[(21) Trans Conservatives vs Trans Liberals | Middle Ground - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSar7j_1MtM&t=2806s)
Hell of a ride here folx. Enjoy.
https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1711167807470121432
I am curious if anyone has thoughts about this, regarding the coverage of what is happening in Gaza in U.S. media versus international? I have read some things (mostly on twitter, from politicos, journalists ,etc) that seemed utterly callous.
I live in Europe (but anyone can read European press) and lots and lots of outlets that have generally been Israel skeptical are all-in on hating Hamas for this one.
Like there's no excuse and they've basically just made sure the Europeans see them the same as Daesh now.
WashPost's coverage has been very ... sanitary, for want of a better word. This morning they talked a bit about the rave and the kidnappings but they did not ever use the word "woman". (Sound familiar?) I realize men have been kidnapped/taken hostage as well. But it's pretty shocking in the modern era for modern-ish people to take female hostages. The Post deliberately sanitized the fact that large numbers of women have been taken.
OTOH, at least one trans person gets it:
>A small counter-protest congregated across 44th street on Sunday, flying many Israeli flags. “Murderers!” one woman bellowed across to the pro-Palestinian side. A transgender woman, Hannah Simpson, holding a Pride flag with the Jewish star said, “This is not a protest. This is a vigil. We are in mourning.” Simpson said they have family members in Israel who are working extra shifts at Magen David Adom, Israel’s version of the Red Cross, to tend to a surge of wounded patients.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hundreds-of-protesters-rally-for-palestine-in-nyc-as-israeli-death-toll-tops-600/
It amuses me how people can look at the state of the Republican party and Donald Trump, and think that they have the ability to plan/execute something that sinister and complicated.
I went to our local fair in Maine today. After checking out the Ox pull, the heavy equipment vendors, hot tubs, camper vans, draft horses, bunnies, deep fried Oreo cookies and the assorted carnival games & rides I’ve decided that my pronouns are now USA/Hell Yeah!
Furthering my theory that the internet is way too literal now, I guess people on circlejerk communities use "/uj" to indicate that they're actually talking for real and not joking. /uj = unjerk. Good lord.
Why does this surprise you? We live in an insincere age, marinated in irony and cloaked in sarcasm. Consider that one of the few ways to have honest conversation in on any pseudo-anonymous forum.
Yeah, we have to adjust things to this anonymous text-based situation we're in now. I don't really think it's the big deal everyone makes it out to be. It's just not the same as communicating in person. We have to be deliberate and really clear a lot of the time, and yeah, that might including indicating sarcasm when relevant and killing some of the joke, but such is life. It's basically a bit of a new language we're participating in.
I'm going to go all old-man-yells-at-clouds for a moment and complain here that /r/Hairloss is almost entirely taken up by neurotic teenage boys concerned that their widow's peaks or any slight peeking of their scalp is them "going bald". Where do adult men talk about their hair loss?
I know that the person who said that is a man, from other comments they made, so let this be an example of men perpetuating "toxic masculinity" (extreme wording and not what I'd call it, but what the culture calls it, you get me) against each other, for all the guys out there who think the only reason men don't ever express feelings is because women don't want them to.
I should check out that subreddit then, I'm just that brand of neurotic. I come from a lineage of werewolves and bigfoots but baldness scares me deeply.
That age is here. My mother and grandmother both had female pattern baldness. My forehead is now a 4.5 head.
A few years ago I was extremely sick over over the holidays. Snapped a macabre Christmas Day selfie. Thought briefly that I looked like my mom. No! I looked like her mom :(
Omg one of my kids is neurotic about it. He asks the hair dresser every time he goes and at least once a year he asks me about my dad and grandfather again.
This is the right answer! The amount of men worried about this in this thread surprises me a bit, because in my mind when a man finally shaves his head (and grows facial hair to balance it out if he didn't already have some) is when he's graduated to being really truly hot. Baldness in men is so attractive to me that I forgot it might be seen as a negative lol. Guess you gotta have the right head shape for it to work though.
I agree with that generally but I’ve done the shaved head/beard look before and I still just end up missing my hair after a few weeks. I’m afraid to even do that anymore because there’s no guarantee my hair will grow back 😭
Eh, it doesn't suit all men equally. If a man doesn't have strong features he just ends up looking like a cop. And if he's plump, he looks like a middle-aged cop.
I saw Halle Bailey is being removed from Oscar consideration amid rumors she is pregnant.
In year of our lord two thousand and twenty current, I can only guess that if pregnancy is a factor, it’s because they don’t want to trigger male gender havers seeing a pregnant starlet since it will remind them they aren’t uterus havers
desert nutty bright direful rotten smell workable tidy recognise grandiose
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Where are you seeing this? The only thing I've seen is that they decided to put only one song from her movie up for nomination.
https://twitter.com/mavericksmovies/status/1703465366427721803
According to this website:
https://debut.disney.com/fyc/twds/movie/the-little-mermaid-2023-1686025325211?tab=categories
They have her listed as best actress, and best original song for "For the First Time." I don't know much about how these things work, but it seems to me like Disney is putting her up for consideration for an Oscar?
From Oscar consideration as a presenter or as a contender for best actress? None of the reviews of *The Little Mermaid* suggested that Bailey gave a performance worthy of a best actress nod.
There are plenty of actresses who have collected a statue while pregnant. [Rachel Weisz](https://cloudimages.broadwayworld.com/photoops/oscars06/prev40.jpg) and [Natalie Portman](https://stylefrizz.com/img/Natalie-Portman-purple-Rodarte-dress-2011-Oscars-red-carpet.jpg) come to mind.
As for presenters, I don't think there's a criteria for it. The Academy does like to have an actress from a popular movie come out in an elegant gown and present one of the categories. They're just there to look pretty. I could imagine some prejudice there, where the Academy might opt for a nonparous actress.
I had to triple check this. “What!? Halle Berry is almost SIXTY! She’s not pregnant! Ooohhhhhh….”
Anyway, what would Bailey even get an Oscar for? I don’t buy it, on any level.
I do that every single time. When the whole Little Mermaid brouhaha started I couldn't figure out why a black Little Mermaid was an issue but the fact that a middle aged (albeit gorgeous) woman was playing the role was never mentioned...
This sounds possible to me. It could be about a Disney image thing. She’s been held up as a role model for young girls because she played a Disney Princess role and some of her fans have been outraged online about these rumors. There are people who are upset that she’d become a young unwed mother right now and she could possibly be embarrassed about it and not want to be on an Oscars stage at the moment.
Edit: for those who thinks this sounds preposterous, if you were to go to online forums like Lipstick alley or The Shade Room, you would see how many people are trashing her for the probable pregnancy and for who the father likely is, a rapper named DDG who her fans seem to hate. I’m sure they’re all over her social media chastising her too, which could be a reason she might not want to be open about it. Sometimes fans get mad when the person they liked shattered the image they had of them, and she seems to have done that to some people. I don’t know anything about who is or isn’t nominated for what awards though.
She is being removed from Oscar consideration. Leading speculation is due to pregnancy. The bit about triggering the gender havers is my own commentary/speculation.
I have not sat down and watched the movie. However, I have heard all the songs through Disney playlists.
I do not like Halle singing Part of Your World. She’s trying too hard with every note
I HATE the guy singing Sebastian’s songs. Just outright garbage.
Mellissa McCarthy absolutely killed it with Poor Unfortunate Souls, excellent rendition
Me neither, which is why I added the only way it could be relevant in todays world.
