Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, August 14, 2017

OTP 14 August 2014: The American Pastimes of Rock ’n’ Roll, Baseball and Poetry

Maybe poetry and politics don’t mix. “I don’t want to get off into a whole thing about history here, but the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of American liberty lighting the world,” said Stephen Miller, a White House senior adviser, when he was challenged, recently, about the Trump administration’s proposal to restrict immigration. “The poem that you’re referring to was added later. It’s not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

The poem, “The New Colossus,” was written by Emma Lazarus, who is being celebrated at the 92nd Street Y with works by 19 young poets inspired by her words. While the text wasn’t finally affixed to the base of the statue until 1903, the poem was commissioned in 1883 — three years before the statue opened — to raise money for the pedestal. Speaking of poems, more than 700 commercial, university and independent presses have contributed 3,000 items to the 2017 Poets House Showcase through Aug. 26 at Poets House in Battery Park City.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 14, 2017 at 07:18 AM | 3273 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 33 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 31 32 33
   3201. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5518445)
You're acting like it's all just random and women have just as much chance of being attracted to men as they do to women.


Not in the slightest. It takes a deliberate misreading or massive obtuseness of what I wrote to get that out of it.

Being Transgender is about what sex you identify yourself as truly being. Sexual attraction is about who you are sexually attracted to. The two are not linked directly.


I make no claims as to relative probabilities. If you want that, well look up the literature. However, in general (again if studies or experts suggest I am wrong I am open to changing my mind) the best course of action in general is to assume their sexual self-identification and their sexual desires are (to the external observer) essentially independent. The best plan to to accept whatever one says about themselves in those two arenas, because honestly who cares? Be who you want and be attracted to who you want. No skin off my ... um ... nose.

When the argument turns to biology doesn't matter, it's all socially engineered and you exerting a wilful mind over matter, I tend to turn a skeptical and jaundiced eye on such pronouncements.


This is also a misreading of what I wrote. It is hardly mind over matter to say "I feel male, despite my outward sexual organs" and neither is it mind over matter to say "I am attracted to dudes (or gals or really whatever)." Both are statements about ones inner feelings, the state of one's mind, and not pronouncements about "Mother Nature" or whatever it is you seem to be obsessing over.
   3202. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:12 AM (#5518446)
Maybe he was just crazy,
I think that's overdetermined. Unless, of course, it was a hoax.
   3203. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:13 AM (#5518447)
Is the Deep State necessarily something nefarious?


I couldn't write a single sentence explaining what the term is supposed to mean. I guess I'm not reading the right websites. I actually don't read any websites at all; I basically just go to RCP and look at the columns they've correlated and if something looks interesting I'll read it.

All I've picked up is that the right thinks there is some "deep state" that is coming after them and the left thinks the right is crazy and paranoid for thinking there is a deep state.

There. I wrote a single sentence.

I'm conflicted here, I have no idea what the right path in Afghanistan is


Get out and never go back.
   3204. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM (#5518449)
The trouble with that is if McGregor loses in a non-embarrassing fashion, it almost certainly means we saw a boring fight. I'm sure both fighters would be happy to stay on the merry-go-round forever as long as the 9 figure paychecks keep coming, but public interest in watching Mayweather dance circles around McGregor outpointing him is going to decline dramatically after they've seen it once.

Makes sense. Maybe 10 or 11 entertaining rounds of the aforementioned eye-closing, unable to continue would sorta work for ONE more. Just really really hard for me to see Mayweather diving.
   3205. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM (#5518450)
There has to be a strong correlation for it to make sense, as I said. Being male is strongly correlated to being attracted to women. So identifying as male should be also.


I don't see why this needs to be accurate. It may be true, it may not. Most gay men identify as 100% male. It's a different type of male, a minority male, but it's still male. And female-to-male transexuals may well naturally share that definition of male. It's a damned weird phenomenon to have a woman's body and be convinced that you have a man's brain, it's not necessarily going to follow your sound but superficial train of logic.
   3206. Covfefe Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:18 AM (#5518451)
The Deep State is more a collection of institutions like the military, various government agencies and administrative organizations, the MSM, corporations that are deeply in bed with the government, etc.


You forgot academia and the arts.

But I can only presume you originally had them included and realized "Wait... I'm describing a civilization... at least, one that has advanced beyond hunter-gatherer."
   3207. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:18 AM (#5518452)
I'm not surprised by this.

With the framework, Iran can't do whatever they want to develop material for a bomb. What the Iranian official is saying is that without the framework (if Trump abandons the deal), they can ramp up quickly.
You're missing the point. According to this guy, with the JCPOA, Iran can do whatever they want to develop material for a bomb. They may choose not to, but the JCPOA does nothing to hinder them from doing it. It hasn't set them back at all. But that's not what Obama told us; Obama told us that it contained robust mechanisms to prevent Iran from developing a bomb, and that the world was therefore safer.

