The Anti-Targ

Members
  • Content count

    7,592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Anti-Targ

  • Rank
    Level 20 Social Justice Mage, with melee ability
  • Birthday 07/03/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

7,387 profile views
  1. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    I've said it before, partisan democracy is not the future and definitely not the model of democracy for societies emerging out of non-democratic rule into democracy. Trump may indeed be the best thing for a swifter dismantling of partisan democracy and the formulation of a non-partisan democratic system.
  2. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    Sounds like there are a bunch of state-level bathroom bills which are having a hard time gaining traction and moving into law, in Republican controlled states. Seems like some significant businesses and pro-sports codes oppose, which could hit states in the revenue and employment soft spots, in addition to activists being a bit more prepared to agitate in opposition. And even some Republicans actually doing what they claim is one of their ideological corner-stones which is to not regulate. On that topic, and sorry to bring Milo back into the thread, I caught the clip of Milo on Bill Maher's show talking about the transgender bathroom issue. Milo said trans people are disproportionately "involved" in sex offences and that this was not a controversial statistic. My immediate reaction was, he must be flat out lying. I didn't have any stats at my fingertips, but it just felt like a completely wrong assertion based on my own personal knowledge of transpeople (first and second hand). But worse than straight out lying, it turns out Milo was cunningly choosing his words to tell a truth but convey a lie, and in doing so he was basically re-victimising transpeople. I didn't think there could be a worse thing in public discourse than flat out lying. But using a statistic that shows transpeople are disproportionately the victims of sex crimes to plant the idea in people minds that transpeople are disproportionately the offenders is an evil beyond straight out lying. How do I know he was using a truth to convey a lie? Bill Maher and his guests all interpretted Milo's truthful statement to mean that Milo is claim transpeople are the more often the offender rather than more often being the victims. They actually aided and abetted (unwillingly) Milo's purpose by the way they reacted. Instead of calling Milo out on his manipulative language, they just attacked Milo. So they never actually picked up on Milo's trick (which is a trick he probably uses a lot to both troll his opposition and animate his supporters) and turned it on him to expose what he's doing. Social progressives have to wise up to these tactics and be a lot more agile if they are going to try to face these sorts of people head on. Because just telling Milo to go fuck himself, which is about all the 3 liberals ended up doing, is pathetic and counter-productive. But I guess that's why one should probably not have comedians pretending to run serious current events panel shows as the first line of defence (or attack) against the social conservative agenda. So this rant is really less about Milo having a heart as black as a lump of coal, as it is a lament of the lack of rhetorical capability among progressives when engaging in head to head debates with the likes of Milo. But what should I expect, Bill Maher is an anti-vaxxer.
  3. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    So all you need do is point out to these people that all the racist Democrats defected to the Republican party because, y'know the southern strategy sought to actually do exactly that in order to permanently hold the South for Republicans. The consequence of this political move being that the scum (or deplorables if you will) of the USA mostly now call themselves Republican. It was a deal made with the devil in order to hold on to power, which is typically why people make a deal with the devil.
  4. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    One wonders then why it is mostly Republicans who proudly fly that flag all over the place and call it a symbol of freedom.
  5. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    Removal of a regulation should be able to be judicially reviewed if said removal leads to infringement of rights. It's not unlike the supreme court ruling that gay marriage is constitutionally protected. A state cannot pass a law banning gay marriage. If, for instance the order of things was Obama passed a regulation saying gay marriage is legal in all states, people grumbled about it but never took it to the supreme court. Trump comes in, overturns the federal regulation legalising gay marriage, states start passing laws banning gay marriage, these laws are challenged and the supreme court rules that gay marriage is constitutionally protected. Thus the Supreme court, in effect overturns the revocation of the Obama regulation and reinstitutes it, only this time as a constitutional court ruling which can't be legislatively overturned. It requires the intermediate step of at least one state passing a law banning gay marriage which infringes on a person's rights, but the outcome is the court overriding the decision of the president to remove a regulation. So removal of a regulation that affirms a constitutional right can be judicially overturned. But you are possibly right that said removal can't be directly challenged but must wait until a rights infringing law is passed at the state level. It will be interesting to see what happens through the courts if a state passes a law that is the exact opposite of the Obama regulation. Edit: Doing a bit of Googling it seems that judicial review of deregulation became a thing when Reagan went on his big deregulation crusade and a bunch of people didn't want certain regulations rescinded. Of course the Obama admin DoJ/DoE edict was perhaps not a regulation in the strict sense. So maybe it's not subject to the same judicial examination as actual regulations.
  6. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    But wasn't that a wholesale removal of rights, not specifically targeted as a single minority? If deemed truly necessary I have no problem with the govt removing or restricting rights for all people. We have a transwoman working in my govt department. I assume she uses the women's bathroom, but I don't know for sure since I tend not to monitor people's bathroom activities, and she works on a different floor. We don't have any gender neutral bathrooms.
  7. Han Solo Movie Cast First Shot

