Recent posts

#41

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 01:01:56 PM

What the hell, I'll engage against my better judgment.

I stopped reading after this.

If you want to have a civil discussion.  Don't start it by being uncivil.

#42

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 12:58:56 PM

Point fails - no one is genociding Jews.

Only because of lack of capability to accomplish the task. For Hamas, the will and intent is there.

#43

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by grumbler - Today at 12:34:56 PM

Point fails--no one is genociding Palestinians. That is part of a false narrative intended to delegitimize Israel.

The current war is one of the least deadly in modern times.

https://imgur.com/a/DHOUcW3

Point fails - no one is genociding Jews.  And no one is claiming that this war compares in total deaths to WW2.

#44

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Razgovory - Today at 12:27:24 PM

I don't want to print a sign saying I'll burn Tehran to the ground.  First because I couldn't do it, and second because I believe that would make me a bad person.

I will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis.  You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.

The issue isn't whether these people are cunts. They obviously are.
Its those pointing to them and going "See! See! Anyone who dares to speak against Israel is like this! Anti zionism is anti semitism!"
Its like saying there's no difference between those criticising the Saudi or Iranian regime and the "muslims are subhuman and should all be killed" brigade

Zionism is the idea that Jews have a right to their own country.  Anti-Zionism is idea that Jews do not have a right to their own country.  There is no real comparable ideology to this.  There aren't a large group of people arguing that Iran should be abolished.  This is not about criticism, praising rocket attacks, cheering on the death of soldiers and the destruction of the cities isn't criticism.  They want Israel gone.  That is the core of the Anti-zionism movement.

#45

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by Barrister - Today at 12:26:37 PM

I know Mark Carney is a smart guy, and very capable, but he really strikes me as Michael Ignatieff v 2.0 as a federal politician.

I mean you can pretty much just copy and paste the opposition ads from Ignatieff's era.

That might work for people who don't remember that he was the governor of the bank of Canada.

edit: I did not have time this morning to explain why that fact is important.  The smear campaign against Ignatieff worked because Canadians had no idea who he was (outside of academics in his area of expertise).  Carney is in a very different position.  He was a long serving and well respected personality within Canada and he became a household name during his time  at the bank of Canada.  Not to mention the further exposure he got when he went on to perform that role in England. 

As a result there is no blank slate on which the Conservatives can create their own characterization.  His reputation is already well established.

What the hell, I'll engage against my better judgment.

The average Canadian has no idea who the governor of the Bank of Canada is, or what that person does.  Hell I had to google who the existing governor is (Tiff Macklem), and I do know what the Bank of Canada does.

Even beyond that though, he was last Governor in 2013 - over a decade ago.  Even putting aside his time as Governor of the Bank of England a lot of his career has been spent outside of Canada, with studying at Harvard and Oxford, his time with Goldman Sachs.  Even since stepping down from the Bank of England it's not clear to me where Carney spends most of his time - as he has roles with the UN, with Canadian companies, and also roles in the UK.

Look - he's very clearly a very smart man (as is Ignatieff).  He's very clearly much smarter than both Trudeau or Poilievre.  It's maybe unfortunate that someone with as powerful a resume as Carney's would be so easy to attack - but I think history shows it would be very easy to attack him using the same lines as Ignatieff.

#46

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Josquius - Today at 12:23:16 PM

Point fails--no one is genociding Palestinians. That is part of a false narrative intended to delegitimize Israel.

The current war is one of the least deadly in modern times.

https://imgur.com/a/DHOUcW3

This may be true but "It wasn't genocide, it was only ethnic cleansing" isn't a great defence.

#47

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Gups - Today at 12:22:11 PM

Some more detail here

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/fact-checking-critics-of-the-cass

#48

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Gups - Today at 12:18:03 PM

Was Josq speaking of "gender care" as a general concept when he said it's crap, or about gender care as currently implemented in the UK? Or are those two things basically the same and there's no such thing as "decent gender care" vs "crap gender care"?

Note: I don't even know what is encompassed in the term "gender care", so if either of you would care to expand on the term I'd appreciate it

So there's maybe three sides to this debate.