   3208. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:21 AM (#5518454)
I can only speak to my experience (which means interactions with less than a dozen transgender people). I have not looked at any relevant literature, so I could be wrong, but I think you should generally assume that who one is attracted to and how they self identify are different and mostly independent.


There's no way this makes sense scientifically. Again, you have to assume that gender "assigned at birth" is not predictive of sexual orientation. Which is ludicrous.

Really in general the best method I have found is to accept what other people say and feel about themselves. It is their life and if they think about their gender in way "X" and are attracted to "Y" then so long as it is all consenting adults I don't judge or really even care much past acknowledging their preference is theirs and as valid as my preferences are.


This has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Of course a person's sexual orientation is what they say it is. The issue is whether transgender people are inclined to be attracted to members of the gender opposite to that they identify with. If you say it's all just random then it doesn't really make sense because women are inclined to be attracted to men so if you're a person who was "assigned" male at birth but you self-identify as a woman then much more often than not you should be attracted to men since people who identify as women (including straight women who were assigned female at birth) are most of the time attracted to men.

Otherwise, what does "identify as a woman" mean, if you think about it? Most women are attracted to men.
   3209. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:21 AM (#5518455)
I'm conflicted here, I have no idea what the right path in Afghanistan is



Get out and never go back.


At the time I was of the opinion we should go in as fast as possible, kick the but of anyone and everyone who was involved in the attack on the US and also on everyone who got in our way or hindered us, and then we get the heck out. Make a statement that attacking the US and/or harboring those who attack the US is a really bad idea.

Then in the aftermath fund as much of the rebuild as possible with the US military not being involved (other nations military not involved in the a$$ kicking could help).

The goals would be to retaliate for the attack, making it clear it was a bad idea, in as swift and messy a fashion as possible and then get out before folks can begin to think of the US as an occupying force or anything like it. And then be very generous with helping with the aftermath.

But obviously it is way too late for that. Now you get out. Try to make clear any further nonsense directed at the US will be dealt with, but other than that outta there.
   3210. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:22 AM (#5518456)
Good to know that we can now believe everything Iran's atomic chief says.

Weak sauce. Your side believes everything the regime says about being in compliance. Here, the top nuke official -- and previously, President Rouhani -- is making a threat to withdraw from the deal if the administration, as required under Corker-Cardin, is unable to certify that the mullahs are adhering to its terms and being fully transparent.


My "side", according to that article you cited, consists of "the Obama administration and most independent experts". If I were going to make similar broadbrush statements against your "side", I'd say that "your side" is just itching to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The truth is that every world crisis spot is complicated as ####, and anyone who thinks that there's any solution that will guarantee a happy ending is just peddling snake oil. Whether we like it or not, or want to admit it, we're dealing with the debris of countless decisions made by past leaders going back long before any of us were born, and about all we can do at this point is to try to stop events from reaching a point of no return.
   3211. The Good Face Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5518458)
Maybe 10 or 11 entertaining rounds of the aforementioned eye-closing, unable to continue would sorta work for ONE more.


Is there a sufficiently big market of people who want to see McGregor absorb a horrific beating twice? Maybe. You gotta question whether McGregor would go along (not with the fight, but with taking round after round of punishment in a rematch).

Just really really hard for me to see Mayweather diving.


Mayweather is an arrogant man, justifiably proud of his undefeated record, but his nickname is "Money", not "Pride". He knows that this is a business, and the smart business move here is to take a dive, walk away with hundreds of millions, and then get hundreds of millions MORE in a rematch against a guy he knows can't really hurt him. What's his alternative? Fight Golovkin, a genuinely dangerous fighter that would make him earn that money the hard way and risk his long term health? Actually retire? Dude likes to live large, and he might find it difficult to scale back his spending. I'm not saying Mayweather WILL take a dive, but I can see how and why it makes sense for him to do so.
   3212. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:30 AM (#5518462)
(not with the fight, but with taking round after round of punishment in a rematch).
I'm not saying Mayweather WILL take a dive, but I can see how and why it makes sense for him to do so.


Pretty sure McGregor would take a beating for the same reason Mayweather would take a dive.

All speculation, of course.
   3213. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5518463)
There's no way this makes sense scientifically. Again, you have to assume that gender "assigned at birth" is not predictive of sexual orientation. Which is ludicrous.


You are still on board the Obtuse train, bound for Blinders Town. Let me try to again restate what I am saying, in response to Morty's question about Transgender people and their sexual orientation. The clever reader will note that the topic is Transgender people. Like no kidding, like Morty asked initially.

For Transgender people, when dealing with them as individuals, the best course of action is to assume that their sexual self identification and who they are attracted to are independent. Especially since - in my experience - who they are attracted to does not change as they go from "I was born as an 'z', but was always unhappy and now I realize in my 'soul' I am really a 'k'."

