Author Topic: Are social conservatives always wrong?  (Read 25022 times)

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #400 on: July 11, 2019, 12:35:05 PM »
Can you explain what unusual specific advantage you believe Fallon enjoyed over her opponent because she is transgender?

I honestly had to read this question two or three times to have my brain comprehend that the words on the screen were actually real.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #401 on: July 11, 2019, 12:38:58 PM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.

LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14308
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #402 on: July 11, 2019, 12:55:16 PM »
Can you explain what unusual specific advantage you believe Fallon enjoyed over her opponent because she is transgender?

I honestly had to read this question two or three times to have my brain comprehend that the words on the screen were actually real.

I understand that the claim is that because she was born male she has an advantage.  I'm asking specifically what advantage is being claimed.

Bone density?  Muscle mass?  Something else?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4583
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #403 on: July 11, 2019, 12:56:43 PM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.

LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

It's astonishing to me sometimes how people can apparently "read" information and it nevertheless has absolutely no impact on their falsely held belief. It's like their mind just jumps right over it like a skip in a record.

Lichen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
  • Location: PNW
  • Just another dharma bum
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #404 on: July 11, 2019, 12:57:10 PM »
Not getting involved with the politics, just chiming in on the transgender thing due to there being so many common misconceptions. I'm married to a transgender woman. We were married prior to transition and we are both physically active. She has been on female hormones and T-blockers for years now. The most surprising thing for her was how weak she became after a few months of hormones, even though her activity levels remained the same. When it comes to developing/maintaining muscle, she now has to work harder than me (a biological female) to have similar results. This is common and was addressed by both her doctor and therapist prior to beginning transition. She also now has similar increased health risks for certain "female" health conditions, such as breast cancer and osteoporosis.

Biologically, there is little to no physical advantage after a few years of committed hormone therapy. Unless, of course, one thinks there is an advantage to requiring both a mammogram and a prostate exam.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4583
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #405 on: July 11, 2019, 12:59:09 PM »
Not getting involved with the politics, just chiming in on the transgender thing due to there being so many common misconceptions. I'm married to a transgender woman. We were married prior to transition and we are both physically active. She has been on female hormones and T-blockers for years now. The most surprising thing for her was how weak she became after a few months of hormones, even though her activity levels remained the same. When it comes to developing/maintaining muscle, she now has to work harder than me (a biological female) to have similar results. This is common and was addressed by both her doctor and therapist prior to beginning transition. She also now has similar increased health risks for certain "female" health conditions, such as breast cancer and osteoporosis.

Biologically, there is little to no physical advantage after a few years of committed hormone therapy. Unless, of course, one thinks there is an advantage to requiring both a mammogram and a prostate exam.

Thank you for chiming in. This is an extremely helpful contribution to the discussion.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #406 on: July 11, 2019, 01:15:15 PM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.

LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

It's astonishing to me sometimes how people can apparently "read" information and it nevertheless has absolutely no impact on their falsely held belief. It's like their mind just jumps right over it like a skip in a record.

Welcome to post-truth America, brought to you by Trump and company. Facts!!! What are those? Sounds an awful lot like that darn Chinese climate change nonsense. 

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #407 on: July 11, 2019, 01:18:12 PM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.

LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

It's astonishing to me sometimes how people can apparently "read" information and it nevertheless has absolutely no impact on their falsely held belief. It's like their mind just jumps right over it like a skip in a record.

The DNA testing that I referred to showed the lack of American Indian ancestry and is proof to the contrary about the blood test by the previous poster.  Just because someone posts it in a forum doesn't make it true, no matter what size of font it is in.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 01:20:00 PM by FIREstache »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14308
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #408 on: July 11, 2019, 01:20:28 PM »
By 'lack of American Indian ancestry', you mean 'showed actual American Indian ancestry at about the amount that she has always claimed'?

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #409 on: July 11, 2019, 01:25:07 PM »
Is this what you guys are talking about?   It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol




One

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #410 on: July 11, 2019, 01:30:11 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

Probably better to get rid of gender specific sports and make it fair game for all. Equal rights for all. Let the best athlete win irrespective of gender.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #411 on: July 11, 2019, 01:36:19 PM »
LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

Yes, it did come up in another thread and several people explained that this claim is incorrect. You do not have a firm grasp on DNA testing or what the results mean if you believe this to be true. If you mean the average(mean) that is a silly statistic. if out of 100 people 1 is a pilot you wouldn't say, this group of people is 1% pilot on average. If you are suggesting it is the average(median), which I assume is the case given the context, you are wrong.

In a study of 160,000 23andme customers it was found that

Quote
2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/sunday/dna-elizabeth-warren.html

But more importantly, genetic testing rarely tells us anything with certainty. It's possible for someone to have no genetic material which links them to a given ancestor and have a disproportionate amount from another ancestor. The test could have shown no link to any native Americans but that wouldn't prove that she has no native ancestors.


FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #412 on: July 11, 2019, 01:42:14 PM »
Is this what you guys are talking about?   It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol

That's the one.  LOL!

At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.

Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots


Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #413 on: July 11, 2019, 01:55:16 PM »
I really don't see what the big deal is though.  All politicians lie, the trick is to pick one that lies the least and somewhat aligns with how you want your social and economic world to operate.