First of all of course there is the "trans doesn't exist - biology determines everything" side, which views gender care in itself as an abomination.  I'm sure you understand this side, so no need to discuss.

Beyond that though (and remember this is all talking about kids) there's the "watchful waiting" side of gender care - the idea that if a kid expresses gender dysphoria you should explore if there are other diagnosis going on, and above all just wait to see if the dysphoria subsides before starting on irrevocable treatments.

The third side is the "if a kid says they're trans, believe them" side.  Which trying to be as fair as possible, puts a lot of emphasis on the personal autonomy of kids, with a side of if a kid goes through the "wrong puberty" that can be incredibly distressing for someone with gender dysphoria and might cause suicide.

So anyways - a lot of the debate about "gender care" is whether you should follow the second or the third approach.

The conclusion of the Cass Report was basically to say that we have very little good evidence of which approach leads to the better outcomes in terms of mental health and happiness - that very little follow up has been done on kids who receive "gender care" no matter how defined.

I think that's a reasonable summary except that Cass very much comes down in favour of the second approach and as a result is being smeared by people like Owen Jones and Billy Bragg who are in favour of the third - on the basis that she ignored certain studies which favoured their view. This criticism was based on a screenshot by a trans activist of what they said was a literature review undertaken by the Cass team, but actually related to an entirely different study. In other words, deliberate misinformation but nevertheless relied on. 

As to follow up on kids who receive gender affirming "care", it's not so much that there was little follow up, it's that we don't know whether there was or not because the Tavistock and other clinics (with one exception) who prescribed puberty blockers refused to provide any information or data.

#49

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Barrister - Today at 11:55:51 AM

Was Josq speaking of "gender care" as a general concept when he said it's crap, or about gender care as currently implemented in the UK? Or are those two things basically the same and there's no such thing as "decent gender care" vs "crap gender care"?

Note: I don't even know what is encompassed in the term "gender care", so if either of you would care to expand on the term I'd appreciate it

So there's maybe three sides to this debate.

First of all of course there is the "trans doesn't exist - biology determines everything" side, which views gender care in itself as an abomination.  I'm sure you understand this side, so no need to discuss.

Beyond that though (and remember this is all talking about kids) there's the "watchful waiting" side of gender care - the idea that if a kid expresses gender dysphoria you should explore if there are other diagnosis going on, and above all just wait to see if the dysphoria subsides before starting on irrevocable treatments.

The third side is the "if a kid says they're trans, believe them" side.  Which trying to be as fair as possible, puts a lot of emphasis on the personal autonomy of kids, with a side of if a kid goes through the "wrong puberty" that can be incredibly distressing for someone with gender dysphoria and might cause suicide.

So anyways - a lot of the debate about "gender care" is whether you should follow the second or the third approach.

The conclusion of the Cass Report was basically to say that we have very little good evidence of which approach leads to the better outcomes in terms of mental health and happiness - that very little follow up has been done on kids who receive "gender care" no matter how defined.

#50

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Barrister - Today at 11:39:03 AM

I'm not getting the Cass Report.
Gender care, especially for kids, is crap.
This was well known before, though the proof for it is useful.
But the transphobic culture war zealots are celebrating as if it proves everything they say right?- care being shit doesn't mean improve care it means...don't have care?

Umm, no.

Gender care for kids is not 'well known to be crap'.  Lots of the activist types keep trying to argue that it is "settled science", when in fact the science is anything but.

Yes, culture warriors on both sides are trying to argue the Cass Report - the "left" arguing that the Cass report unjustly invalidated a bunch of studies that would've proved their point (the Report says they were of low value), while the "right" tries to argue that it should equal a ban on youth gender care (the Report just says we need more and better data).

I don't think it's correct to make this a left/right issue. There are plenty of people on the left (including Rowling) who regard the approach of Tavistock as absolutely scandalous. I'm not on Twitter so I don't know what the real transphobes (as opposed to the so-called "TERFS") are saying but most people I know who were very critical of Tavistock and Mermaids etc are fully supportive of care for gender care but argue it should be holistic and not based on ideology.

It's why I put the terms on quotes - it was useful shorthand, but not exclusively a left / right issue.