Since their sexual attraction doesn't generally change as they express their new gender identity it can be tricky to try to discern not only what gender they feel (since it is often just internal, though it can certainly present itself) they are and also who exactly it is they are attracted to. And that is before we try to tease out (with SCIENCE!) if the trans and non-trans population have exactly the same distribution across the sexual attraction buffet or not (and hey we have enough trouble figuring out exactly what portion of the population is really gay or whatever).

So once more - not as a scientific statement or a statistical demographic statement, but rather as advice for personal interactions with transgender people* - I think you should generally assume that who one is attracted to and how they self identify are different and mostly independent and the easiest course of action is to go along with whatever they say or don't say, without making any assumptions (hetero-normative or not).

* Note: For the general population you can go ahead and make a hetero-normative assumption if you want, but I STILL suggest it is better to just let people declare what they want about themselves; but hey at least in the general population you have a better chance of not making an ass out of yourself than with the transgender population.
   3214. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5518464)
I was born as an 'z', but was always unhappy and now I realize in my 'soul' I am really a 'k'.
If there's ever a word that deserves scare quotes, it's "realize" in that sentence.
   3215. BrianBrianson Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5518465)
The Deep State is largely just bureaucrats and other state actors (FBI, CIA, Meat Inspectors, whatever) know how to do their job because they've been doing it for a while. So when you start making obvious moronic demands of them because you have no idea what you're doing, you get pushback. Demand the State Department antagonize American's allies and embolden and empower it's enemies, and you'll get a lot of "Uhm, what?". Demand the CIA turn over all of America's intelligence to the Russians and you'll get a lot of "Wait, what?" Demand food inspectors adopt the banana hammock as their uniform and you'll get a lot of "Wait, what?"

It's no different than any other job.
   3216. TDF, FCL Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5518466)
As the article points out, that's not how the nuke deal got sold. Salehi's remarks indicate the deal is so flimsy the regime in Tehran can reconstitute its weapons-grade enrichment capability in less than a week.

You're mixing two different statements - "Iran's atomic chief warned Tuesday the Islamic Republic needs only five days to ramp up its uranium enrichment to 20 percent, a level at which the material could be used for a nuclear weapon" with " Iran would need at least a year after abandoning the deal to have enough nuclear material to build a bomb". The first statement doesn't necessarily contradict the second - they may be able to start the process of making weapons grade uranium in a week, but it may take a year to have enough to build a bomb.
   3217. Morty Causa Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5518467)
I may not always make sense to you*, but at least you* don't confuse me with Morty anymore.

RDP once confused me for the longest time with Jack Keefe. And others similarly postulated.

Morty isn't afraid to look into the abyss and is thrilled when it looks back. Most here are into the SOSO. They cannot and will not look out of their box.
   3218. OCF Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5518470)
So Trump made it through a speech reading off the teleprompter what his generals wrote for him, never once ad-libbing, even when the speech seemed to contradict some of the things he ran on. (Not that I'm entirely clear on what he announced.) But that volcanic id can't be bottled up for long. Look for the crazy to burst out from him, soon. Probably not about Afghanistan, but about something else.
   3219. DavidFoss Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5518473)
My current impression of "Deep State" is that it is collective group of non-political employees in the executive branch and its underlying agencies. The top levels of these departments and agencies are either political (they change with each administration) or are highly visible (e.g. FBI Director). These top levels are supposed to set policy and culture as they would in any company.

The conspiracy of the "Deep State" is that these lower level employees are collectively resisting. It's like saying that it doesn't matter who the CEO of some fortune 500 company is, the directors are going to run their teams the same way as they always do. It shouldn't apply only to Republican administrations. They could resist changes from a Democratic executive as well.

I think its just a trendy buzzword that the right-leaning media likes.
   3220. Morty Causa Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5518474)
When the argument turns to biology doesn't matter, it's all socially engineered and you exerting a wilful mind over matter, I tend to turn a skeptical and jaundiced eye on such pronouncements.

This is also a misreading of what I wrote. It is hardly mind over matter to say "I feel male, despite my outward sexual organs" and neither is it mind over matter to say "I am attracted to dudes (or gals or really whatever)." Both are statements about ones inner feelings, the state of one's mind, and not pronouncements about "Mother Nature" or whatever it is you seem to be obsessing over.

This wasn't directly addressed to you for a reason. What would you do if you couldn't engage in personal insult and ad hominem? You went, I guess, three posts before falling prey. A record, maybe. Because I'm interested in a topic and would like to pursue in depth does not qualify as an obsession I think.
   3221. TDF, FCL Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5518475)
You're missing the point. According to this guy, with the JCPOA, Iran can do whatever they want to develop material for a bomb. They may choose not to, but the JCPOA does nothing to hinder them from doing it. It hasn't set them back at all. But that's not what Obama told us; Obama told us that it contained robust mechanisms to prevent Iran from developing a bomb, and that the world was therefore safer.
Isn't that true of any agreement - it's only solid as long as both sides abide by its terms?