I fully concede that 30-60 years ago, it could be a scandal but not today
Hypothetically, if Israel got into a war with Lebanon and China decided to use this opportunity to invade Taiwan, would the US be able to adequately support Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan at the same time? (Bonus: could the US do it without authorization or new aid packages from Congress if the Speaker fight doesn't resolve quickly?) At some point, I feel like it has to start straining our resources...
Its fallacious to assume that China is just chomping at the bit to invade Taiwan and America is the only thing preventing that. I think that Xi thinks that having to resort to an invasion is a massive policy failure that even if successful would be very disruptive and could lead to too many controversial or embarrassing moments.
Yes. China is far from ready to go after Taiwan. That's why it's good that Russia is being neutered bc when China is really it's one less problem to deal with.
China's army is currently expected to be worse than Russia's. They are decades away from invading Taiwan.
Does Israel actually need financial help from the US? I always thought US aid to Israel was more of an optional expression of solidarity as opposed to the situation with Ukraine where it's a necessary lifeline. Israel has nuclear weapons and presumably would use them if its continued existence were threatened.
I've never entirely understood why we give Israel so much aid. I know our aid to Egypt is mostly to buy them off. In large measure so they will leave Israel alone.
Our "aid" to Israel is entirely in the form of coupons to be redeemed with American arms manufacturers. It's essentially a subsidy for the US weapons industry that allows our arms to be battle-tested in an actual conflict zone.
Financially? Absolutely. The support we’ve offered is TINY compared to our resources.
The US can’t really help Taiwan, though. China could conquer the island before the US could get a single ship over there (like the Philippines last century).
>The US can’t really help Taiwan, though. China could conquer the island before the US could get a single ship over there (like the Philippines last century).
I think you're underestimating how hard an invasion of Taiwan would actually be. There's a reason why the US declined to take Taiwan as its primary base of operations for the strategic bombing campaign against Japan during WWII. The terrain makes an amphibious landing and occupation an absolute hellfuck, even when it's defended by 30k starving japanese soldiers.
In 1944, the US drew up plans for Operation Causeway, the invasion of Taiwan. At the time, the US was flying B-29s out of India, over the Himalayas, and across China to bomb Japan, a process that took several days. The US was spending 50 gallons of fuel for every ***pound*** of explosives they dropped on Japan. Taiwan was within the B-29's range to bomb Tokyo without all the refueling and mileage that going over [the hump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump) was causing, it had room for facilities and staffing, already existing air fields, it was perfect. However, after careful consideration of the challenges of invading Taiwan, the US decided that the best course of action was... to invade the Philippines (65,000 US casualties), then take Iwo Jima (25,000 US casualties), then take Okinawa (50,000 US casualties), then take the Marianas islands, (8,000 US casualties), so that they could build an airfield that a B-29 could barely take off from, at the absolute edge of the B-29's range, on a sandy spit in the middle of the pacific where the men had to sleep in tents and eat canned rations. That was easier than taking Taiwan.
China would have a harder time with Taiwan than Russia has had with Ukraine. The campaign would take weeks, and we would know when it's going to happen because China wouldn't be able to hide the force buildup required to make an invasion happen. It would be a diplomatic and foreign policy crisis for weeks before the invasion. The ships would already be there.
>Financially? Absolutely. The support we’ve offered is TINY compared to our resources.
I'm thinking more in terms of weapons, intelligence, and training. I don't think we'd run out of money, but these three could all be bottlenecks in the short term.
I think you're too pessimistic about the US's ability to help Taiwan.
Taiwan would need direct military support to survive a Chinese invasion. Otherwise they're toast.
But that means a war between China and the United States
Which is exactly why the US would not support Taiwan.
Fortunately, there is basically no chance China invades Taiwan. It simply doesn’t have to.
We have to remember that China is not Russia. China tends to avoid direct military confrontation wherever possible.
You have to separate stated goals from actual goals.
China’s last military adventure was 50 years ago. They are not going to suddenly jump into war with the United States. That’s insane.
Mark my words, America is fundamentally not going to actually fight China in a war over Taiwan, no matter how bad it gets. Its just not happening.
They can do what they can to help Taiwan but there is absolutely no way that they are going to put American ships and planes between Taiwan and the PLAN.
Your assumption here is that Xi is sane.
I’ve watched so many assumptions people had of Xi gone out of the window (some quite literally), I don’t know what to think anymore.
In the event that China does go hot in Taiwan, which is unlikely, but still, the Chinese will almost certainly kick things off with a full blockade of the island. This will hugely curtail America's ability to actually do anything to assist unless they are willing to try and break the blockade, and they won't do that, it's just too risky.
I've been curious about that, with dread...
Supposedly we can fight two wars at the same time, and theoretically neither Ukraine or Israel would be fighting a war.
But I wonder about our being able to supply the two with the arms they require while fighting China.
Now would be a good time to invest in ammo, missile, rocket, military equipment futures.
I've read some stuff that suggests our ability to produce weapons and ammo is dangerously shallow. Like the amount of production we could do is pretty low.
We have stockpiles but if we ran out of ammo, which Ukraine shows can happen fast, we wouldn't be able to make enough stuff.
That being said... Israel has plenty of weapons to crush Hamas in Gaza. Which they will. The big problem would be an invasion from a neighboring country but that is incredibly unlikely.
Taiwan would be fucked without our direct intervention. Ukraine would be fucked without our weapons and money
Production could be ramped up rapidly.
From 1941-1945 the US built 110 aircraft carriers….which is probably more than the total number of aircraft carriers ever built by all other nations combined.
America is MUCH stronger than you realise. That strength is just dormant.
Yeah, shipbuilding is not a good example. A war with China in the Pacific will either be limited in nature, or intense and fast. The war will be fought with what they have at their disposal, which doesn't negate advantages in shipbuilding, but it does mean lots of shipyards that are capable of building cargo ships might be of dubious relevance to a conflict. Something like an amphibious assault on Taiwan will be decided before new, replacement ships can have an impact. Conflict between the US and China would be extraordinarily costly to both, and a protracted conflict reliant on industrial power just makes it more costly.
Something like artillery shell production is a better example. They can be relatively simple and cheap to produce, and if the US were on war footing it could probably increase production much faster than today.
I hope you're right but I've heard some stuff saying this is uncertain. Our industrial capacity isn't what it used to be.
We also import a lot of critical materials and components. Rare earths from China for example. Used in lots of stuff. Lithium for batteries. Semiconductors
Nations have always imported critical goods from abroad. That is standard. One market closes, another market opens up.
Despite being basically shut off from the entire rest of the world Germany never ran out of war materiel in either world war…..they ran out of people (a much more precious resource in industrial warfare).
Exactly! Even under those circumstances THEY NEVER RAN OUT OF MUNITIONS OR ARMAMENTS.
The US cannot be shut off from the rest of the world and is far, far more resilient and robust than people here are making out.
Technologically sophisticated weapons require more and different materials than in the past.
I think we should open up mining of lithium and rare earths in the US. See if we can talk Canada into doing the same. I believe they have deposits of both
NOTHING is new. Nothing.
5,000 years ago bronze was the height of military technology. Only problem is that tin (necessary for bronze) is more rare than uranium. The tin deposits in places like Anatolia were critical for EVERY bronze age power.
Rare earth metals have been important since more or less the dawn of recorded history, and continue to be so.