    The beautiful people...and Woody Harrelson.
  8. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    Is it unbelievable though? What is unbelievable is that your system let him do it. Edit: Also wondering when was the last time the rights of a minority have been taken away by the federal govt? State govts are doing it, or trying to do it, all the time, but the feds?
  9. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    That's irrelevant. Obviously guidance issued jointly by 2 or more govt departments has to be jointly withdrawn by the same. But if the policy rationale for withdrawing the guidance is due regard to state and local input into education policy, when this is clearly not an education policy issue, then the basis for withdrawal is not legitimate. And therefore if there are mechanisms to challenge illegitimate policy justification (such as judicial review) then it's open to such challenge. What was the official policy rationale for the Obama guidance? Unless the policy rationale for withdrawing addresses the original policy rationale for issuing the guidance then the withdrawal has no standing. A policy rationale for withdrawing the guidance could be that this administration's bathroom policy is that bathrooms are designed based on physical functionality not on gender identity, (male bathrooms have urinals, female bathrooms only have toilet cubicles). Therefore you use the bathroom for which you are anatomically suited, not to which you are psychologically aligned. That at least is a policy rationale which directly addresses the matter at hand.
  10. NASA finds solar system with 7 planets

    It's no bad thing to celebrate have a simple life.
  11. NASA finds solar system with 7 planets

    I don't see FTL as in linear spaceflight being a thing, ever. But wormholes, maybe. At least wormholes are something serious physicists talk about. I don't know of anyone who is seriously thinking that the speed of light isn't still a max speed limit. Wormholes through which large physical objects can travel are probably a long way off. But a wormhole that can transmit information which would allow real-time communication regardless of distance might be doable in a shorter time frame. But still you will need to travel by conventional means to get a ship and people from here to there. If you want to get the travellers to that star system within their lifetimes they will need to travel at about 0.9c for most of the time, and they will only age about 17 years. So if they are all in their 30s when they leave they will still be middle aged when they arrive and will have a good 20 years at least of useful lifetime to do work and send back information. But if you can do wormholes for instant communication the first ship to go should probably be a drone because we'd be able to do everything we would want in real time. And at 0.9c travel speed, time passed back here probably won't be of sufficient length that we will have developed a way for a manned ship to get there before the drone arrives. I'd like to think that we will launch a drone expedition to our nearest star in my lifetime. But I don't think things will go beyond that.
  12. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    So about the withdraw of guidance on transgender bathroom use in public schools. This is the blurb on the CNN new feed: Surely this is a rights policy issue not an education policy issue. The original guidance was a joint statement from DoJ and DoE. DoJ would never issue statements on education policy. Is there a mechanism to challenge the withdrawal of the guidance on the basis that it has nothing to do with education policy so the reason for withdrawal is has no legitimacy?
  13. So just to drag the tone down a bit. Are Princess Diana's "grey men" going to let Harry intoduce the royal gene pool to...erm...genes that will...ummm... give some royals more of a tan than is the royal norm? I guess there's little chance of such...ahhh...less sunburn-prone offspring from actually sitting astride the throne, but still they would be in the line of succession. I guess these days with premature royal deaths being rather rare, the offspring of the 5th in line for the throne have a much lower chance of making it to the big chair than perhaps was the case in times past. So perhaps there won't be meddling. But I imagine some people are still quite committed to keeping bloodlines pure. I think if Diana was alive today she would be a little worried that there would be meddling.
  14. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    Knowledge is power eh? I beg to differ. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zilx0pnLeHA
  15. NASA finds solar system with 7 planets

    I want to welcome our new alien overlords. They are either going to be benevolent and help us fix our crazy mixed up world, or they will be malign and will get us to put aside our petty differences and become a united world standing against a common external threat. So the sooner they take over the better.