That isn't a huge gotcha.
   3222. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5518476)
I was curious so I googled Caitlyn nee Bruce Jenner's sexual preferences. The latest is that she doesn't envision sleeping with a man, but when she gets a new vagina, she may become more open to the possibility.
   3223. Jack Keefe Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:40 AM (#5518477)
Ha ha I am hear to tell you More D is not me. Jack Keefe is terrafied of looking into the Abyss Al. Hell Al I am afraid to look under my Bed at night. Al I get scared if I have to change lanes on the Inner State and what is more. I can not watch any movie scarrier than Clan of the Care Bears.
   3224. The Good Face Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:40 AM (#5518478)
Pretty sure McGregor would take a beating for the same reason Mayweather would take a dive.


In a rematch when he knows he's terribly outclassed? Nah, he'll go down/throw in the towel rather than take pointless punishment.
   3225. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM (#5518479)
For Transgender people, when dealing with them as individuals, the best course of action is to assume that their sexual self identification and who they are attracted to are independent.


Why would this be assumed for transgender people when it doesn't hold true for people "assigned" as male or female at birth?

Especially since - in my experience - who they are attracted to does not change as they go from "I was born as an 'z', but was always unhappy and now I realize in my 'soul' I am really a 'k'."


Then they're not really "identifying as a k," are they? A k is usually attracted to a z.

So the entire concept of "identifying as a female" (or whatever) makes no sense.

So once more - not as a scientific statement or a statistical demographic statement, but rather as advice for personal interactions with transgender people* - I think you should generally assume that who one is attracted to and how they self identify are different and mostly independent and the easiest course of action is to go along with whatever they say or don't say, without making any assumptions (hetero-normative or not).

* Note: For the general population you can go ahead and make a hetero-normative assumption if you want, but I STILL suggest it is better to just let people declare what they want about themselves; but hey at least in the general population you have a better chance of not making an ass out of yourself than with the transgender population.


Again, obviously who they say they are attracted to is who they are attracted to. That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion.
   3226. Morty Causa Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:44 AM (#5518481)
If you want that, well look up the literature.

This is a discussion board. It's not the reference desk at a library. It's perfectly legitimate (indeed, it should be encouraged) for posters to ask questions. If you don't know or aren't interested, politely say so. No need to get huffy.
   3227. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:44 AM (#5518482)
The conspiracy of the "Deep State" is that these lower level employees are collectively resisting. It's like saying that it doesn't matter who the CEO of some fortune 500 company is, the directors are going to run their teams the same way as they always do. It shouldn't apply only to Republican administrations. They could resist changes from a Democratic executive as well.

I think its just a trendy buzzword that the right-leaning media likes.


I didn't start hearing the term until about a year ago. Is the concept just taking steam now or was I always just clueless about it?

(Like with the term "antifa" that I just started hearing 10 days ago but now all of a sudden everyone's an expert on it.)
   3228. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:46 AM (#5518483)
Then they're not really "identifying as a k," are they? A k is usually attracted to a z.


You really don't understand this? Gay men are still men, can we agree on that?

BM's extraordinarily simple point is that even if k is "usually" attracted to z, it's best not to make assumptions.

On top of that, I think it's fair to guess that in the case of transgendered individuals, there might be some extra complexity that your esteemed scientific mind has not accounted for.
   3229. The Good Face Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:46 AM (#5518484)
The conspiracy of the "Deep State" is that these lower level employees are collectively resisting. It's like saying that it doesn't matter who the CEO of some fortune 500 company is, the directors are going to run their teams the same way as they always do. It shouldn't apply only to Republican administrations. They could resist changes from a Democratic executive as well.


There's no conspiracy here. It's simply the reality that some political appointment parachuting into an organization has very limited ability to effectuate significant change in a short time period against entrenched bureaucracy. Especially when dealing with civil service protections, hostile media attention, etc. And yes, the Deep State absolutely can resist or steer Democratic executives. You think Obama was actually keen on more Afghanistan fighting? But he wasn't willing or able to spend the chips it would take to get his own way, so he went along.

If a Bernie Sanders ever got elected POTUS, we'd see much of his agenda stymied as well.
   3230. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:48 AM (#5518485)
rather than take pointless punishment.

You may be 100% right, but $$$$$$$ is a pretty good point.
   3231. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:49 AM (#5518487)
There's no conspiracy here. It's simply the reality that some political appointment parachuting into an organization has very limited ability to effectuate significant change in a short time period against entrenched bureaucracy.


I think we can all agree on this. But the term "deep state" has a tinge of the conspiratorial to it, so I think you should avoid it if you don't want to sound like a crank.
   3232. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:51 AM (#5518489)
You really don't understand this? Gay men are still men, can we agree on that?

BM's extraordinarily simple point is that even if k is "usually" attracted to z, it's best not to make assumptions.


He seems to be arguing that gender identity and sexual orientation are two distinct and independent concepts. But we know that these are inextricably linked, since we know that males are usually attracted to females and vice versa. So why wouldn't the same thing hold true -- most of the time -- for transgenders? Why with transgenders is it just all so random and we can't make an educated guess?
   3233. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:52 AM (#5518490)
2. Conflating the L, G, B, and T as if being gay and being trans were remotely the same thing.