Trump lies A LOT but I am not just going to vote for "anything but Trump".  I think Trump is controllable to some extent.  Just look how far he has gotten on his wall...nowhere.   Depending on the candidate we get to oppose Trump, it might be best to take the devil you know and hope that in 2024 we get an Obama.




GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14308
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #414 on: July 11, 2019, 02:00:03 PM »
Is this what you guys are talking about?   It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol

That's the one.  LOL!

At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.

Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots

This is a mischaracterization of what happened.

She apologized for taking the test at all because even if she were proven to be 100% of Cherokee Native American ancestry it would not make her a member of the Cherokee nation.  That's a tribal designation that is handled by Cherokee people.

Personally, I think that it's weird that Trump supporters get worked up over this 'lie' but are perfectly fine with Trump's lie that he would give a million dollars to charity if Warren proved through DNA testing that she had Native ancestry.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4065
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #415 on: July 11, 2019, 02:07:31 PM »
I really don't see what the big deal is though.  All politicians lie, the trick is to pick one that lies the least and somewhat aligns with how you want your social and economic world to operate.

Trump lies A LOT but I am not just going to vote for "anything but Trump".  I think Trump is controllable to some extent.  Just look how far he has gotten on his wall...nowhere.   Depending on the candidate we get to oppose Trump, it might be best to take the devil you know and hope that in 2024 we get an Obama.

There are/were a lot of white people of Warren's generation who think they have native ancestry. It's a family myth passed down from a great-aunt, especially when you're born in, say, Oklahoma or the southeast US.

Having met some of these older people, they're not being intentionally deceptive. They truly believe what they were told. In one case, it was because an ancestor's 2nd wife was Cherokee but that wasn't discovered until later (this person was descended from the first wife but all the pictures were of this great-great-grandfather and a native American woman).

I suspect she bought into the family myth, too. She obviously exaggerated (because she DOES have native ancestry) but, given that she didn't need to use native ancestry to get a job, it was more of an affectation than anything.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #416 on: July 11, 2019, 02:07:37 PM »
I really don't see what the big deal is though.  All politicians lie, the trick is to pick one that lies the least and somewhat aligns with how you want your social and economic world to operate.

Trump lies A LOT but I am not just going to vote for "anything but Trump".  I think Trump is controllable to some extent.  Just look how far he has gotten on his wall...nowhere.   Depending on the candidate we get to oppose Trump, it might be best to take the devil you know and hope that in 2024 we get an Obama.

No. He is corrupt and due to his political appointments has spread corruption to the White house cabinet and administration in general. There is no excuse for Republicans as a party and as individuals not to universally condemn him (as well as McConnell's degradations of democratic rules of checks and balances). Country should always come before individual party politics. Presidents come and go, but we as a country only have one democracy, and though it sounds dramatic, that is what is at stake. Historically once a country loses their democracy or civil politics due to nepotism, corruption and plutocracy, it is very difficult if not impossible to restore it.   

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #417 on: July 11, 2019, 02:19:35 PM »
Is this what you guys are talking about?   It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol

That's the one.  LOL!

At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.

Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots

This is a mischaracterization of what happened.

She apologized for taking the test at all because even if she were proven to be 100% of Cherokee Native American ancestry it would not make her a member of the Cherokee nation.  That's a tribal designation that is handled by Cherokee people.

Personally, I think that it's weird that Trump supporters get worked up over this 'lie' but are perfectly fine with Trump's lie that he would give a million dollars to charity if Warren proved through DNA testing that she had Native ancestry.

I don't see that the article says 100% DNA would have made her Cherokee.

Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.  I suspect Trump gives a large amount to charity regardless.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, though, as I am an independent.


JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5691
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #418 on: July 11, 2019, 02:32:19 PM »
Is this what you guys are talking about?   It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol

That's the one.  LOL!

At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.

Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots

This is a mischaracterization of what happened.

She apologized for taking the test at all because even if she were proven to be 100% of Cherokee Native American ancestry it would not make her a member of the Cherokee nation.  That's a tribal designation that is handled by Cherokee people.

Personally, I think that it's weird that Trump supporters get worked up over this 'lie' but are perfectly fine with Trump's lie that he would give a million dollars to charity if Warren proved through DNA testing that she had Native ancestry.

I don't see that the article says 100% DNA would have made her Cherokee.

Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people. I suspect Trump gives a large amount to charity regardless.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, though, as I am an independent.

Or..you know, perhaps not.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/411414-trump-denies-offering-1-million-for-warren-dna-test-even-though-he

Quote
President Trump on Monday denied that he offered Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) $1 million to take a test proving her Native American heritage, even though he did just that. 

Trump spoke after Warren responded to the president's challenge and released the results of a DNA test showing she has a distant Native ancestor.

"I didn't say that. You'd better read it again," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about his $1 million offer.

Responding to a question about Warren's test, Trump said, "Who cares?"

During a campaign rally on July 5, Trump taunted Warren for her claims of Native American ancestry, a staple of his campaign stump speeches.

"I will give you a million dollars, to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian," Trump said at the time. "I have a feeling she will say 'no.' "

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4583
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #419 on: July 11, 2019, 02:48:22 PM »
Is this what you guys are talking about?   It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol

That's the one.  LOL!

