind that even people that aren't in a union still benefit from mass unionization in a society from unions setting what is a high de-facto minimum wage.)

But it's a misapprehension that education is promoted to help people "get to the top". Oversimplifying, for the last century and a half the logic has been: 1. modern jobs require a full secondary education, and some need more; 2. premodern society did not provide this; 3. jobs in the future will require more rather than less education; 4. so education, especially technical fields, is always good.

[...]

The system worked fine as long as there was a steady stream of productivity increases and the people as a whole were getting richer— as was true from the 1800s up till Reaganism. Even now, the problem is not that there are no jobs— the unemployment rate is currently 4.1%, which would have been a good figure any time in the last half-century. It's that jobs are not, as the paradigm demands, getting better and requiring more education.

So, if the legs of education and unionization are the engine that keeps innovation going while ensuring that the workers get a share of their pie, how about liberals stop pushing education for a moment, and fix the leg of unionization that has been broken? Pushing education without unionization is just producing a population that is indebted, overeducated for many jobs, and hypercompetitive for the few good jobs.

Does all of this produce healthier, more well-rounded, and successful students? I think the jury is still out on that. I'm certainly not seeing a lot of evidence of that at my elite private institution, but I'm honestly not very familiar with the literature on the subject.

Another thought: Many of the classes that are required for a major are unnecessary. For example, I was required to take a class about classical music, even though my major was in STEM. I understand why the music professor thinks it's important that everybody take their class about classical music (because (1) they themselves like and care about classical music, and (2) it keeps them employed), but to the majority of students, it's useless, but they're forced to take it. IMO, general education things like this should be finished in high school. However, the university will never push for that, regardless of whether it's the right thing to do, because it benefits them to force students to take more classes.

I'm not sure how the requirements have evolved over time, but it seems like the kind of thing where requirements could have kept slowly accreting (like feature creep), until students have to devote two whole years just doing general education requirements that are irrelevant to their major.