New Leaked Russian Documents

[hollodero]

(07-21-2021, 12:45 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Tell that to those on the left that are sending JK Rowling death threats for statements like these:

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”

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

Or this: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

I'm not sure she could be more clear.  She says that she supports trans people but there is a difference between the lived experiences of a biological woman and a trans woman.  One could come up with any number of things to describe this scientifically.  Yet it doesn't matter to these people.

There's been a ton of different articles written attacking this woman, 100x the amount of tweets doing the same, people getting rid of and even burning her books, the actors in her films denouncing her, and even Stephen King weighing in against her. 

And this didn't happened to some woman on the right, whose known to be controversial on LGBTQ issues.  This is a woman who's been one of their biggest and most vocal supporters these last 2 decades.  The entire Harry Potter series is filled with inlcusionary messages.  The left is eating itself here, all because she dared to differentiate between sex and gender.

OK. First, I want to mention that Rowling first supported Maya Forstater in her right to refer to transgender women as men. Who tried to argue that misgendering in that way should count as protected speech, which, well, is imho a questionable take, and a questionable hill to die on for Rowling. Rowling also claimed that transgenders using women's toilets opens the door to all men doing so. She also later wrote a book where a crossdresser is a murderer. There's a bit more to the Rowling story than just these tweets.

That being said, I have to agree with your overall point. Extreme wokeness is an infection that spreads through the media and celebrity world and reaches ridiculous proportions. And after reading up on the whole Rowling controversy (thanks for that...), I see no reason to be so extremely appalled by her or burn her books and whatnot. Death threats, there of course is zero justification for that in any case. (But these usually are only certain individuals, and as often stated, there are idiots throughout the whole political spectrum.)

Your overall everyday leftist, however, usually is not really a part of this culture of extreme wokeness. Being left does not mean burning Rowling books. Well, maybe it's geting out of hand a bit. As stated, I can see your point here. But even if, reaching the conclusion that the left no longer knows what the male and female sex is supposed to be is quite a stretch.

[Stewy]

(07-20-2021, 07:01 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Oh, I'm not so sure about that.  The States of Georgia and Texas have been dragged through the mud, for simply wanting to add a little security to their elections, measures that don't even reach the bar of some other States..

Maybe instead of BIG LIE, some folks view it as the BIG coverup?

Oh FFS - The Texas Congress is a GD disgrace.  The legislation they are proposing is specifically pointed at reducing voting rights, not increasing security.  I vote in Texas, remember?  I've been to the polls.  The security is tight.  Early voting is fantastic.

The Republicans of this state are the worst of the worst from the State Senate to Cruz to the Governor.   All they want is continued power by any means necessary.  They disgust me.

Have you read up on the bill the Texas Democrats walked out on in May?  While most of the things in the bills are "shoulder shruggers", and increase security not at all, there are a couple of provisions that are just appalling.  See below.

It had a provision that would allow elected officials to overturn elections if enough voter fraud was claimed post election day.  No evidence necessary to start the process.  Just make the claim over and over, and whoops no win for you.  The Repub's have since taken that out, but kept provisions that allow the losing opposition to tie up the winner in court, well hell, forever if they have enough money.

Also to guarantee the "integrity" of the elections it will be illegal for election officials to obstruct PARTISAN election watchers in any way.  Repub asshole bothering people trying to vote?  Getting in their way?  Bumping into them?  They can't be stopped and if an election official tries, 1000$ fine for you.

If this sounds like your kind of voting "security" then Texas is the place for you.

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 12:45 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Tell that to those on the left that are sending JK Rowling death threats for statements like these:

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”

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

Or this: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

I'm not sure she could be more clear.  She says that she supports trans people but there is a difference between the lived experiences of a biological woman and a trans woman.  One could come up with any number of things to describe this scientifically.  Yet it doesn't matter to these people.

There's been a ton of different articles written attacking this woman, 100x the amount of tweets doing the same, people getting rid of and even burning her books, the actors in her films denouncing her, and even Stephen King weighing in against her. 

And this didn't happened to some woman on the right, whose known to be controversial on LGBTQ issues.  This is a woman who's been one of their biggest and most vocal supporters these last 2 decades.  The entire Harry Potter series is filled with inlcusionary messages.  The left is eating itself here, all because she dared to differentiate between sex and gender.

It sounds like Rowling doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender. That's probably what a lot of the criticism towards her was.