At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.

Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots

This is a mischaracterization of what happened.

She apologized for taking the test at all because even if she were proven to be 100% of Cherokee Native American ancestry it would not make her a member of the Cherokee nation.  That's a tribal designation that is handled by Cherokee people.

Personally, I think that it's weird that Trump supporters get worked up over this 'lie' but are perfectly fine with Trump's lie that he would give a million dollars to charity if Warren proved through DNA testing that she had Native ancestry.

I don't see that the article says 100% DNA would have made her Cherokee.

Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.  I suspect Trump gives a large amount to charity regardless.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, though, as I am an independent.


Also:

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:inhales:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-and-the-truth-his-charitable-giving

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14308
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #420 on: July 11, 2019, 02:55:21 PM »
Don't laugh at the guy who constantly and without fail posts pro-trump comments.  He's very independent.  It says so, right up there.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #421 on: July 11, 2019, 02:56:54 PM »

Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.


When you say average, are you referring to the mean or the median?

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #422 on: July 11, 2019, 03:05:13 PM »
Don't laugh at the guy who constantly and without fail posts pro-trump comments.  He's very independent.  It says so, right up there.

You must have missed my posts in support of Joe Biden in the other thread, the candidate who polls most favorably, by far, in polling of head to head match-ups against Trump.

How is that a pro-Trump comment?  Especially, when you were posting to the same thread at about the same time!  LOL

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #423 on: July 11, 2019, 03:53:18 PM »
Biden seems like a reasonable candidate and if he were the Democratic candidate I would vote for him in the main election over Trump for sure.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #424 on: July 11, 2019, 03:58:05 PM »
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.

I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.

To keep repeating that Warren has less Native American DNA than the average American means you're either too lazy to look up the actual facts, too stupid to understand them, or just here for giggles.

If you're lazy, here's some help:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/?utm_term=.b4ca18a55046

If you're stupid, here's the gist: One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back, which was Warren's claim all along. This is 10x the genetic connection of a reference population in Utah. The RNC dug up completely unrelated research using entirely different methodologies that cannot be compared to Warren's results in any way and did some goofy math to try and claim the average American had more Native American DNA. The press collectively botched their initial reporting and the lazy, the stupid, and the trolls keep running with it in a way that makes them look lazy, stupid, and/or gleefully disingenuous.

If you're a troll, enjoy some giggles on me.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4777
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #425 on: July 11, 2019, 04:07:01 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

Probably better to get rid of gender specific sports and make it fair game for all. Equal rights for all. Let the best athlete win irrespective of gender.
There are reasons we have title 9 and women have their own sports.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #426 on: July 11, 2019, 04:12:54 PM »
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.

I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.

One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,

Before calling someone a troll or lazy, maybe take a look at your own actions.  The 6 to 10 generations back result was mentioned in the article I linked to, and if you had actually read it, you hopefully wouldn't be wasting my time by repeating the same thing back to me!

Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time before insulting?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 04:24:51 PM by FIREstache »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5691

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #428 on: July 11, 2019, 04:26:08 PM »
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.

I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.

One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,

Speaking of trolls, you're doing a damn good job of being one now.  And if anyone is lazy, it's you.  The 6 to 10 generations back result was mentioned in the article I linked ot, and if you had actually read it, you hopefully wouldn't be wasting my time by repeating the same thing back to me!  Duh!

Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

Which means she has more native american blood than average.

What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #429 on: July 11, 2019, 04:30:16 PM »
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

Which means she has more native american blood than average.

What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?

What am I missing?  LOL   Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American.  Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage.  That is a very tiny amount.  And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #430 on: July 11, 2019, 04:31:13 PM »
You can't defend her trying to take advantage of whatever advantage there may have been to claim native american as race though.  She knew she was not considered native american.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #431 on: July 11, 2019, 04:33:23 PM »
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

Which means she has more native american blood than average.

What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?

What am I missing?  LOL   Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American.  Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage.  That is a very tiny amount.  And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.

Good, so we agree that she has more Native American blood than average.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #432 on: July 11, 2019, 04:36:31 PM »
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

Which means she has more native american blood than average.

What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?

What am I missing?  LOL   Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American.  Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage.  That is a very tiny amount.  And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.

Good, so we agree that she has more Native American blood than average.

Maybe only 1/1024th, but that still doesn't make her native American.  And at least she apologized for the charade.  I have to give her credit for that.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #433 on: July 11, 2019, 04:37:22 PM »
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.

I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.

One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,

Speaking of trolls, you're doing a damn good job of being one now.  And if anyone is lazy, it's you.  The 6 to 10 generations back result was mentioned in the article I linked ot, and if you had actually read it, you hopefully wouldn't be wasting my time by repeating the same thing back to me!  Duh!

Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

I very specifically addressed your repeated claim that the average American has more Native American DNA than Warren, a claim that has zero evidence, at least some counter evidence, and which originated with Republican political operatives.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #434 on: July 11, 2019, 04:42:48 PM »
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.

I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.