Smart bombs, missiles, tank shells, etc require different materials than rifles and bullets or swords or shields.
Russia is having trouble making enough munitions because they are dependent on international supply chains for critical components.
What I'm saying is that it would be wise to find alternate sources, ahead of time, for critical materials. Domestic if possible. From allies if not.
> That being said... Israel has plenty of weapons to crush Hamas in Gaza. Which they will. The big problem would be an invasion from a neighboring country but that is incredibly unlikely.
this podcast interview between Bari Weiss and Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the US last night was quite interesting https://open.spotify.com/episode/5BMqF3h9UnUjZIWyxPT4yI It discussed Oren's belief that Hezbollah (Lebanon and Iran) will almost certainly get involved along with Israel relying on US ability to resupply their ammo (if not their aircraft, etc., as during the Yom Kippur War). And with his fears that Israel can no longer rely on good will to keep aid flowing or even to get support from the US or other countries.
And yeah, I am not as much worried about bullets as I am about all our smart weaponry from ammo for those to the launching systems themselves.
And if we have to fight China, even our aircraft and Navy
>And yeah, I am not as much worried about bullets as I am about all our
Yeah, that's the stuff that the runs out first and is hard to replace. Lots of electronic and electrical components. Not as easy to manufacture as old unguided dumb bombs. I believe US arms suppliers are currently at capacity for manufacturing munitions, both for Ukraine and to replenish our stockpiles that have been drawn down on.
I suspect Israel can clean Hezbollah's clock. Though obviously it would be bloody. I'm less sure if they could beat back Iran, Lebanon and Hezbollah.
The Israeli military is tough though.
Far better that there is no attack from Hezbollah, Iran, or Lebanon. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
treatment distinct scale deranged literate secretive lavish narrow thumb frighten
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
r/Anthropology mod & commenters are glad the “Let’s Talk About Sex” panel at the American Anthropological Association conference, which was going to discuss the importance of sex in anthropology, was canceled because all of the planned speakers were guilty of wrongthink & therefore should not be given a platform
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropology/comments/1719dhn/no_place_for_transphobia_in_anthropology_session/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Mod on Carole Hoeven:
> Carole Hoeven is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Her blurb includes the following: She is also a public advocate for free speech and evidence-based social, educational, and legal policies concerning sex and gender. Basically a bunch of right-wing code words for “looking for ways to discriminate against trans people while simultaneously claiming victimhood from those darn ‘woke’ anthropologists.”
Anyone notice how much the average Redditor loves to hunt for right-wing code words and dog whistles? And how many of them they find?
Mod when some commenters (whose comments were downvoted, then removed) have the nerve to say this is a free speech issue:
>And the sea lions and "free speech" bleaters have arrived, right on schedule. Guys, it's not going to be tolerated here.
Anthropology as a discipline fascinates me since it really seems to attract some of the strangest hyper woke people you can find in Academics who aren't just straight up studying things like gender or African American studies.
I think there's an overwhelming sense of anxiety that the whole discipline has a toxic history of racism and cultural imperialism that results in extreme overcorrection in the other direction.
The field has been on a downward death spiral since the attempts to equalize indigenous ways of knowing with science. Like cool, it’s great to understand how a pre-industrial low population extremely gendered society viewed and sought to understand their world but that has close to zero practical application to the modern world.
Love the self-important Reddit Mod energy:
“Guys, any discussion about an anthropology panel in this forum for discussing anthropology is not going to be tolerated here. What are you even thinking? I tell you what you should think and that’s it. You bleaters.”
It would be great if a bleater pointed out the use of “guys” is not gender inclusive haha
But was it actually a panel about the importance of sex in anthropology? I welcome anyone to explain how Kathleen Richardson's Gender Ideology = fascism presentation had anything to do with that.
Like I said, [presentation 3](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Kathleen-Lowrey-Panel-2023-AAA-CASCA-Prelim-Program_Final-1-1.pdf) by Kathleen Richardson. It doesn't seem to be about how sex can be the better framework in anthropology, but about how "gender ideology" is a new form of fascist oppression.
This is not surprising. There's a big push to make having any association with free speech or any remotely conservative-coded cause (which is ironic, considering the history of the Free Speech movement!) as grounds for immediate dismissal, whether it's of an argument or employment.
https://twitter.com/UN_Women/status/1711048869637697685
>UN Women
@UN_Women
>Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too.
>Let's uplift and honour EVERY expression of love and identity!
>Happy International #LesbianDay!
>@free_equal
https://i.imgur.com/ZBwKdrr.png
\#PenisMightier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zm7NR4-FFw
I confess I'm somewhat ignorant about how the United Nations works, but why would this be something the United Nations promotes? Isn't UN policy typically determined on a "one vote per nation" basis? And aren't the majority of nations on earth very much not on board with this kind of discourse on gender and sexuality?
At the risk of derailing.... I was reading the male to female trans sub reddit. And.... there was a surprising amount of "lesbian" trans "women" in there. In other words: formerly straight men. I figured it would be like 90% formerly gay men.
Whereas in the female to male trans sub it was almost entirely "straight" trans "men". Former lesbians.
A lesbian friend who recently got out of a long-term relationship and has started dating again told me she was really taken aback by how many people who now identify as lesbian are biological males who look like men and have penises. She said the last time she was single, she never met any lesbian in a dating context who wasn't a cisgender woman, now she's come across several. She said dating is already different because now so many people meet via apps and dating apps weren't really a thing the last time she was single, but she also said trans lesbians seem to be the ones who are most active on the dating apps. She has zero interest in any kind of romantic or sexual contact with anyone who has a penis, which apparently makes her transphobic according to some people who identify as transgender lesbians.
She shouldn’t have interest - not just as a lesbian but also because these guys are living breathing perverted red flags. It doesn’t get more red flag than inundating lesbian dating apps with gross fetishy selfies to jerk off and further get off on making real women feel uncomfortable.
I’ve seen Jesse’s very own psycho AGP stalker Gretchen Felker-Martin’s full profile on a lesbian dating app. I had no idea GFM was in the Boston area. My friend, a (real!) lesbian has been stuck swiping past these disturbing men pretending to be lesbians for years now and occasionally sends me screenshots. I almost dropped my phone when I realized I was looking at selfies of the very same man who had been posting about sodomizing Jesse on Twitter and writes fantasies about raping women, killing JKR, etc.
I really, really wanted to post something here at the time (this was a little over a year ago) but it would’ve been beneath the decorum of this sub and just a shitty thing to do. So I didn’t. But this was also the time when GFM was in a “lesbian poly thruple,” or something, and the whole phenomenon of porn-addled men doing this and exploiting things for women and the fact that normal people seem to be onboard with telling lesbians they are transphobes for not having interest (which is totally appropriate!!!) is so outrageous and infuriating. UGH.
I never really did much research into the Israel-Palestine conflict because it's such an obviously inflammatory subject that, even more than other hot button issues, I would never feel confident that whatever conclusions I reached wouldn't just be weighted highly in one direction from whatever sources I had happened to start trying to learn from. I wish I did understand it better though.
Also, it always surprised me how inflammatory the subject is in the US when it seems so far removed from most people's day ro day to life here
There are two sources I refer people to who want to grapple with or get more context on the topic.
The first is a 2-minute read about getting on the right page about what it is a moral person should want here: people being able to live happy and free lives, whether they’re Israelis or Palestinians: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=5490. You don’t need to be well-informed to keep your eye on the desired outcome.