It doesn't justify death threats, but there's loons in every community. For every death threat she got, there were probably 100 tweets just telling her that sex and gender are different and that transgender people (it's even in the name) don't think that there are no differences between trans women and cis women.

It is hard to consider her an ally to the transgender movement given what she's said, of course. Plus, her retroactively making Dumbledore gay was super cringe. It felt like she only said it for the performative "woke" points but didn't want to actually put in the work to write an authentic gay character.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2021, 01:03 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL "Translation" looks a lot easier than actually addressing the points I made. 

So who here disagrees that Trump was lying about the stolen election, the Russia "hoax," and his obstruction of justice? 

Or that millions of his followers believe the lies? 

There are millions of people who think the police intentionally look for "people of color" to murder or physically abuse on a regular basis.  Maybe, if people's outrage for groupthink was consistent we'd actually live in a better world.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2021, 12:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, my position on all this is not so clearly in line with the democrat's point of view regarding many of these laws. It's often the Puerto Rico conundrum all over again for me. I figure the GOP does indeed introduce these laws because in their calculation it probably helps them. That doesn't mean these measures are all wrong or appalling. (I do think some of these laws take it too far though, but far from all.)

Neither party introduces legislation like this that won't benefit them.

Quote:I do have a hard time though to listen to Trump or ardent Trump supporters that are all for securing the election integrity, while at the same time not finding it in themselves to condemn attempts to pressure officials into changing the official (and many times controlled and audited) results in Trump's favor. On the contrary, they have no issue with such attempts at all. That has zero to do with securing election integrity, it is the opposite of that and hence the whole "we're just about election integrity" point sounds real hollow if made by the very same people. And as someone advocating for consistency I figure you can acknowledge that point.

Absolutely, and I think my position on all of this has been very consistent.  You're 100% correct, intellectual consistency is a rare commodity.  Most people are completely comfortable with inconsistent opinions as long as the inconsistency benefits their preferred worldview/politics.  One need look no further than this board to find examples.

I would be very interested in seeing a direct comparison between the new, or proposed, voting laws in GA and TX and some deep blue states.  I'd be willing to bet there's at least one deep blue state with election laws as, if not more, strict.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-21-2021, 04:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Neither party introduces legislation like this that won't benefit them.


Absolutely, and I think my position on all of this has been very consistent.  You're 100% correct, intellectual consistency is a rare commodity.  Most people are completely comfortable with inconsistent opinions as long as the inconsistency benefits their preferred worldview/politics.  One need look no further than this board to find examples.

I would be very interested in seeing a direct comparison between the new, or proposed, voting laws in GA and TX and some deep blue states.  I'd be willing to bet there's at least one deep blue state with election laws as, if not more, strict.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2019/nov/07/which-us-states-hardest-vote-supression-election

I know; the Guardian - icky. But with all the BS in the news, it's hard to find something that doesn't just talk about upcoming laws versus laws on the books.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2021, 04:55 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2019/nov/07/which-us-states-hardest-vote-supression-election

I know; the Guardian - icky. But with all the BS in the news, it's hard to find something that doesn't just talk about upcoming laws versus laws on the books.

I read the Guardian every day, don't know how I missed that.  Good find!  It certainly appears that red states cover more of the categories on a consistent basis, but there are certainly deep blue states with some significant restriction, greater than some deep red states.  It definitely puts the lie to the claim that the new GA and TX laws are Jim Crow 2.0.  I absolutely loathe that type of hyperbole, but I know that's politics 101.

[Cicero]

(07-20-2021, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct, neither side is.  One side doesn't think there's any fascism to fight (pro tip, there isn't) and the other is a bunch of LARPing a holes who think they're storming the beach at Normandy (pro tip, they aren't).



Of course you don't.  Equally obvious is your, and your ilks, completely blinkered and extremely exaggerated interpretation of what constitutes that.



Yeah, you're right.  There weren't prominent Dems blaming the Cuba situation on anyone but the Cuban government.  You're equally "correct" that the Dems routinely condemn Chinese human rights abuses.  I mean it's not like the "woke" entertainment industry, the NBA and other "woke" organizations routinely take their marching orders from China in order to make a buck.  Never mind the genocide boys, the real oppression is here in the US!



Pontification mode enabled.  



Unknown.  If you listen to the loudest voice you'd think a lot.  



Because I don't give a shit trying to convince you of anything.  A simple internet search would provide countless examples.