One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,

Speaking of trolls, you're doing a damn good job of being one now.  And if anyone is lazy, it's you.  The 6 to 10 generations back result was mentioned in the article I linked ot, and if you had actually read it, you hopefully wouldn't be wasting my time by repeating the same thing back to me!  Duh!

Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

I very specifically addressed your repeated claim that the average American has more Native American DNA than Warren, a claim that has zero evidence, at least some counter evidence, and which originated with Republican political operatives.

I think the whole point about the average American detracts from the real issue, in that she was claiming to be Native American, not that she was possibly as little as 1/1024th as far as DNA or had a greater amount than the average American, and even if it was a high as 1/64th, that doesn't make someone a native American.  It's not about the DNA, which is why she eventually apologized after the results of the DNA test.  I'm sure she wishes she had never gone down that road.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #435 on: July 11, 2019, 04:44:24 PM »
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

Which means she has more native american blood than average.

What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?

What am I missing?  LOL   Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American.  Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage.  That is a very tiny amount.  And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.

Good, so we agree that she has more Native American blood than average.

Maybe only 1/1024th, but that still doesn't make her native American.  And at least she apologized for the charade.  I have to give her credit for that.

No genetic makeup would make her Native American, she's not a tribe member. Which, by the way is what she actually apologized for; her ignorance of the qualifications.

The important thing is that we put away the false claim that the "average" American has as much or more Native American DNA than Elizabeth Warren.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #436 on: July 11, 2019, 04:46:08 PM »
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:

The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.

Maybe read next time?  LOL

Which means she has more native american blood than average.

What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?

What am I missing?  LOL   Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American.  Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage.  That is a very tiny amount.  And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.

Good, so we agree that she has more Native American blood than average.

Maybe only 1/1024th, but that still doesn't make her native American.  And at least she apologized for the charade.  I have to give her credit for that.

No genetic makeup would make her Native American, she's not a tribe member. Which, by the way is what she actually apologized for; her ignorance of the qualifications.

The important thing is that we put away the false claim that the "average" American has as much or more Native American DNA than Elizabeth Warren.

I don't think that was the important thing as much as Elizabeth Warren's false claims all the way around, since it's not the average American running for president on the issue.  But as said, she apologized, so we should take that for what it is.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #437 on: July 11, 2019, 04:55:38 PM »
I think the whole point about the average American detracts from the real issue, in that she was claiming to be Native American, not that she was possibly as little as 1/1024th as far as DNA or had a greater amount than the average American, and even if it was a high as 1/64th, that doesn't make someone a native American.  It's not about the DNA, which is why she eventually apologized after the results of the DNA test.  I'm sure she wishes she had never gone down that road.

I agree. Which is why I said this:

LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

Yes, it did come up in another thread and several people explained that this claim is incorrect. You do not have a firm grasp on DNA testing or what the results mean if you believe this to be true. If you mean the average(mean) that is a silly statistic. if out of 100 people 1 is a pilot you wouldn't say, this group of people is 1% pilot on average. If you are suggesting it is the average(median), which I assume is the case given the context, you are wrong.

In a study of 160,000 23andme customers it was found that

Quote
2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/sunday/dna-elizabeth-warren.html

But more importantly, genetic testing rarely tells us anything with certainty. It's possible for someone to have no genetic material which links them to a given ancestor and have a disproportionate amount from another ancestor. The test could have shown no link to any native Americans but that wouldn't prove that she has no native ancestors.

When you first brought up the idea of the "average American". If you had read my comment and/or the linked article, we could have saved half a page for actual discussion rather than this nonsense. (which I acknowledge I have been a part of *hangs head in shame* :)

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #438 on: July 11, 2019, 05:13:28 PM »
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

Quote
Unfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.

Rings quite true in this thread.

Sorry but this article is asinine. It truly doesn't matter if someone says I believe in X but votes for someone who enacts Not X. Many, many concepts could be subbed in for X here but the point remains the same.

These days, especially, it truly doesn't matter if in your heart of hearts you believe in democracy and the inherent value of all human beings but you find yourself voting for a fascist authoritarian regime separating families, treating asylums worse than criminals, and running big tanks through the heart of the capital city.

This is what is meant when folks say "intent doesn't matter." If your actions are hurting other people, you are still beholden to fucking stop them, even if you didn't mean to cause any hurt.
I find the article (and even more particularly the report it is about) to be informative. Our political system seems to be set up to elect people in the "Wings" leaving an "Exhausted Majority" vilifying the entirety of the party whose wings they disagree with the most strongly. It is particularly interesting that on both sides, the perception gap of independents is similar to the perception gaps of Democrats and Republicans. (I am a bit troubled that the report lumped "Traditional Liberals" in the "Exhausted Majority" but "Traditional Conservatives" in the right "Wing" - there doesn't seem to be any basis for this grouping.)

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #439 on: July 11, 2019, 05:35:23 PM »
*sigh*

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

Yeah, I'm a newbie at playful trollishness. Don't really have the proper tone down pat yet.

But holy shit, FIREstache's response was a masterpiece! Somehow managed to provide evidence for all three of my theories at the same time. I recognize when I'm outclassed and will cease adding to this particular tangent.