If they're not remotely the same thing, why are they linked together in the same LGBT grouping?

I don't see an S in there for straight.

They are grouped together out of political expediency. They are groups of individuals who felt similarly disenfranchised, and had similar grievances (workplace discrimination, not being able to marry who they want, not being able to adopt, the use of epithets and slurs based on their identification, and of course the real risk of facing abuse and/or violence simply for existing et cetera). The reason to band together is obvious and simple. The larger your group is, the easier it is to have your voice be heard, and your concerns addressed. So it makes sense for relatively small groups with similar aims to organize together.

The reason why there is no 'S' in there, is also obvious to everyone with an above room temperature IQ. Straight people have none of those same grievances. I know you are deeply embedded in the victimization culture of the straight white male, but the notion that straight people face anything even approaching those types of issues, is crazy town banana pants stupid.
   3234. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:52 AM (#5518491)
I think we can all agree on this. But the term "deep state" has a tinge of the conspiratorial to it, so I think you should avoid it if you don't want to sound like a crank.


I heard Hannity use the term the other day and he flashed the words "THE DEEP STATE" across the screen which is a clear signal to distance oneself from the term.
   3235. DavidFoss Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5518492)
I didn't start hearing the term until about a year ago. Is the concept just taking steam now or was I always just clueless about it?


I started hearing it in the spring -- basically during Hannity's rants. I never heard of it before that.
   3236. BDC Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5518493)
He seems to be arguing that gender identity and sexual orientation are two distinct and independent concepts. But we know that these are inextricably linked, since we know that males are usually attracted to females and vice versa

This seems vaguely like saying that throwing hand and batting side are "inextricably linked" because most ballplayers who throw right-handed also bat right-handed.
   3237. The Good Face Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5518494)
rather than take pointless punishment.

You may be 100% right, but $$$$$$$ is a pretty good point.


He gets paid the same either way.

But the term "deep state" has a tinge of the conspiratorial to it, so I think you should avoid it if you don't want to sound like a crank.


I think you can take your tone policing and cram it.
   3238. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5518496)
BM's extraordinarily simple point is that even if k is "usually" attracted to z, it's best not to make assumptions.


Especially regarding the Transgender community, for the obvious reason that ...
a) We don't know if the same percentages found in the general population apply to transgender folks -AND-
b) The gender the transgender person is presenting may or may not be the gender they self identify as.

So basically there is no way to apply general population percentages to the transgender population. An example:

A transgender person (we will assume we know they are such) is presenting as male. Does that mean they think of themselves as male, or is their presentation at odds with their inner feelings at this moment? We have no way of knowing. So even if we "know" the general population prefers opposite sex partners 90% of the time, we don't have any idea if that 90% also applies to transgender people, and if it applies to their birth gender or their self identified gender, AND we don't even know which it is they are presenting at this moment. There are enough possibilities that - no kidding, I promise - the best bet is just not to make any assumptions and just go with the flow (so to speak).

Again, obviously who they say they are attracted to is who they are attracted to. That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion.


Except of course for the question Morty asked and I answered (and that you jumped into). Other than it is exactly the topic under discussion, you are totally right it is not the topic under discussion.

This wasn't directly addressed to you for a reason. What would you do if you couldn't engage in personal insult and ad hominem? You went, I guess, three posts before falling prey. A record, maybe. Because I'm interested in a topic and would like to pursue in depth does not qualify as an obsession I think.


Well I wasn't huffy or anything like it and there was no ad hominem. Your response to me (which you now say wasn't to me at all, which ... sure, but maybe you might want to be more clear in the future if you are going to be such a sensitive snowflake in the future) suggested you were misreading what I wrote. That is not an attack, just a statement that you were misreading what I wrote. No more, no less.
   3239. DavidFoss Posted: August 22, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5518497)
If a Bernie Sanders ever got elected POTUS, we'd see much of his agenda stymied as well.


I see his resistance being more from congress. When you run as an outsider you can have fun at the stump saying "You get free college, YOU get free college. Everybody gets free college! And the millionaires and billionaires will pay for it!". It gets you a lot of applause from young voters, but what are the odds of such a bill even getting drafted, much less making it out of committee?
   3240. BrianBrianson Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:00 PM (#5518498)
BM's extraordinarily simple point is that even if k is "usually" attracted to z, it's best not to make assumptions.


Yeah, but he phrased it in an exceedingly stupid way.

He seems to be arguing that gender identity and sexual orientation are two distinct and independent concepts. But we know that these are inextricably linked, since we know that males are usually attracted to females and vice versa. So why wouldn't the same thing hold true -- most of the time -- for transgenders? Why with transgenders is it just all so random and we can't make an educated guess?