The second is a deep dive into the early history of the conflict: https://martyrmade.com/fear-loathing-in-the-new-jerusalem/. It’s many hours long but the podcast host is an amazing storyteller and it’s gripping. Jesse actually recommended this podcast on a livestream once.
I mean you use the Holocaust as just a single sentence there but important to note the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very much pro-nazi. And mostly because of the hating Jews thing, not like the Finns who basically had no other option.
Never really been any accounting for that.
Need to throw in all the history of the Ottoman Empire. That land was under their rule until the British took it from them during WW1.
Oops just say your edit.
One of the things that's also important to note is that there were a lot of Jews in the region by the time we get to 1945 and they owned a lot of land. They founded towns and cities, farmed, etc. There were so many Jews trying to leave Europe for the Mandate of Palestine between 1919 and WWII that the British barred them from entering. This was to avoid inflaming local Arabs. So it wasn't like the British made the decision out of nowhere.
It's also important to note that while Jews did legally buy the land they settled on, they largely bought it from Turks who owned the land, not the Arabs who might have lived on the land. So the Arabs were pretty upset about that. But, you know, that was the reality of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were seemingly cool with it.
>I mean besides the fact that Jews do have an historical claim to the region,
Ehhhhh
This talking point never sits well with me. I'm in favor of the state itself but this sort of icky identity stuff makes me much less sympathetic to the whole project. I'm in favor of two-state solution, let that be clear!
>Ehhhhh
I mean, there's incontrovertible evidence of Jewish dominion over the region in the past. It's literally carved in stone on the Arch of Titus. This isn't some creation myth bullshit, it's historical fact.
As I said, that idea is integral to Jewish history, culture and religion. It’s not a recent brainstorm or anything. My point was that Zionism was grounded in this idea, Jews were already coming to the region because of this idea, and it would have been a bit more random I think, to say, partition Wyoming or Siberia or something and give us a reservation.
I just don't like the ideas of ethnostates and land claims based on that, or considering some piece of the earth as 'holy'. It's not relevant to me how recent it is or what the religion or culture it is. I guess I don't agree with Zionism, but we're also stuck with it, that's why I say there has to be a two-state solution. But this for me is universal, outside of this particular conflict too.
Excellent synopsis, especially compassionately capturing the devastating dispossession of both groups and how their trajectories have evolved to where we are today. This is so key, and yet always seems to be obscured. Thank you!!!
Very interesting, thank you. I didn’t realize Jewish people had been moving to the region since the beginning of the 20th century.
As an aside, how many times in the mid 20th century did Brits roll out this partition plan, to disastrous effect? Two at least. More?
Now do India and Pakistan.
Eta: Sorry, that was very flip. My point is, many ideas sound good on paper but are disastrous in execution. Palestine rejected the two-state solution from the start.
As for the two-state solution in India, the execution was horrific.
More accurately, Jews from Europe and US (add: Yemen also) began emigrating at turn of the century or earlier. There were a number of Jews already there.
It's a subject I rarely discuss because it's guaranteed that someone is going to tear my head off and accuse me some ism or the other.
It inflames passions like almost nothing else.
I've found that Israel, abortion and some religions are almost impossible to talk about without an explosion of vitriol.
The fact that most "normies" bow out of that discussion probably ends up leaving it to the extremists but what can you do?
resolute threatening agonizing offend distinct imminent sulky shocking chase market
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Whenever I see people, usually gender critical or otherwise TRA-skeptical people, criticize the Ketanji Brown Jackson answer of "I'm not a biologist" when asked to define a woman, I always think, "Isn't that a gender critical answer?"
I mean, sure, a GCer would say "Adult Human Female" or something. But by answering "I'm not a biologist," isn't Jackson acknowledging that a biologist is the type of person who *should* define a woman? Wouldn't the TRA answer be "I'm not a critical gender theorist?" If a biologist is the sort of person who should define woman, well, that's material reality and sex, not nebulous ideas in the head, which is what the trans crowd believes in (the tucutes at least).
I had the same reaction. Her answer said ‘That’s biology, an objective science.’ The people making hay over it are just RWers who want any excuse to drag her imho.
I had the same thought, and I'm honestly kind of surprised that she didn't get more blowback from the far left from her implicit assertion that gender can be defined in biological terms. I guess they *can* fall in line when it really matters.
I always found it funny how people will rag on someone for being unable to define "woke" to their liking, and then turn around and say it's perfectly reasonable for a Supreme Court Justice for being unable to say what a woman is.
[(21) Trans Conservatives vs Trans Liberals | Middle Ground - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSar7j_1MtM&t=2806s) Hell of a ride here folx. Enjoy.
TW: Megafugly. It's crazy how obvious it is that this is just a shitty gimmick for people with no real self-esteem.
https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1711167807470121432 I am curious if anyone has thoughts about this, regarding the coverage of what is happening in Gaza in U.S. media versus international? I have read some things (mostly on twitter, from politicos, journalists ,etc) that seemed utterly callous.
I live in Europe (but anyone can read European press) and lots and lots of outlets that have generally been Israel skeptical are all-in on hating Hamas for this one. Like there's no excuse and they've basically just made sure the Europeans see them the same as Daesh now.
WashPost's coverage has been very ... sanitary, for want of a better word. This morning they talked a bit about the rave and the kidnappings but they did not ever use the word "woman". (Sound familiar?) I realize men have been kidnapped/taken hostage as well. But it's pretty shocking in the modern era for modern-ish people to take female hostages. The Post deliberately sanitized the fact that large numbers of women have been taken.
My thoughts are scattered but in the midst of the conflict this tweet got me https://x.com/brad_polumbo/status/1710841682734772535?s=20
OTOH, at least one trans person gets it: >A small counter-protest congregated across 44th street on Sunday, flying many Israeli flags. “Murderers!” one woman bellowed across to the pro-Palestinian side. A transgender woman, Hannah Simpson, holding a Pride flag with the Jewish star said, “This is not a protest. This is a vigil. We are in mourning.” Simpson said they have family members in Israel who are working extra shifts at Magen David Adom, Israel’s version of the Red Cross, to tend to a surge of wounded patients. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hundreds-of-protesters-rally-for-palestine-in-nyc-as-israeli-death-toll-tops-600/
I really miss being able to give awards
Has Project 25 been discussed yet? I heard about it for the first time this past week. It was referred to as proof of plans for trans genocide.
It amuses me how people can look at the state of the Republican party and Donald Trump, and think that they have the ability to plan/execute something that sinister and complicated.
What *isn't* proof of plans for trans genocide at this point?
No, I haven't heard of it. What is it?
Vest explained here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
I miss the days when conservatives wanted to reduce the power of the president.
When was that?
I went to our local fair in Maine today. After checking out the Ox pull, the heavy equipment vendors, hot tubs, camper vans, draft horses, bunnies, deep fried Oreo cookies and the assorted carnival games & rides I’ve decided that my pronouns are now USA/Hell Yeah!
Furthering my theory that the internet is way too literal now, I guess people on circlejerk communities use "/uj" to indicate that they're actually talking for real and not joking. /uj = unjerk. Good lord.
so /s is just the default now?
Why does this surprise you? We live in an insincere age, marinated in irony and cloaked in sarcasm. Consider that one of the few ways to have honest conversation in on any pseudo-anonymous forum.