Edited to add: The original was a masterpiece (see quoted in my reply), but the edited version is still pretty strong.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 05:38:54 PM by Samuel »

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #440 on: July 11, 2019, 05:38:57 PM »
This Elizabeth Warren denialism is amazing to watch.  Kyle Schuant said it well:

I laugh at conservatism and progressivism, because both of them ignore reality when reality is inconvenient. They'd both rather be right than successful.


Seriously, you are digging really, really, really deep into your liberal boots to stick up for her Native American shtick.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #441 on: July 11, 2019, 05:41:50 PM »
I think the whole point about the average American detracts from the real issue, in that she was claiming to be Native American, not that she was possibly as little as 1/1024th as far as DNA or had a greater amount than the average American, and even if it was a high as 1/64th, that doesn't make someone a native American.  It's not about the DNA, which is why she eventually apologized after the results of the DNA test.  I'm sure she wishes she had never gone down that road.

I agree. Which is why I said this:

LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

Yes, it did come up in another thread and several people explained that this claim is incorrect. You do not have a firm grasp on DNA testing or what the results mean if you believe this to be true. If you mean the average(mean) that is a silly statistic. if out of 100 people 1 is a pilot you wouldn't say, this group of people is 1% pilot on average. If you are suggesting it is the average(median), which I assume is the case given the context, you are wrong.

In a study of 160,000 23andme customers it was found that

Quote
2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/sunday/dna-elizabeth-warren.html

But more importantly, genetic testing rarely tells us anything with certainty. It's possible for someone to have no genetic material which links them to a given ancestor and have a disproportionate amount from another ancestor. The test could have shown no link to any native Americans but that wouldn't prove that she has no native ancestors.

When you first brought up the idea of the "average American". If you had read my comment and/or the linked article, we could have saved half a page for actual discussion rather than this nonsense. (which I acknowledge I have been a part of *hangs head in shame* :)

We all get trolled from time to time. No head hanging required. I laughed at claiming she has as much as the average American then suddenly claiming it's not important. Integrity is simply a lost art form these days.

In related news I have zero Native American heritage so I guess I am not average ( :

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11703
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #442 on: July 11, 2019, 06:18:40 PM »

In related news I have zero Native American heritage so I guess I am not average ( :

This is such an American issue, to be concerned and care if someone has some tiny bit of some other bloodlne.  It is possible I have a tiny bit of First Nations heritage.  My maternal lineage goes back to United Empire Loyalists, which means arrival in the new world before the colonists' revolt.  Since it was common to have a First Nations woman take a European name if she married a colonist it would not necessarily be obvious.  One of these days I might get 23andme to look at my mitochondrial DNA.

This is even more true in Canadian history of the prairie fur trading and settlement.  There are lots and lots of Canadians who have mixed European/First Nations ancestry, particularly French and Scottish* ancestry since they were the most involved in the fur trade.  They identify as Métis.  Louis Riel is probably the best known.  What do their counterparts in the US call themselves?

*There is a heritage house on the Ottawa River at the border of Ontario and Quebec:

The Macdonell-Williamson House
This magnificent residence was built in 1817 on the Ottawa River by John Macdonell (fur trader, partner in the North West Company, District Court Judge, entrepreneur) for his Métis wife, Magdeleine Poitras and their 12 children.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #443 on: July 11, 2019, 06:36:48 PM »
I think the whole point about the average American detracts from the real issue, in that she was claiming to be Native American, not that she was possibly as little as 1/1024th as far as DNA or had a greater amount than the average American, and even if it was a high as 1/64th, that doesn't make someone a native American.  It's not about the DNA, which is why she eventually apologized after the results of the DNA test.  I'm sure she wishes she had never gone down that road.

I agree. Which is why I said this:

LOL. This came up in another thread.   It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American.  She pulled a big con and was called out for it.

Yes, it did come up in another thread and several people explained that this claim is incorrect. You do not have a firm grasp on DNA testing or what the results mean if you believe this to be true. If you mean the average(mean) that is a silly statistic. if out of 100 people 1 is a pilot you wouldn't say, this group of people is 1% pilot on average. If you are suggesting it is the average(median), which I assume is the case given the context, you are wrong.

In a study of 160,000 23andme customers it was found that

Quote
2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/sunday/dna-elizabeth-warren.html

But more importantly, genetic testing rarely tells us anything with certainty. It's possible for someone to have no genetic material which links them to a given ancestor and have a disproportionate amount from another ancestor. The test could have shown no link to any native Americans but that wouldn't prove that she has no native ancestors.

When you first brought up the idea of the "average American". If you had read my comment and/or the linked article, we could have saved half a page for actual discussion rather than this nonsense. (which I acknowledge I have been a part of *hangs head in shame* :)

Sometimes saying a couple words detracts from the larger point being made, which stands on its own, but hopefully it is clear for anyone reading at this point.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #444 on: July 11, 2019, 07:36:55 PM »
This Elizabeth Warren denialism is amazing to watch.  Kyle Schuant said it well:

I laugh at conservatism and progressivism, because both of them ignore reality when reality is inconvenient. They'd both rather be right than successful.


Seriously, you are digging really, really, really deep into your liberal boots to stick up for her Native American shtick.

I think you're making some incorrect assumptions here. I can only speak for myself, but I'm one of the posters who's been "sticking up" for her and I don't particularly like her as a politician. In fact, the first time I started digging into this issue, it was to criticize her. What I found suggested that the claims I was reading were blown way out of proportion.