Correlations don't really work like that. "Height" and "Sexual Orientation" are distinct and independent concepts, but if you know someone's height, you can usually guess their sexual orientation. "Hair colour" and "Salary" are pretty independent ideas, but they're correlated too. "Murder rate" and "Ice Cream Sales" are distinct and independent concepts, but they can be used to predict one another (not as strongly as gender and sexual orientation, but much better than chance).
   3241. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:01 PM (#5518499)
He seems to be arguing that gender identity and sexual orientation are two distinct and independent concepts. But we know that these are inextricably linked, since we know that males are usually attracted to females and vice versa. So why wouldn't the same thing hold true -- most of the time -- for transgenders? Why with transgenders is it just all so random and we can't make an educated guess?


If you are still confused after #3213 and #3238, I am not sure what to say, other than if you have a question and ask it I will cheerfully answer it.
   3242. Hot Wheeling American Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM (#5518501)
I heard Hannity use the term the other day and he flashed the words "THE DEEP STATE" across the screen which is a clear signal to distance oneself from the term.


+1
   3243. Covfefe Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM (#5518502)
Deep State was borrowed from Turkey (who probably borrowed it from someone else).... It was Erdogan's initial rallying cry -- that the technocrats, military, and secularists were enforcing a national identity that was at odds with popular will -- but of course, it predates Erdogan. Also, of course - one could certainly find more concrete evidence for such a claim, dating back to the end of the Ottoman Empire.

In any case, the problem - frankly/at least in the US - is a 'deep state' is a good thing. Nations at near the zenith of their power and prosperity shouldn't need or want radicals or revolutionaries leading them. They ought to want technocrats and incrementalists.

A rich and prosperous country - whatever its issues in society and whatever changes are for the best - is suffering a nervous breakdown when it believes lots of things need to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch.

Hey - damn right, I support plenty of SJW causes. Even rich and prosperous nations still those radicals and revolutionaries - they just don't need them in charge. That's how a rich and prosperous nation stays rich and prosperous... with its poles forever pushing for reexaminations and pointing out the rough edges... and temperamentally fit and morally balanced leaders moving the fulcrum of national concession towards that constant state of improvement.
   3244. The Good Face Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:04 PM (#5518503)
I see his resistance being more from congress. When you run as an outsider you can have fun at the stump saying "You get free college, YOU get free college. Everybody gets free college! And the millionaires and billionaires will pay for it!". It gets you a lot of applause from young voters, but what are the odds of such a bill even getting drafted, much less making it out of committee?


He'd have a similar problem with the Dems that Trump has with the GOP; wanting things that a decent chunk of his party either opposes or is indifferent to. But to the extent he tried to accomplish things outside of legislative paths, he'd find a lot of resistance as well.
   3245. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:04 PM (#5518504)
My "side", according to that article you cited, consists of "the Obama administration and most independent experts".
LOL. You forgot to include the approval of the Boston Police Department. What gives?

Also, by "most independent experts," don't you really mean those individuals working for or bankrolled by the Ploughshares Fund (i.e., *not* independent by any stretch of the imagination)?
   3246. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:05 PM (#5518505)
Isn't that true of any agreement - it's only solid as long as both sides abide by its terms?
Well, yes, but.... at issue is whether there's any mechanism to ensure that the sides abide by its terms (or at least put up logistical obstacles to violating it), or whether it's just "trust me."
   3247. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:06 PM (#5518506)
BM's extraordinarily simple point is that even if k is "usually" attracted to z, it's best not to make assumptions.




Yeah, but he phrased it in an exceedingly stupid way.


Actually what PF wrote is a corollary to what I wrote, and logical extension of it, but is not exactly what I wrote or what I intended. If I had wanted to say what PF said, and done so with my post, I agree it would have been a bit dumb. Fortunately that was not the case.
   3248. DavidFoss Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5518508)
"Murder rate" and "Ice Cream Sales" are distinct and independent concepts, but they can be used to predict one another (not as strongly as gender and sexual orientation, but much better than chance).



This is probably a repost but for those who haven't seen it. Pool drownings correlate with Nicolas Cage movies. Silly.
   3249. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5518509)
This is a discussion board. It's not the reference desk at a library. It's perfectly legitimate (indeed, it should be encouraged) for posters to ask questions. If you don't know or aren't interested, politely say so. No need to get huffy.
That's incoherent. The reference desk at a library is precisely where it is appropriate to ask questions. On a discussion board, one is supposed to discuss. Which is a mutual exchange of information and ideas, not a lecture with a Q&A period.
   3250. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:14 PM (#5518511)
That's incoherent. The reference desk at a library is precisely where it is appropriate to ask questions. On a discussion board, one is supposed to discuss. Which is a mutual exchange of information and ideas, not a lecture with a Q&A period.


This. Plus of course I was advising on the topic of transgender people and their sexual orientation, and I made it very clear (I hope) that it was based on personal experience and nothing else. I am not a magical guru or studied expert in the field and my knowledge is entirely thrust upon me by a variety of circumstances, not one I sought out.