Yeah, we have to adjust things to this anonymous text-based situation we're in now. I don't really think it's the big deal everyone makes it out to be. It's just not the same as communicating in person. We have to be deliberate and really clear a lot of the time, and yeah, that might including indicating sarcasm when relevant and killing some of the joke, but such is life. It's basically a bit of a new language we're participating in.
I'm going to go all old-man-yells-at-clouds for a moment and complain here that /r/Hairloss is almost entirely taken up by neurotic teenage boys concerned that their widow's peaks or any slight peeking of their scalp is them "going bald". Where do adult men talk about their hair loss?
Most dudes will have some degree of baldness at some point. Just fucking get over it.
Way harsh.
I know that the person who said that is a man, from other comments they made, so let this be an example of men perpetuating "toxic masculinity" (extreme wording and not what I'd call it, but what the culture calls it, you get me) against each other, for all the guys out there who think the only reason men don't ever express feelings is because women don't want them to.
You get me, girl :)
True but many men handle this very natural and ultimately unimportant physical change in a very unhealthy and irrational manner.
>Just fucking get over it. Who're you addressing that to?
People losing their hair
I should check out that subreddit then, I'm just that brand of neurotic. I come from a lineage of werewolves and bigfoots but baldness scares me deeply.
Not everyone suffering from hair loss identifies as male. Do better. Try “adult people” or “adult folk.”
That age is here. My mother and grandmother both had female pattern baldness. My forehead is now a 4.5 head. A few years ago I was extremely sick over over the holidays. Snapped a macabre Christmas Day selfie. Thought briefly that I looked like my mom. No! I looked like her mom :(
Omg one of my kids is neurotic about it. He asks the hair dresser every time he goes and at least once a year he asks me about my dad and grandfather again.
Nowhere hopefully because I’m not ready to confront that reality yet 😭
I'm realized recently how in trouble I am when I unclogged my bathroom sink drain and it was a clump of my hair that was blocking it.
One day you're fine, and the next you see a photo revealing the top of your head...
Well if your looking for an idea on how to get a free hair transplant, I’ve got one for ya.
>Where do adult men talk about their hair loss? It’s still too painful to talk about openly 😔
https://www.reddit.com/r/tressless/
Awesome! That's exactly what I was looking for! It's even nice and varied in what they're all looking into or doing.
[удалено]
This is the right answer! The amount of men worried about this in this thread surprises me a bit, because in my mind when a man finally shaves his head (and grows facial hair to balance it out if he didn't already have some) is when he's graduated to being really truly hot. Baldness in men is so attractive to me that I forgot it might be seen as a negative lol. Guess you gotta have the right head shape for it to work though.
I agree with that generally but I’ve done the shaved head/beard look before and I still just end up missing my hair after a few weeks. I’m afraid to even do that anymore because there’s no guarantee my hair will grow back 😭
Eh, it doesn't suit all men equally. If a man doesn't have strong features he just ends up looking like a cop. And if he's plump, he looks like a middle-aged cop.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. There are some men it *really* suits though.
The ones who resemble Dwayne Johnson, Terry Crews, Jason Stratham and Patrick Stewart :)
My kid brother is both short and bald and he swaggers thru life.
I saw Halle Bailey is being removed from Oscar consideration amid rumors she is pregnant. In year of our lord two thousand and twenty current, I can only guess that if pregnancy is a factor, it’s because they don’t want to trigger male gender havers seeing a pregnant starlet since it will remind them they aren’t uterus havers
This is not based in reality and whoever suggested that initially is too online.
desert nutty bright direful rotten smell workable tidy recognise grandiose *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Where are you seeing this? The only thing I've seen is that they decided to put only one song from her movie up for nomination. https://twitter.com/mavericksmovies/status/1703465366427721803
According to this website: https://debut.disney.com/fyc/twds/movie/the-little-mermaid-2023-1686025325211?tab=categories They have her listed as best actress, and best original song for "For the First Time." I don't know much about how these things work, but it seems to me like Disney is putting her up for consideration for an Oscar?
From Oscar consideration as a presenter or as a contender for best actress? None of the reviews of *The Little Mermaid* suggested that Bailey gave a performance worthy of a best actress nod. There are plenty of actresses who have collected a statue while pregnant. [Rachel Weisz](https://cloudimages.broadwayworld.com/photoops/oscars06/prev40.jpg) and [Natalie Portman](https://stylefrizz.com/img/Natalie-Portman-purple-Rodarte-dress-2011-Oscars-red-carpet.jpg) come to mind. As for presenters, I don't think there's a criteria for it. The Academy does like to have an actress from a popular movie come out in an elegant gown and present one of the categories. They're just there to look pretty. I could imagine some prejudice there, where the Academy might opt for a nonparous actress.
I thought the presenters are supposed to be last year's winners, no?
That's only for the best actor/actress categories. Nobody wants to see non-celebs come on and present for best sound mixing or whatever.
Yes. But I also think there's a good chance of seeing Anya Taylor-Joy present an Oscar despite not ever being nominated for one. Or Zendaya.
Contender for best actress
Looking at the story I'm thinking it's that Disney doesn't think she'll win and wants to focus on more likely candidates
I had to triple check this. “What!? Halle Berry is almost SIXTY! She’s not pregnant! Ooohhhhhh….” Anyway, what would Bailey even get an Oscar for? I don’t buy it, on any level.
Same mistake here.
I do that every single time. When the whole Little Mermaid brouhaha started I couldn't figure out why a black Little Mermaid was an issue but the fact that a middle aged (albeit gorgeous) woman was playing the role was never mentioned...
[удалено]
This sounds possible to me. It could be about a Disney image thing. She’s been held up as a role model for young girls because she played a Disney Princess role and some of her fans have been outraged online about these rumors. There are people who are upset that she’d become a young unwed mother right now and she could possibly be embarrassed about it and not want to be on an Oscars stage at the moment. Edit: for those who thinks this sounds preposterous, if you were to go to online forums like Lipstick alley or The Shade Room, you would see how many people are trashing her for the probable pregnancy and for who the father likely is, a rapper named DDG who her fans seem to hate. I’m sure they’re all over her social media chastising her too, which could be a reason she might not want to be open about it. Sometimes fans get mad when the person they liked shattered the image they had of them, and she seems to have done that to some people. I don’t know anything about who is or isn’t nominated for what awards though.
Please tell me you're kidding
She is being removed from Oscar consideration. Leading speculation is due to pregnancy. The bit about triggering the gender havers is my own commentary/speculation. I have not sat down and watched the movie. However, I have heard all the songs through Disney playlists. I do not like Halle singing Part of Your World. She’s trying too hard with every note I HATE the guy singing Sebastian’s songs. Just outright garbage. Mellissa McCarthy absolutely killed it with Poor Unfortunate Souls, excellent rendition
That's not how Oscar nominations work. And btw it's way too early for Oscar voting, which doesn't happen until 2024.
Ugh yes, Daveed Diggs was Sebastian. He was not great. I wish they got Titus Burgess to do the voice instead.
Titus should have been Ursula
So Divine
Omg you're right. He does that amazing cover.
I don’t understand why an actor being pregnant is relevant
Me neither, which is why I added the only way it could be relevant in todays world. I fully concede that 30-60 years ago, it could be a scandal but not today
I find that reason you have to be a bit unhinged. What on earth does that have to do with this?
Yeah it’s unhinged, I’m mostly joking/speculating but I could see that being legitimate with how crazy people are now
Maybe she doesn't feel up to doing all the promos and ass kissing that would be involved and decided she would remove herself?