Now my general opinion of the situation is that I still think slightly less of her for it, but it's basically a non-issue. The reason I speak up when I see claims like those made in this thread is because they are factually incorrect or a misrepresentation of reality. That matters to me.

What is it about this topic that you think is being denied? Again, I can't speak for everyone, but I think most of us in this thread would agree that she never should have claimed that she was Native American. It's just that we also think it had nothing to do with her achievements since then. I actually heard someone make the comment the other day that her lie was the only reason she's a congresswomen today...I certainly wasn't going to argue at the time (bachelor party, not cool) but the fact that certain politicians and media sources have spun it into something so much more than it should be, and then ignorant people with little interest in actual politics use it to decide their vote, well, it's a little frustrating.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 07:53:19 PM by Dabnasty »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #445 on: July 11, 2019, 09:07:22 PM »
I understand that the claim is that because she was born male she has an advantage.  I'm asking specifically what advantage is being claimed.
The typical cismale will put on 15-20kg of lean mass from 12 to 21 even if all he does is sit around playing Call of Duty and masturbating five times a day, as many do. The cisfemale in that time will put on about 5-7kg of lean mass, she will gain much more fatty mass. If either of them are physically active in that time in a way that challenges their muscles and bones, such as lifting or contact sports, the mass gain will be greater. If they are the kid who faked a stomach ache to get out of PE class and who goes through a vegan or eating disorder phase, the lean mass gain will be less.

Having been through a masculine adolescence provides a lasting advantage in muscle and bone mass. Obviously given normal human variation in size and athletic ability this will not be universally so - a 5ft narrow-framed cisman will probably lose a wrestling match with Serena Williams, let alone if that cisman becomes a transwoman. So we're just talking trends.

Likewise, a person who uses anabolic steroids will see significant lean mass gain, and much of this will remain even after ceasing steroids. So if we are to deny that having been through a masculine adolescence provides a lasting advantage, by this reasoning a ciswoman should be able to openly use anabolic steroids for several years, stop, and then compete in drug-tested sports. I think you would find that WADA would come up with a way to stop that. Now, if you want to say that testosterone does not give a lasting advantage, then you had best have a word with WADA, because they're spending a few hundred million dollars a year testing for its exogenous use.

At the moment there is a fairness issue in sports, because of inconsistent standards. Given the normal range of ciswomen's testosterone is 0.2-2.4nmol/dL, if a ciswoman tests as having 5+, this is taken as a positive doping result, and further tests are done to determine if she has been using exogenous testosterone. However, transwomen are allowed up to 10. This is interesting, because it varies by country, but basically if a cismale tests at 8 or under, this is considered a medical condition requiring exogenous testosterone. So the transwoman athlete is allowed to have testosterone levels higher than some men have naturally, twice as high as ciswomen are allowed to have, and 4-50 times as high as most ciswomen will naturally have.

Cismale natural testosterone levels = 8-40nmol/dL
Cisfemale = 0.2-2.4
Cisfemale positive doping result = 5+nmol/dL
Transfemale positive doping result = 10+nmol/dL

The reason transfemales are allowed higher levels is that while upon hormonal treatment they drop to 10 or under within a couple of years, it typically takes 10+ years (and the removal of the testes) for them to get under 5nmol/dL. Extraordinarily few people can keep up a top athletic performance for 10 years without competing, add in the emotional and social turmoil most transwomen will suffer during transition (as with any life change), and consider that most don't transition till after adolescence, so by the time it's all done they're in their 30s and past their athletic prime - this means that holding transwomen to the same standard as ciswomen would essentially exclude transwomen from open competition, though there'd still be a place in master's competition.

Thus, when considering transwomen and ciswomen and competition, there are basically 3 choices,

1. holding transwomen to the same standards as ciswomen, effectively excluding them from competition
2. allowing different standards to get transwomen competing, leading to unfair competition
3. allowing ciswomen to dope up to 10nmol/dL to match the transwomen

Nobody is going to allow open doping, which removes #3 as an option. So in the name of inclusiveness, the IOC and others are allowing unfair competition against ciswomen. You don't hear many ciswomen athletes speaking about this because they've been gagged; at the time Laurel Hubbard was competing, members of the Australian Weightlifting Federation were told that if they spoke about it publicly they'd be expelled from the federation.

To my mind it's like older athletes and TRT. In sports, there are some drugs which are performance-enhancing, but which are also treatments for genuine medical conditions. Obviously these medical conditions hinder performance, and the medicine is designed not to enhance performance, but remove the hindrance. For example, asthma inhalers. So sportspeople can get a TEU, a therapeutic use exemption. This is why a remarkable number of top swimmers are (their friendly doctors say) asthmatic, why so many archers have heart conditions requiring beta-blockers (steadies heart rate and thus aim), and so on.