Wait, I call people "the left" and that's a problem, but you routinely engage in the same behavior and it's not?  More of "Dill doesn't see it".



So, 100% accurate then?  



Tell you what, the next time you acknowledge wrongdoing by the left (which would be the first time), I'll start giving you more of the benefit of the doubt.


Correct, they both have different topics they're full of shit about.  Problem is "Dill only sees" the wrongdoings of the far right.  Your inconsistency is amazing, especially for an old man who you'd think would have a broader perspective on life.  But c'est le vie I guess.

You are a Stealer fan. Stop making so much sense. You are supposed to be a mouth breathing knuckle dragger. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-21-2021, 12:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: Securing the integrity of the election, hm. I wonder how you would assess Trump calling the Georgia Secretary of State and urging him to just "find", as he said, the exact number of votes for him 

Those two items are separate and apart, not sure what are are alluding to by attempting to make a connection between the two.

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 03:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It sounds like Rowling doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender. 

Identity is one thing but gender and sex are scientific facts. You have external reproductive organs at birth or you don't. Pretending otherwise just obfuscates the real issues. 

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 08:21 PM)Cicero Wrote: Identity is one thing but gender and sex are scientific facts. You have external reproductive organs at birth or you don't. Pretending otherwise just obfuscates the real issues. 

Gender is sociological, not biological.  You're doing the same thing Rowling did. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-21-2021, 12:42 PM)Dill Wrote: The most significant provisions in SB 202 don’t create new election rules, exactly. Instead, they change who gets to determine how those rules are implemented — handing significant power to the Republicans who control the state legislature, called the General Assembly.. . . 

Under current law, key issues in election management — including decisions on disqualifying ballots and voter eligibility — are made by county boards of election. The new law allows the State Board of Elections to determine that these county boards are performing poorly, replacing the entire board with an administrator chosen at the state level.

Idk, seems like a little oversight could be a good thing.

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 08:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Gender is sociological, not biological.  You're doing the same thing Rowling did. 

No, it isn't. It is objective fact no matter how bad we want to pretend otherwise. Not everything is a social construct. 

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 08:28 PM)Cicero Wrote: No, it isn't. It is objective fact no matter how bad we want to pretend otherwise. Not everything is a social construct. 

Explain to me your understanding of the difference between gender and sex.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-21-2021, 02:25 PM)Stewy Wrote: It had a provision that would allow elected officials to overturn elections if enough voter fraud was claimed post election day.  No evidence necessary to start the process.  Just make the claim over and over, and whoops no win for you.  The Repub's have since taken that out, but kept provisions that allow the losing opposition to tie up the winner in court, well hell, forever if they have enough money.

Also to guarantee the "integrity" of the elections it will be illegal for election officials to obstruct PARTISAN election watchers in any way.  Repub asshole bothering people trying to vote?  Getting in their way?  Bumping into them?  They can't be stopped and if an election official tries, 1000$ fine for you.

If they've taken the provision out, then why are you going on about it?

The second part sounds like a bit of sensationalism, a lot of "suppose this" and "what if" that..

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 08:29 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Explain to me your understanding of the difference between gender and sex.

No. 

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 08:31 PM)Cicero Wrote: No. 

Because you don't know what the difference is. 

Just like JK Rowling. 

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 08:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Because you don't know what the difference is. 

Just like JK Rowling. 

No, I simply refuse to be drawn into some ludicrous debate with you about the nature of reality as it pertains to gender and sex. Your playing make believe while gay people are being persecuted and murdered all over the world. Do you think the guy being thrown off of a building in Iran gives a single shit about whether or not you play pretend science so you can feel all woke and superior?      

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 08:37 PM)Cicero Wrote: No, I simply refuse to be drawn into some ludicrous debate with you about the nature of reality as it pertains to gender and sex. Your playing make believe while gay people are being persecuted and murdered all over the world. Do you think the guy being thrown off of a building in Iran gives a single shit about whether or not you play pretend science so you can feel all woke and superior?      

You responded to me, bud. If anything you're the one who tried to draw me into a "ludicrous debate."

I called your bluff and now you're backing out with nonsequiturs to convince yourself you're not the intolerant one.

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 08:39 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You responded to me, bud. If anything you're the one who tried to draw me into a "ludicrous debate."

Not really a debate, just pointing out the fake outrage and self appointed moral superiority.