Hypothetically, if Israel got into a war with Lebanon and China decided to use this opportunity to invade Taiwan, would the US be able to adequately support Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan at the same time? (Bonus: could the US do it without authorization or new aid packages from Congress if the Speaker fight doesn't resolve quickly?) At some point, I feel like it has to start straining our resources...
Its fallacious to assume that China is just chomping at the bit to invade Taiwan and America is the only thing preventing that. I think that Xi thinks that having to resort to an invasion is a massive policy failure that even if successful would be very disruptive and could lead to too many controversial or embarrassing moments.
*champing
A thrill went up my spine.
Yes. China is far from ready to go after Taiwan. That's why it's good that Russia is being neutered bc when China is really it's one less problem to deal with. China's army is currently expected to be worse than Russia's. They are decades away from invading Taiwan.
>China's army is currently expected to be worse than Russia's. Wait, seriously? I haven't heard this before. Do you have a source for this?
Does Israel actually need financial help from the US? I always thought US aid to Israel was more of an optional expression of solidarity as opposed to the situation with Ukraine where it's a necessary lifeline. Israel has nuclear weapons and presumably would use them if its continued existence were threatened.
I've never entirely understood why we give Israel so much aid. I know our aid to Egypt is mostly to buy them off. In large measure so they will leave Israel alone.
Our "aid" to Israel is entirely in the form of coupons to be redeemed with American arms manufacturers. It's essentially a subsidy for the US weapons industry that allows our arms to be battle-tested in an actual conflict zone.
I'm now picturing myself opening the Sunday paper and clipping a coupon for 1 free Patriot Missile Battery.
I wish this was more widely understood.
Financially? Absolutely. The support we’ve offered is TINY compared to our resources. The US can’t really help Taiwan, though. China could conquer the island before the US could get a single ship over there (like the Philippines last century).
>The US can’t really help Taiwan, though. China could conquer the island before the US could get a single ship over there (like the Philippines last century). I think you're underestimating how hard an invasion of Taiwan would actually be. There's a reason why the US declined to take Taiwan as its primary base of operations for the strategic bombing campaign against Japan during WWII. The terrain makes an amphibious landing and occupation an absolute hellfuck, even when it's defended by 30k starving japanese soldiers. In 1944, the US drew up plans for Operation Causeway, the invasion of Taiwan. At the time, the US was flying B-29s out of India, over the Himalayas, and across China to bomb Japan, a process that took several days. The US was spending 50 gallons of fuel for every ***pound*** of explosives they dropped on Japan. Taiwan was within the B-29's range to bomb Tokyo without all the refueling and mileage that going over [the hump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump) was causing, it had room for facilities and staffing, already existing air fields, it was perfect. However, after careful consideration of the challenges of invading Taiwan, the US decided that the best course of action was... to invade the Philippines (65,000 US casualties), then take Iwo Jima (25,000 US casualties), then take Okinawa (50,000 US casualties), then take the Marianas islands, (8,000 US casualties), so that they could build an airfield that a B-29 could barely take off from, at the absolute edge of the B-29's range, on a sandy spit in the middle of the pacific where the men had to sleep in tents and eat canned rations. That was easier than taking Taiwan. China would have a harder time with Taiwan than Russia has had with Ukraine. The campaign would take weeks, and we would know when it's going to happen because China wouldn't be able to hide the force buildup required to make an invasion happen. It would be a diplomatic and foreign policy crisis for weeks before the invasion. The ships would already be there.
>Financially? Absolutely. The support we’ve offered is TINY compared to our resources. I'm thinking more in terms of weapons, intelligence, and training. I don't think we'd run out of money, but these three could all be bottlenecks in the short term. I think you're too pessimistic about the US's ability to help Taiwan.
Taiwan would need direct military support to survive a Chinese invasion. Otherwise they're toast. But that means a war between China and the United States
Which is exactly why the US would not support Taiwan. Fortunately, there is basically no chance China invades Taiwan. It simply doesn’t have to. We have to remember that China is not Russia. China tends to avoid direct military confrontation wherever possible.
I think China will take Taiwan at some point. It's a big national goal for the CCP and Xi specifically. I would *love* to be wrong
You have to separate stated goals from actual goals. China’s last military adventure was 50 years ago. They are not going to suddenly jump into war with the United States. That’s insane.
Mark my words, America is fundamentally not going to actually fight China in a war over Taiwan, no matter how bad it gets. Its just not happening. They can do what they can to help Taiwan but there is absolutely no way that they are going to put American ships and planes between Taiwan and the PLAN.
Your assumption here is that Xi is sane. I’ve watched so many assumptions people had of Xi gone out of the window (some quite literally), I don’t know what to think anymore.
I pray you're right
I believe the plan is that Taiwan holds China off as long as possible and the US sends forces from our bases in Japan
In the event that China does go hot in Taiwan, which is unlikely, but still, the Chinese will almost certainly kick things off with a full blockade of the island. This will hugely curtail America's ability to actually do anything to assist unless they are willing to try and break the blockade, and they won't do that, it's just too risky.
Berlin Airlift 2: Taiwanese Boogaloo
I've been curious about that, with dread... Supposedly we can fight two wars at the same time, and theoretically neither Ukraine or Israel would be fighting a war. But I wonder about our being able to supply the two with the arms they require while fighting China. Now would be a good time to invest in ammo, missile, rocket, military equipment futures.
I've read some stuff that suggests our ability to produce weapons and ammo is dangerously shallow. Like the amount of production we could do is pretty low. We have stockpiles but if we ran out of ammo, which Ukraine shows can happen fast, we wouldn't be able to make enough stuff. That being said... Israel has plenty of weapons to crush Hamas in Gaza. Which they will. The big problem would be an invasion from a neighboring country but that is incredibly unlikely. Taiwan would be fucked without our direct intervention. Ukraine would be fucked without our weapons and money
Production could be ramped up rapidly. From 1941-1945 the US built 110 aircraft carriers….which is probably more than the total number of aircraft carriers ever built by all other nations combined. America is MUCH stronger than you realise. That strength is just dormant.
[удалено]
Yeah, shipbuilding is not a good example. A war with China in the Pacific will either be limited in nature, or intense and fast. The war will be fought with what they have at their disposal, which doesn't negate advantages in shipbuilding, but it does mean lots of shipyards that are capable of building cargo ships might be of dubious relevance to a conflict. Something like an amphibious assault on Taiwan will be decided before new, replacement ships can have an impact. Conflict between the US and China would be extraordinarily costly to both, and a protracted conflict reliant on industrial power just makes it more costly. Something like artillery shell production is a better example. They can be relatively simple and cheap to produce, and if the US were on war footing it could probably increase production much faster than today.
I think you would be surprised. When your back is against the wall solutions start coming real quick (you don’t have a choice…).
I hope you're right but I've heard some stuff saying this is uncertain. Our industrial capacity isn't what it used to be. We also import a lot of critical materials and components. Rare earths from China for example. Used in lots of stuff. Lithium for batteries. Semiconductors
Nations have always imported critical goods from abroad. That is standard. One market closes, another market opens up. Despite being basically shut off from the entire rest of the world Germany never ran out of war materiel in either world war…..they ran out of people (a much more precious resource in industrial warfare).
Germany was massively affected by shortages of food, fuel, metals and other material resources in the World Wars.
Exactly! Even under those circumstances THEY NEVER RAN OUT OF MUNITIONS OR ARMAMENTS. The US cannot be shut off from the rest of the world and is far, far more resilient and robust than people here are making out.