Now, as a cismale gets older, his testosterone may decline, leading to loss of bone and muscle mass, depression, disturbed sleep, loss of libido and so on. If I go to the doc reporting these symptoms (as a 48yo cismale) and get tested and my T is low, the doc will tell me to go away and eat better food, exercise, sleep right and so on, and come back in three months and get tested again. If it's still low then, they'll put me on TRT - testosterone replacement therapy. In Australia, this is a dose of 4 or 8mg a day (like nicotine patches), which is 28-56mg a week. By comparison, Arnie in the 1970s took 250mg a week, some of the huge powerlifters now are on 3-7,000mg a week. So we are talking about a person with a genuine medical need, and small supplementation.

There is no therapeutic use exemption for TRT. WADA and others say, "We have all respect and sympathy for your condition, but if you take that medicine, you cannot compete."

I believe it should be the same for transwomen with T above that allowed ciswomen. Excluding people from competition to ensure fairness is not in any way failing to respect them as human beings, or lacking sympathy for their person physical and mental health struggles. Saying, "transwomen should have under 5, too," is not oppressive of transwomen any more than "you can't do TRT and compete" is oppressive of elders. It's just about fair competition.

The alternative is, as I said, to allow ciswomen to juice up to 10nmol/dL, too. Personally I'm in favour of this. The most famous athletes who bring lots of money into the sport are never allowed to test positive, anyway, so it's mostly bullshit. But nobody's going to admit this, so we're left with the charade. If ciswomen have to play in the drug-testing charade, transwomen do, too. This may mean that very few transwomen get to compete. But I don't believe there's a human right to compete in sports. And nothing stops them competing in untested sports, anyway.

I'm not too concerned about MMA because everyone is juiced to all fuck and the drug-testing is even more comedic than that for Crossfit; ciswoman or transwoman, you're always going to get some hugely-muscled person pounding your head into the mat either way. I mean other sports where the testing is less obviously bullshit, like the 100m sprint or the Tour De France.

On-topic: a denial of the reality of the physiological differences between men and women is a key part of modern progressive ideology, just as a denial of climate change is a key part of modern conservative ideology. Both are wrong-headed, but as I said, the progressive denial of science is not as globally-damaging as the conservative denial of science, so it doesn't concern me as much.

This was not always so; the left has as bloody a history as the right, it's simply that the left has far less influence than it used to since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the english-speaking internet is dominated by US politics which overall swings right. But until the likely breakup of the United States, progressive ideology will remain marginalised in the West, and so will be less damaging than conservative ideology is.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 09:10:25 PM by Kyle Schuant »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6544
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #446 on: July 12, 2019, 03:30:24 AM »

The alternative is, as I said, to allow ciswomen to juice up to 10nmol/dL, too. Personally I'm in favour of this.

This is a really interesting solution that has not had a lot of public debate by the various authorities. You might actually get a level playing field there with regards to say the women's 800m where a certain athlete has been trouncing all comers for the last few years.

Of course, all hormone "treatments" do carry their own risks and side-effects, which don't often manifest until years down the line.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14308
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #447 on: July 12, 2019, 07:25:06 AM »
I understand that the claim is that because she was born male she has an advantage.  I'm asking specifically what advantage is being claimed.
The typical cismale will put on 15-20kg of lean mass from 12 to 21 even if all he does is sit around playing Call of Duty and masturbating five times a day, as many do. The cisfemale in that time will put on about 5-7kg of lean mass, she will gain much more fatty mass. If either of them are physically active in that time in a way that challenges their muscles and bones, such as lifting or contact sports, the mass gain will be greater. If they are the kid who faked a stomach ache to get out of PE class and who goes through a vegan or eating disorder phase, the lean mass gain will be less.

Having been through a masculine adolescence provides a lasting advantage in muscle and bone mass. Obviously given normal human variation in size and athletic ability this will not be universally so - a 5ft narrow-framed cisman will probably lose a wrestling match with Serena Williams, let alone if that cisman becomes a transwoman. So we're just talking trends.

Likewise, a person who uses anabolic steroids will see significant lean mass gain, and much of this will remain even after ceasing steroids. So if we are to deny that having been through a masculine adolescence provides a lasting advantage, by this reasoning a ciswoman should be able to openly use anabolic steroids for several years, stop, and then compete in drug-tested sports. I think you would find that WADA would come up with a way to stop that. Now, if you want to say that testosterone does not give a lasting advantage, then you had best have a word with WADA, because they're spending a few hundred million dollars a year testing for its exogenous use.

OK, so you've listed lean muscle mass as the concern here.  Men carry more lean muscle mass than women, agreed.  But a trans woman doesn't just 'stop taking steroids' when she starts hormone therapy.  A trans woman takes female growth hormone . . . which increases her body fat percentages . . . thereby reducing the percentage of lean muscle mass she carries.  Fighting sports are weight restricted, so I'm not really sure I understand how a transwoman with a body fat level of I dunno, say 19% has any appreciable advantage over a natural born woman with a body fat level of 19%.

Is your concern that the female growth hormone does not sufficiently raise body fat percentage levels?  If so, then wouldn't a dosing recommendation or set hormone measurement level equalize the problem?  That's something that the sporting governing body could easily implement.



