What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

What I'm saying is that trans people (should trans be capitalized?), have a belief that gender is a social construct and is independent of biological sex.  This is a philosophical belief, and that demanding you use certain pronouns is explicit demand that others endorse that belief.  Failure to do so will get you labeled as a hateful bigot.  Some people have in fact been fired for refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns. 

Wading in, against my better judgment . . .

I suppose you can call the concept that gender is a social construct a philosophical belief.  But to the extent that was meant in a critical sense, the attack doesn't land.  The belief that democracy is better than totalitarianism as a form of government is also a philosophical belief, but it is on my understanding (and yours) an extremely well grounded one.  As for gender, while we can agree that a woman in present day Denmark or one in present day Saudi Arabia, or one in ancient Athens, or medieval China, etc. are likely to share some biological characteristics, the lived experience of being a woman and how those societies understand woman-hood is very different.  Some word has to be used to describe the latter phenomenon; gender seems to be as good as any.  The position that "gender as a social construct" either doesn't exist or that we should put our head in the sand because the concept feels troubling seems to me an extremely bad philosophical position to take.

As for pronouns, in the modern English speaking world, it is accepted as common politeness and decency that we refer to all male adults that we are not on first name basis with as "Mister," even though literally that connotes an adult male of means and refinement who does not engage in manual labor or domestic service-like work.  We do this as a way of showing respect to others and thus while we are free to hold a differing view of another adult male's merits, it is understood to be disrespectful to refer to Baldrick as Baldrick, not Mr. Baldrick.  Similarly, if it is important to another human being to be referred to as "she" or "her," then even if you hold a private belief that the person is insufficiently "female" for your own philosophical viewpoint, ordinary decency and common respect would require that you keep that opinion to yourself and respect that person's wishes.  It's not much of a burden.

As for the claim that people have been fired for using wrong pronouns, it's a very big country and just about anything can happen somewhere.  I know some lawsuits have been brought claiming that; not as certain as to proof. It certainly would be understandable that a person could be fired for showing chronic disrespect to a co-worker, and it's possible that *part* of the manifestation of disrespect could be gratuitously and deliberately using a pronoun that the co-worker doesn't embrace with the intention to cause distress.  Context matters.

But at this point, the hysteria about people being fired for using the wrong pronoun seems quaint.  We are watching as massive numbers of people are being fired for the "crime" of attending a required DEI training, or for saying that they intend to do their jobs with integrity.  It's really hard to take that claim seriously anymore; it's like complaining of a head cold while your neighbor is being beheaded.

[Sophie Scholl]

When Kennedy and friends get around to putting you and those like you on the trains to the camps for your mental illness issues, I'll be sure to greet you when you arrive, Raz.  Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera style.

[Sophie Scholl]

Also, the NPS Stonewall site is now down to "LGB". Somewhere, TERFs are celebrating. Next up is to eliminate the "B", and then the "L" and "G".

[Syt]

The war on letters.

[garbon]

They would definitely not stand then for my LGBTQIA+ POC research then.

[Jacob]

I would certainly have to rethink my argument after that.

No one gives a fuck.

Exactly

[Barrister]

I think they hate trans because they think it's a vector for man to rape and for homosexuality.

I think that trans people are such easy targets because trans require you positively affirm their reality through the use of pronouns regardless of what you personally believe.  This demand is backed with the threat of ostracism, possibly the loss of livelihood.

Name someone (whom we would know or can find out about) who has lost their job because they used a "wrong" pronoun.

If you looked around hard enough you could probably find someone who that has happened to.

But it kind of begs the question - so what?  Should every trans person be ostracized because something unfortunate happened to one person in their name?

It's like pointing to an islamic terrorist and then collectively blaming all muslims.

[viper37]

Also, the NPS Stonewall site is now down to "LGB". Somewhere, TERFs are celebrating. Next up is to eliminate the "B", and then the "L" and "G".

So sorry about what I'm seeing.