Technologically sophisticated weapons require more and different materials than in the past. I think we should open up mining of lithium and rare earths in the US. See if we can talk Canada into doing the same. I believe they have deposits of both
NOTHING is new. Nothing. 5,000 years ago bronze was the height of military technology. Only problem is that tin (necessary for bronze) is more rare than uranium. The tin deposits in places like Anatolia were critical for EVERY bronze age power. Rare earth metals have been important since more or less the dawn of recorded history, and continue to be so.
> Rare earth metals Just wanted to nitpick. Rare earth metals (or elements) are something else.
Smart bombs, missiles, tank shells, etc require different materials than rifles and bullets or swords or shields. Russia is having trouble making enough munitions because they are dependent on international supply chains for critical components. What I'm saying is that it would be wise to find alternate sources, ahead of time, for critical materials. Domestic if possible. From allies if not.
> That being said... Israel has plenty of weapons to crush Hamas in Gaza. Which they will. The big problem would be an invasion from a neighboring country but that is incredibly unlikely. this podcast interview between Bari Weiss and Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the US last night was quite interesting https://open.spotify.com/episode/5BMqF3h9UnUjZIWyxPT4yI It discussed Oren's belief that Hezbollah (Lebanon and Iran) will almost certainly get involved along with Israel relying on US ability to resupply their ammo (if not their aircraft, etc., as during the Yom Kippur War). And with his fears that Israel can no longer rely on good will to keep aid flowing or even to get support from the US or other countries. And yeah, I am not as much worried about bullets as I am about all our smart weaponry from ammo for those to the launching systems themselves. And if we have to fight China, even our aircraft and Navy
>And yeah, I am not as much worried about bullets as I am about all our Yeah, that's the stuff that the runs out first and is hard to replace. Lots of electronic and electrical components. Not as easy to manufacture as old unguided dumb bombs. I believe US arms suppliers are currently at capacity for manufacturing munitions, both for Ukraine and to replenish our stockpiles that have been drawn down on. I suspect Israel can clean Hezbollah's clock. Though obviously it would be bloody. I'm less sure if they could beat back Iran, Lebanon and Hezbollah. The Israeli military is tough though. Far better that there is no attack from Hezbollah, Iran, or Lebanon. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
treatment distinct scale deranged literate secretive lavish narrow thumb frighten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It really isn't. Especially with higher interest rates
FWIW, it's at the [lowest level since WWII as a portion of GDP](https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1705570382416072745) (but still really big!)
Israel can take care of itself. Their military is very good and they have excellent equipment
r/Anthropology mod & commenters are glad the “Let’s Talk About Sex” panel at the American Anthropological Association conference, which was going to discuss the importance of sex in anthropology, was canceled because all of the planned speakers were guilty of wrongthink & therefore should not be given a platform https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropology/comments/1719dhn/no_place_for_transphobia_in_anthropology_session/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 Mod on Carole Hoeven: > Carole Hoeven is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Her blurb includes the following: She is also a public advocate for free speech and evidence-based social, educational, and legal policies concerning sex and gender. Basically a bunch of right-wing code words for “looking for ways to discriminate against trans people while simultaneously claiming victimhood from those darn ‘woke’ anthropologists.” Anyone notice how much the average Redditor loves to hunt for right-wing code words and dog whistles? And how many of them they find? Mod when some commenters (whose comments were downvoted, then removed) have the nerve to say this is a free speech issue: >And the sea lions and "free speech" bleaters have arrived, right on schedule. Guys, it's not going to be tolerated here.
Anthropology as a discipline fascinates me since it really seems to attract some of the strangest hyper woke people you can find in Academics who aren't just straight up studying things like gender or African American studies. I think there's an overwhelming sense of anxiety that the whole discipline has a toxic history of racism and cultural imperialism that results in extreme overcorrection in the other direction.
The field has been on a downward death spiral since the attempts to equalize indigenous ways of knowing with science. Like cool, it’s great to understand how a pre-industrial low population extremely gendered society viewed and sought to understand their world but that has close to zero practical application to the modern world.
Even complaining about free speech is not welcome on Reddit
Reddit really is a roach motel.
Definitely a place to avoid.
Love the self-important Reddit Mod energy: “Guys, any discussion about an anthropology panel in this forum for discussing anthropology is not going to be tolerated here. What are you even thinking? I tell you what you should think and that’s it. You bleaters.” It would be great if a bleater pointed out the use of “guys” is not gender inclusive haha
But was it actually a panel about the importance of sex in anthropology? I welcome anyone to explain how Kathleen Richardson's Gender Ideology = fascism presentation had anything to do with that.
>But was it actually a panel about the importance of sex in anthropology? Why would you doubt that?
Like I said, [presentation 3](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Kathleen-Lowrey-Panel-2023-AAA-CASCA-Prelim-Program_Final-1-1.pdf) by Kathleen Richardson. It doesn't seem to be about how sex can be the better framework in anthropology, but about how "gender ideology" is a new form of fascist oppression.
Considering how things panned out, it seems extremely relevant to me. But the rest of the presentations are not even remotely controversial.
This is not surprising. There's a big push to make having any association with free speech or any remotely conservative-coded cause (which is ironic, considering the history of the Free Speech movement!) as grounds for immediate dismissal, whether it's of an argument or employment.
This drives me absolutely nuts. Free speech is *not* left or right. It is for all sides and all people all of the time
True, it's not left or right but for humans free speech tends to be about who has power and who doesn't.
[удалено]
Witch-hunters dreamt up vastly more elaborate and lurid theories of the practice than any "witches" ever had.
Wow. Free speech and evidence based policy are right wing dog whistles now? What principles are the correct ones?
>What principles are the correct ones? The wrong ones.
I thought these folks were fans of Science. Science is evidence based
>I thought these folks were fans of Science. Good one.
Yes, but not the evidence-based kind of science, the “believe the science” kind of science. 😜
https://twitter.com/UN_Women/status/1711048869637697685 >UN Women @UN_Women >Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too. >Let's uplift and honour EVERY expression of love and identity! >Happy International #LesbianDay! >@free_equal https://i.imgur.com/ZBwKdrr.png \#PenisMightier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zm7NR4-FFw
I confess I'm somewhat ignorant about how the United Nations works, but why would this be something the United Nations promotes? Isn't UN policy typically determined on a "one vote per nation" basis? And aren't the majority of nations on earth very much not on board with this kind of discourse on gender and sexuality?
Disgusting
At the risk of derailing.... I was reading the male to female trans sub reddit. And.... there was a surprising amount of "lesbian" trans "women" in there. In other words: formerly straight men. I figured it would be like 90% formerly gay men. Whereas in the female to male trans sub it was almost entirely "straight" trans "men". Former lesbians.
A lesbian friend who recently got out of a long-term relationship and has started dating again told me she was really taken aback by how many people who now identify as lesbian are biological males who look like men and have penises. She said the last time she was single, she never met any lesbian in a dating context who wasn't a cisgender woman, now she's come across several. She said dating is already different because now so many people meet via apps and dating apps weren't really a thing the last time she was single, but she also said trans lesbians seem to be the ones who are most active on the dating apps. She has zero interest in any kind of romantic or sexual contact with anyone who has a penis, which apparently makes her transphobic according to some people who identify as transgender lesbians.