At the moment there is a fairness issue in sports, because of inconsistent standards. Given the normal range of ciswomen's testosterone is 0.2-2.4nmol/dL, if a ciswoman tests as having 5+, this is taken as a positive doping result, and further tests are done to determine if she has been using exogenous testosterone. However, transwomen are allowed up to 10. This is interesting, because it varies by country, but basically if a cismale tests at 8 or under, this is considered a medical condition requiring exogenous testosterone. So the transwoman athlete is allowed to have testosterone levels higher than some men have naturally, twice as high as ciswomen are allowed to have, and 4-50 times as high as most ciswomen will naturally have.

Cismale natural testosterone levels = 8-40nmol/dL
Cisfemale = 0.2-2.4
Cisfemale positive doping result = 5+nmol/dL
Transfemale positive doping result = 10+nmol/dL

The reason transfemales are allowed higher levels is that while upon hormonal treatment they drop to 10 or under within a couple of years, it typically takes 10+ years (and the removal of the testes) for them to get under 5nmol/dL. Extraordinarily few people can keep up a top athletic performance for 10 years without competing, add in the emotional and social turmoil most transwomen will suffer during transition (as with any life change), and consider that most don't transition till after adolescence, so by the time it's all done they're in their 30s and past their athletic prime - this means that holding transwomen to the same standard as ciswomen would essentially exclude transwomen from open competition, though there'd still be a place in master's competition.

Thus, when considering transwomen and ciswomen and competition, there are basically 3 choices,

1. holding transwomen to the same standards as ciswomen, effectively excluding them from competition
2. allowing different standards to get transwomen competing, leading to unfair competition
3. allowing ciswomen to dope up to 10nmol/dL to match the transwomen

Why can't anti-androgen chemicals be used to control transwomen's testosterone levels if they measure above those of the average woman?  That would seem to be a fair way of handling the situation.



I believe it should be the same for transwomen with T above that allowed ciswomen. Excluding people from competition to ensure fairness is not in any way failing to respect them as human beings, or lacking sympathy for their person physical and mental health struggles. Saying, "transwomen should have under 5, too," is not oppressive of transwomen any more than "you can't do TRT and compete" is oppressive of elders. It's just about fair competition.

Yes, that sounds reasonable.  I don't think that there should be different testosterone standards for transwomen than regular women.  (Although, there are some questions about the )



The alternative is, as I said, to allow ciswomen to juice up to 10nmol/dL, too. Personally I'm in favour of this. The most famous athletes who bring lots of money into the sport are never allowed to test positive, anyway, so it's mostly bullshit. But nobody's going to admit this, so we're left with the charade. If ciswomen have to play in the drug-testing charade, transwomen do, too. This may mean that very few transwomen get to compete. But I don't believe there's a human right to compete in sports. And nothing stops them competing in untested sports, anyway.

PED use in most pro sport is out of control - agreed.  I don't have a good solution for that.  As long as there's a lot of money changing hands and reason for those in power to overlook the problem it will continue to be an issue.

I don't think that 'allowing' women to use drugs to raise their natural testosterone levels is a good idea though.  A high level athlete has to take every possible advantage given to them . . . by 'allowing' the use of drugs in this way you're forcing all competitors to use drugs to remain competitive in the sport they love.  While I share your frustration at the current drug testing (or lack thereof) that goes on in nearly all pro sports, that doesn't sound like a better way to run things.



On-topic: a denial of the reality of the physiological differences between men and women is a key part of modern progressive ideology, just as a denial of climate change is a key part of modern conservative ideology.  Both are wrong-headed, but as I said, the progressive denial of science is not as globally-damaging as the conservative denial of science, so it doesn't concern me as much.

There are obvious and measurable physiological sex differences between men and women.  Your argument that this is a key part of modern progressive ideology doesn't really ring true to me because the majority of progressives I know would not argue against that.  What they'll argue for is treating men and women with equal rights in our society and treating trans people by the gender they identify with.  Can you show me any evidence, articles, or studies done of 'progressives' that support your theory?

The denial of global warming that you're comparing this to is quite different.  Last I read, 85% of Republicans reject the idea that climate change is a serious problem (or that it even exists) - https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25725055/climate-change-poll-republicans-americans-nbc-news/.  That's pretty overwhelming support.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11703
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #448 on: July 12, 2019, 10:01:06 AM »
Still waiting to hear what the American term for people of mixed First Nations/European stock is.  i.e. Equivalent of Canadian Métis.  Or do you not have one?  The fur trade extended well into what is now American territory, so there must have been mixed marriages there as well.  Do people just not acknowledge it?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 10:03:03 AM by RetiredAt63 »

wbranch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Some Mountain Ridge
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #449 on: July 12, 2019, 10:57:08 AM »
Still waiting to hear what the American term for people of mixed First Nations/European stock is.  i.e. Equivalent of Canadian Métis.  Or do you not have one?  The fur trade extended well into what is now American territory, so there must have been mixed marriages there as well.  Do people just not acknowledge it?

I grew up near an Ojibwe reservation. My understanding has been that Metis was for French/Indian mix and I had heard the term since I grew up in the northern midwest and French fur traders were the first to the area. More recently (late 1800s) there was "mixing" with Scandinavian immigrants but there is/was no term for that as far as I know. Plenty of people acknowledge it and either identify as white or Indian depending on how they were raised but people that consider themselves white had no issues identifying as part Indian. From what I have seen it is much different for other tribal/reservation areas in other parts of the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metis_in_the_United_States