If people want the latest and greatest scientific psychological findings they should definitely do their research and report back to us what they find (please). I am not interested enough in the subject, too many other things I am more interested in, but I always welcome more information.
   3251. TDF, FCL Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:15 PM (#5518512)
Well, yes, but.... at issue is whether there's any mechanism to ensure that the sides abide by its terms (or at least put up logistical obstacles to violating it), or whether it's just "trust me."
Isn't it assumed that Iran had the technology to enrich uranium before the agreement (or maybe we even know they did?)? If true, that still doesn't seem to negate anything said - they can't really give up the knowledge they already have.

So it's perfectly reasonable to say:

1. Iran was forced to give up the ability to enrich uranium enough to make pure enough for bombs.
2. Iran is 100% complying with all aspects of the agreement - they aren't enriching uranium to that level, nor do they have the ability to do so today; and there are mechanisms to guarantee that compliance.
3. If Iran leaves the agreement, they can use their existing knowledge and abilities to build the centrifuges needed to restart the program quickly.

   3252. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:16 PM (#5518513)
eh
   3253. Morty Causa Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:16 PM (#5518514)
BM's extraordinarily simple point is that even if k is "usually" attracted to z, it's best not to make assumptions.

Yes, but it's so simple it fails to adequately address the issue. And he seems to not want to address the issue and to resent it when others would like to address the issue. IOW's, a typical BM movement (or rhetorical ploy, if you prefer) when he fears the ramifications of certain avenues of discussion.
   3254. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:20 PM (#5518515)
He gets paid the same either way.

I think something got lost here.

Much in the same way that you're saying Mayweather would possibly take a dive for a rematch paycheck, I'm saying (speculatively) that McGregor would possibly (or certainly) take a second beating for (during) a rematch paycheck.
   3255. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5518516)
   3256. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5518517)
Why can we not assume that transgendered folks usually have regular sexual preferences? I have no idea. Maybe we can. I haven't known too many, certainly not enough to begin to generalize.

I also don't have any problem noting that the phenomenon of transgenderism is ####### strange. Why does it happen? To be born with a penis and yet be convinced from an early age that one ought to have a vagina. I don't understand the assumption that a person in that situation will have entirely normal sexual preferences. It would be the least surprising thing in the world to learn that the transgendered have less predictable sexual preferences. Furthermore, there are different flavors of transgenderism - not everyone wants to go for the full gender reassignment surgery. Some chicks like their dicks. Basically there is a ton of potential complexity that you are steamrolling over with your superficial non-scientific thought experiments.
   3257. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:25 PM (#5518521)
They should have introduced a badass javelin-throwing white walker. I want to learn more about their culture and organization, it's lazy to just reduce everything down to the Night King being the best at everything.
   3258. Morty Causa Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:25 PM (#5518522)
Why can we not assume that transgendered folks usually have regular sexual preferences?

And what would that be?

Some chicks like their dicks.

But most like their dicks coming from the outside-in.
   3259. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5518523)
Not all, Morty. Open up an incognito window and go see what you find.
   3260. BDC Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM (#5518530)
Pool drownings correlate with Nicolas Cage movies. Silly

I dunno, my usual response to a Nicolas Cage movie is wanting to drown myself.
   3261. BrianBrianson Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:47 PM (#5518533)
Why can we not assume that transgendered folks usually have regular sexual preferences? I have no idea. Maybe we can. I haven't known too many, certainly not enough to begin to generalize.


It's certainly possible - but we don't really know if it's true. Better to not assume the answer, but actually ask and answer.
   3262. The Good Face Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5518535)
I think something got lost here.

Much in the same way that you're saying Mayweather would possibly take a dive for a rematch paycheck, I'm saying (speculatively) that McGregor would possibly (or certainly) take a second beating for (during) a rematch paycheck.


You mean he'd take a second beating in the rematch to set up a 3rd rematch? I'm skeptical there'd be a market for a single rematch if Mayweather beats the crap out of McGregor in their first fight, let alone a 3rd rematch if the second fight goes the same as the first. If an egregiously outclassed McGregor took a huge beating in the first fight, I can't think of any reason he'd do the same in the rematch; he gets paid the same if he goes down in the 1st or if he sticks around 12 rounds and absorbs a ton of punishment.
   3263. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:49 PM (#5518536)

So speaking of Republican civil war, Kelli Ward, last seen losing a Republican senate primary to John McCain in 2016 (spoiler alert: she lost), is running for Jeff Flake's seat. Trump hates Flake, who's a reasonably principled conservative as far as politicians go (and he therefore detests Trump), and has endorsed Ward. A Mitch McConnell PAC, on the other hand, is going after Ward by calling her a nut. ("Chemtrail Kelli," they're calling her.)