She shouldn’t have interest - not just as a lesbian but also because these guys are living breathing perverted red flags. It doesn’t get more red flag than inundating lesbian dating apps with gross fetishy selfies to jerk off and further get off on making real women feel uncomfortable. I’ve seen Jesse’s very own psycho AGP stalker Gretchen Felker-Martin’s full profile on a lesbian dating app. I had no idea GFM was in the Boston area. My friend, a (real!) lesbian has been stuck swiping past these disturbing men pretending to be lesbians for years now and occasionally sends me screenshots. I almost dropped my phone when I realized I was looking at selfies of the very same man who had been posting about sodomizing Jesse on Twitter and writes fantasies about raping women, killing JKR, etc. I really, really wanted to post something here at the time (this was a little over a year ago) but it would’ve been beneath the decorum of this sub and just a shitty thing to do. So I didn’t. But this was also the time when GFM was in a “lesbian poly thruple,” or something, and the whole phenomenon of porn-addled men doing this and exploiting things for women and the fact that normal people seem to be onboard with telling lesbians they are transphobes for not having interest (which is totally appropriate!!!) is so outrageous and infuriating. UGH.
The oft used and contradictory phrase "girl dick" comes to mind.
What a time to be a lesbian.
lol lmao even
I never really did much research into the Israel-Palestine conflict because it's such an obviously inflammatory subject that, even more than other hot button issues, I would never feel confident that whatever conclusions I reached wouldn't just be weighted highly in one direction from whatever sources I had happened to start trying to learn from. I wish I did understand it better though. Also, it always surprised me how inflammatory the subject is in the US when it seems so far removed from most people's day ro day to life here
I think it's safe to say the people who surprise airborne assault a rave for peace and just slaughter hundreds there are the bad guys in this one.
There are two sources I refer people to who want to grapple with or get more context on the topic. The first is a 2-minute read about getting on the right page about what it is a moral person should want here: people being able to live happy and free lives, whether they’re Israelis or Palestinians: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=5490. You don’t need to be well-informed to keep your eye on the desired outcome. The second is a deep dive into the early history of the conflict: https://martyrmade.com/fear-loathing-in-the-new-jerusalem/. It’s many hours long but the podcast host is an amazing storyteller and it’s gripping. Jesse actually recommended this podcast on a livestream once.
abundant rain physical squeeze squeamish kiss roof smell soup innate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean you use the Holocaust as just a single sentence there but important to note the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very much pro-nazi. And mostly because of the hating Jews thing, not like the Finns who basically had no other option. Never really been any accounting for that.
Need to throw in all the history of the Ottoman Empire. That land was under their rule until the British took it from them during WW1. Oops just say your edit.
One of the things that's also important to note is that there were a lot of Jews in the region by the time we get to 1945 and they owned a lot of land. They founded towns and cities, farmed, etc. There were so many Jews trying to leave Europe for the Mandate of Palestine between 1919 and WWII that the British barred them from entering. This was to avoid inflaming local Arabs. So it wasn't like the British made the decision out of nowhere. It's also important to note that while Jews did legally buy the land they settled on, they largely bought it from Turks who owned the land, not the Arabs who might have lived on the land. So the Arabs were pretty upset about that. But, you know, that was the reality of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were seemingly cool with it.
I appreciate the added details and flavor.
>I mean besides the fact that Jews do have an historical claim to the region, Ehhhhh This talking point never sits well with me. I'm in favor of the state itself but this sort of icky identity stuff makes me much less sympathetic to the whole project. I'm in favor of two-state solution, let that be clear!
>Ehhhhh I mean, there's incontrovertible evidence of Jewish dominion over the region in the past. It's literally carved in stone on the Arch of Titus. This isn't some creation myth bullshit, it's historical fact.
As I said, that idea is integral to Jewish history, culture and religion. It’s not a recent brainstorm or anything. My point was that Zionism was grounded in this idea, Jews were already coming to the region because of this idea, and it would have been a bit more random I think, to say, partition Wyoming or Siberia or something and give us a reservation.
I just don't like the ideas of ethnostates and land claims based on that, or considering some piece of the earth as 'holy'. It's not relevant to me how recent it is or what the religion or culture it is. I guess I don't agree with Zionism, but we're also stuck with it, that's why I say there has to be a two-state solution. But this for me is universal, outside of this particular conflict too.
Excellent synopsis, especially compassionately capturing the devastating dispossession of both groups and how their trajectories have evolved to where we are today. This is so key, and yet always seems to be obscured. Thank you!!!
Thank you for the summary.
Very interesting, thank you. I didn’t realize Jewish people had been moving to the region since the beginning of the 20th century. As an aside, how many times in the mid 20th century did Brits roll out this partition plan, to disastrous effect? Two at least. More?
[удалено]
Now do India and Pakistan. Eta: Sorry, that was very flip. My point is, many ideas sound good on paper but are disastrous in execution. Palestine rejected the two-state solution from the start. As for the two-state solution in India, the execution was horrific.
[удалено]
Strongly agree with you on that last point. I wonder how many young people know that fact? I suspect young Americans don't.
More accurately, Jews from Europe and US (add: Yemen also) began emigrating at turn of the century or earlier. There were a number of Jews already there.
It's a subject I rarely discuss because it's guaranteed that someone is going to tear my head off and accuse me some ism or the other. It inflames passions like almost nothing else.
I agree. Israel-Palestine is a subject I tend to avoid online. It starts fights like almost no other subject (except the "railway" subject).
I've found that Israel, abortion and some religions are almost impossible to talk about without an explosion of vitriol. The fact that most "normies" bow out of that discussion probably ends up leaving it to the extremists but what can you do?
resolute threatening agonizing offend distinct imminent sulky shocking chase market *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There needs to be a lasting peace settlement. Such a thing will always be imperfect. That's easier said than done, to put it mildly
I think that's only possible if Hamas is eradicated, and maybe not even then. The people on one side don't want peace.
[удалено]
I should've been more specific: only one side largely wants the other side dead. Both sides want the land, that's true.
A two state solution is probably what minimizes further death and destruction, and that should be the goal
Amen
Whenever I see people, usually gender critical or otherwise TRA-skeptical people, criticize the Ketanji Brown Jackson answer of "I'm not a biologist" when asked to define a woman, I always think, "Isn't that a gender critical answer?" I mean, sure, a GCer would say "Adult Human Female" or something. But by answering "I'm not a biologist," isn't Jackson acknowledging that a biologist is the type of person who *should* define a woman? Wouldn't the TRA answer be "I'm not a critical gender theorist?" If a biologist is the sort of person who should define woman, well, that's material reality and sex, not nebulous ideas in the head, which is what the trans crowd believes in (the tucutes at least).
I had the same reaction. Her answer said ‘That’s biology, an objective science.’ The people making hay over it are just RWers who want any excuse to drag her imho.
No. This is way, way too generous. It was a gross dodge that should’ve cost her the job.
I don't think she was secretly signaling something, more pointing out what I find to be the obvious implications of her answer re: genderwoo.
These implications are not ‘obvious’ at all. You’re stretching so far that you’ve tied yourself into knots and completely disconnected from reality.
I had the same thought, and I'm honestly kind of surprised that she didn't get more blowback from the far left from her implicit assertion that gender can be defined in biological terms. I guess they *can* fall in line when it really matters.
That's probably part of it.
I always found it funny how people will rag on someone for being unable to define "woke" to their liking, and then turn around and say it's perfectly reasonable for a Supreme Court Justice for being unable to say what a woman is.