[viper37]

And I don't think that trying to understand complex budgetary/political situations is excusing anyone. Even more since political time can be so slow and looking at fixed T time in its isolation cannot tell you the real picture. If you look at Sweden for example, their military spending was at 1.5% of GDP in 2023 and they will be ramping it up to 2.6% by 2028. I don't know how this can be construed as free riding.

For the reason I stated.  Promises of future spending don't fight wars. Promises of future spending didn't bomb Serbia or Libya or protect the Bosnian refugees in Sebrnica.  I've been hearing promises and commitments for as long as I can remember.

Let me get this straight.

The US is allowed to break treaties at will due to changing political situation, and the world should just accept it as it is.

The world is not allowed to change budget priorities as financial difficulties arise, often due to American-induced recession.

The NATO spending target was 2% of GDP and most countries where on target, except the newly arrived members, which were given time.

The recession of 2008, caused by Republican deregulation and carelessness hit us all hard.  Leftist government were elected everywhere following that, priorities changed.  Then the immigration crisis had to be jugulated, because of the Syrian war, in large part because Iraq had been destabilized by US intervention and your troops left before the job was finished.

Also, there's this little issue of climate change where the US is freeriding the world, letting us all take the burden of cleaning the mess.

Then the Russia crisis push NATO members to increase their spending to 3% of GDP and many countries are increasing their spending.  Canada was absymally low.   Dealing with your fucking refugees sent by your stupid orange clown didn't help.  But we have our own fault, I can recognize that.

What I don't get is why you rant about other countries military spending while at the same time voting for the administration that promise to cut military spending in half and selling its biggest military secrets to Russia via India.

You want NATO to spend money for the sake of spending money or what?

[garbon]

And I don't think that trying to understand complex budgetary/political situations is excusing anyone. Even more since political time can be so slow and looking at fixed T time in its isolation cannot tell you the real picture. If you look at Sweden for example, their military spending was at 1.5% of GDP in 2023 and they will be ramping it up to 2.6% by 2028. I don't know how this can be construed as free riding.

For the reason I stated.  Promises of future spending don't fight wars. Promises of future spending didn't bomb Serbia or Libya or protect the Bosnian refugees in Sebrnica.  I've been hearing promises and commitments for as long as I can remember.

Let me get this straight.

The US is allowed to break treaties at will due to changing political situation, and the world should just accept it as it is.

The world is not allowed to change budget priorities as financial difficulties arise, often due to American-induced recession.

The NATO spending target was 2% of GDP and most countries where on target, except the newly arrived members, which were given time.

The recession of 2008, caused by Republican deregulation and carelessness hit us all hard.  Leftist government were elected everywhere following that, priorities changed.  Then the immigration crisis had to be jugulated, because of the Syrian war, in large part because Iraq had been destabilized by US intervention and your troops left before the job was finished.

Also, there's this little issue of climate change where the US is freeriding the world, letting us all take the burden of cleaning the mess.

Then the Russia crisis push NATO members to increase their spending to 3% of GDP and many countries are increasing their spending.  Canada was absymally low.   Dealing with your fucking refugees sent by your stupid orange clown didn't help.  But we have our own fault, I can recognize that.

What I don't get is why you rant about other countries military spending while at the same time voting for the administration that promise to cut military spending in half and selling its biggest military secrets to Russia via India.

You want NATO to spend money for the sake of spending money or what?

This suggests 2% was set as goal in 2006 and confirmed in 2014.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

[viper37]

Really, Yi complaints is about nothing then.

In 2024, 23 Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014.  Over the past decade, European Allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defence – from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, when they are investing a combined total of more than USD 430 billion in defence.

In order to ensure that these funds are spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, NATO Allies have also agreed that at least 20% of defence expenditure should be devoted to major new equipment. This includes associated research and development, perceived as a crucial indicator for the scale and pace of modernisation.

Most countries are on track to reach their target while the US wants to go below 2% GDP as per Trump's announcement.

[viper37]

Those just sound like excuses. Understandable excuses but that's still not really a defense against Yi's claim.