Can someone who is more of a politics junkie than I am tell me the last time that a sitting president and a party leader publicly took opposite sides in a senate election?
   3264. PreservedFish Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5518537)
Wow. Go Flake!
   3265. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM (#5518539)

The new thread is finally up.
   3266. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5518540)
moved to new thread
   3267. GordonShumway Posted: August 22, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5518542)
You mean he'd take a second beating in the rematch to set up a 3rd rematch? I'm skeptical there'd be a market for a single rematch if Mayweather beats the crap out of McGregor in their first fight, let alone a 3rd rematch if the second fight goes the same as the first. If an egregiously outclassed McGregor took a huge beating in the first fight, I can't think of any reason he'd do the same in the rematch; he gets paid the same if he goes down in the 1st or if he sticks around 12 rounds and absorbs a ton of punishment.


For three fights, you probably need (1) Mayweather to take a dive in the first fight, but make it look close, and (2) Mayweather to win in the rematch, but make it look close. In the third fight, Mayweather can drop the charade and proceed to beat the crap out of McGregor.
   3268. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2017 at 01:08 PM (#5518553)
My "side", according to that article you cited, consists of "the Obama administration and most independent experts".

by "most independent experts," don't you really mean those individuals working for or bankrolled by the Ploughshares Fund (i.e., *not* independent by any stretch of the imagination)?


That article mentions nothing about any Ploughshares Fund, but don't let that get in the way of a standard issue retort.

Of course to you, an expert is only certifiably an expert when he gets published in National Review, Commentary, or The Daily Caller, or gets mentioned favorably by Bibi. Everyone else is just soft on terrorism.

   3269. zenbitz Posted: August 22, 2017 at 01:36 PM (#5518591)
Can you even make a nuke with 20% enriched uranium? I thought it was more like 95%. I think 20% just a starting point, maybe for a plutonium breeder reactor? Strangely I feel compelled to not google this.

   3270. zenbitz Posted: August 22, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5518602)
Biology is usually more complicated than it appears. So my instinct is that gender dysmorphia and sexual orientation phenotypes have *some* link but not are statistically independent nor strongly correlated (or anti-correlated). Note that there is likely a huge socio-psychological feedback loop in heteronormative behavior, which is going to throw any statistics off somewhat.

Really you probably shouldn't even assume cis-genders are heterosexual without evidence. It's not like you get "points" for successfully predicting dating patterns of random folks.
   3271. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 02:01 PM (#5518621)
Can you even make a nuke with 20% enriched uranium? I thought it was more like 95%. I think 20% just a starting point, maybe for a plutonium breeder reactor? Strangely I feel compelled to not google this.
That's another flaw of the deal. Most of the work of producing highly enrich uranium is completed by the time uranium is enriched to 4-5 percent. Accordingly, once you're at that level, getting to 90 percent, let alone 20, isn't all that difficult.
   3272. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: August 22, 2017 at 02:01 PM (#5518622)
Of course to you, an expert is only certifiably an expert when he gets published in National Review, Commentary, or The Daily Caller, or gets mentioned favorably by Bibi. Everyone else is just soft on terrorism.
LOL. You were the one speaking of "independent experts" without naming anyone.
   3273. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2017 at 02:04 PM (#5518625)
NEW THREAD, JASON
Page 33 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 31 32 33

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 18 September 2017: Ex-Baseball Star Darryl Strawberry Criticizes Jemele Hill, Praises POTUS: Trump is ‘A Great Man’
(1145 - 1:09pm, Sep 22)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Newsblog‘Highly unlikely’ Mets risk Harvey burning them — with another team | New York Post
(14 - 1:09pm, Sep 22)
Last: TheHomeRunsOfJuanPierre

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-22-2017
(27 - 1:07pm, Sep 22)
Last: stanmvp48

NewsblogRobinson Cano hits 300th home run | MLB.com
(13 - 1:07pm, Sep 22)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogOzzie and the MVP | Articles | Bill James Online
(5 - 1:06pm, Sep 22)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogWhere have you gone, Tim Lincecum? In search of beloved Giants ace
(19 - 12:48pm, Sep 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogMarlins’ Brian Anderson — inspired by Brian Anderson and Brian Anderson — has one of the most common names in baseball history - Sun Sentinel
(18 - 12:44pm, Sep 22)
Last: Perry

NewsblogMLB, Rob Manfred must expand protective netting | SI.com
(64 - 12:40pm, Sep 22)
Last: base ball chick

Sox TherapyStep One Complete
(24 - 12:38pm, Sep 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Newsblog‘Friends,’ the Sitcom That’s Still a Hit in Major League Baseball
(431 - 12:26pm, Sep 22)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogThe Rangers release artists’ renderings of their new ballpark
(19 - 12:22pm, Sep 22)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(2432 - 11:53am, Sep 22)
Last: 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em

Gonfalon Cubs15 To Go
(77 - 11:50am, Sep 22)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(728 - 11:29am, Sep 22)
Last: Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB)

NewsblogA’s preferred stadium site criticized for causing gentrification, killing waterfowl | Field of Schemes
(79 - 11:26am, Sep 22)
Last: Traderdave

Page rendered in 1.2211 seconds
47 querie(s) executed