But the US has pulled out of numerous treaties.  And it's not the first time it has slapped tariffs on allies because your industries are non competitive, following your refusal to follow environmental advancements.

Canada has a similar problem with a part of its industry now.  China has surpassed us in many fields because we refused to invest in climate science.

[Razgovory]

What I'm saying is that trans people (should trans be capitalized?), have a belief that gender is a social construct and is independent of biological sex.  This is a philosophical belief, and that demanding you use certain pronouns is explicit demand that others endorse that belief.  Failure to do so will get you labeled as a hateful bigot.  Some people have in fact been fired for refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns. 

Wading in, against my better judgment . . .

I suppose you can call the concept that gender is a social construct a philosophical belief.  But to the extent that was meant in a critical sense, the attack doesn't land.  The belief that democracy is better than totalitarianism as a form of government is also a philosophical belief, but it is on my understanding (and yours) an extremely well grounded one.  As for gender, while we can agree that a woman in present day Denmark or one in present day Saudi Arabia, or one in ancient Athens, or medieval China, etc. are likely to share some biological characteristics, the lived experience of being a woman and how those societies understand woman-hood is very different.  Some word has to be used to describe the latter phenomenon; gender seems to be as good as any.  The position that "gender as a social construct" either doesn't exist or that we should put our head in the sand because the concept feels troubling seems to me an extremely bad philosophical position to take.

As for pronouns, in the modern English speaking world, it is accepted as common politeness and decency that we refer to all male adults that we are not on first name basis with as "Mister," even though literally that connotes an adult male of means and refinement who does not engage in manual labor or domestic service-like work.  We do this as a way of showing respect to others and thus while we are free to hold a differing view of another adult male's merits, it is understood to be disrespectful to refer to Baldrick as Baldrick, not Mr. Baldrick.  Similarly, if it is important to another human being to be referred to as "she" or "her," then even if you hold a private belief that the person is insufficiently "female" for your own philosophical viewpoint, ordinary decency and common respect would require that you keep that opinion to yourself and respect that person's wishes.  It's not much of a burden.

As for the claim that people have been fired for using wrong pronouns, it's a very big country and just about anything can happen somewhere.  I know some lawsuits have been brought claiming that; not as certain as to proof. It certainly would be understandable that a person could be fired for showing chronic disrespect to a co-worker, and it's possible that *part* of the manifestation of disrespect could be gratuitously and deliberately using a pronoun that the co-worker doesn't embrace with the intention to cause distress.  Context matters.

But at this point, the hysteria about people being fired for using the wrong pronoun seems quaint.  We are watching as massive numbers of people are being fired for the "crime" of attending a required DEI training, or for saying that they intend to do their jobs with integrity.  It's really hard to take that claim seriously anymore; it's like complaining of a head cold while your neighbor is being beheaded.

Yeah, I'm not getting back into this.  This is policed very, very heavily.  The moment you ask even basic questions about it people literally want to throw you in a concentration camp.

[The Brain]

The nuclear umbrella is what made the US the primary guarantor of security in Europe. Europe can defend itself against conventional Russian attack.

Then why in the world do we still have troops stationed in Europe, and more earmarked for NATO deployment?

To be a guarantor of security in Europe.

[Barrister]

The nuclear umbrella is what made the US the primary guarantor of security in Europe. Europe can defend itself against conventional Russian attack.

Then why in the world do we still have troops stationed in Europe, and more earmarked for NATO deployment?

To be a guarantor of security in Europe.

So as I understand it, during the Cold War the US stationed almost 300k troops in Europe.  That number dwindled to some 60k during the 2000s, and is now up a little over 100k.

(and by the way Canada stationed troops in Europe as well.  Only number I can find is 100k over the length of the cold war, so obviously the number at any given time would be a fraction of that).

My understanding was always that those troops were meant only to A: slow down a soviet invasion B: show the Soviets that the US would be drawn into any military conflict in Europe and C: for the war to be turned by an eventual flood of American and other troops to drive back the Soviets.

But even with American troops there was never a feeling that the Soviets would be quickly turned back in any invasion.