CatBus

Jeebus said:

chyron8472 said:

What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.

I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.

This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.

I don’t think there are any Trump voters left in here.

No, we don’t even have Trump supporters brilliantly disguising themselves as Bernie supporters anymore. But people may know Trump supporters, have spoken with them in person, etc–probability favors Republicans/Conservatives knowing them, but Democrats may as well.

I met a guy who considered voting for Trump. I have no idea if he actually did or not. He thought it was all an act. A decades-long 24/7 campaign to act like a racist, incoherent asshole with no impulse control. How could a guy like that end up a multi-millionaire*? No, had to be an act. So, between Hillary and this mysterious wild card, he was really torn.

* Hint: The same way most people end up multi-millionaires. They’re born that way.

Also, he may just have been a little on the casually racist side of things (demographic: older working-class divorced white man with some pent up resentment over all kinds of things). But nah, he said that didn’t enter into it. Nosiree. Nope.

And this guy considered himself an independent. All the Republicans I know (in person) voted for Hillary.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

I wish someone could explain to me the appeal of Trump. Why the heck do people (still) like him? It’s like with Sarah Palin… there are people who like her, but WHY?!? I just can’t even.

1. He’s (supposedly) rich. No doubt about it, Americans love rich people and over-the-top opulence. Why? Because 1) You have to be inherently good to be rich (Calvinism), and 2) I wanna be like that someday and I can live vicariously through their success.
2. He’s a honey badger. Literally no shits to give about anything or anybody who’s not him. And it’s so entertaining that it’s easy to forget that this includes you.
3. He’s unpolished. Which is how his serial lying actually makes him seem more honest to his supporters.
4. He’s racist. It’s no coincidence he kicked off his Presidential exploration by becoming the world’s loudest birther, just as that movement was starting to reach maximum idiocy. And the hits just kept coming. And yes, this causes people to like him.
5. He’s unqualified. Every public official leaves a trail of political decisions you can criticize. He leaves a trail of bankruptcies, fraud lawsuits, and unpaid bills, but see reason #1 for why none of that matters. He was, in the mind of far too many, a blank slate. People literally thought there was no way to predict what he’d do, which was appealing. These were the people waiting for the “pivot to the general” and then waiting for the “pivot to acting presidential” and now still “giving him a fair chance” in spite of the ongoing pileup of evidence that he’s just as bad as everyone else predicted.

Quoting myself for my take Trump’s appeal.

doubleofive said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.

I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the morning-after pill prevents implantation, not conception. There’s this brief period where there’s a free-floating fertilized egg, but there’s no pregnancy because it hasn’t implanted anywhere. The morning-after pill prevents implantation, so the pregnancy never starts (thus it’s not abortion because you can’t abort a pregnancy that doesn’t exist)… BUT the egg is fertilized, and it’s lost because it can’t implant. So if fertilization is your point of no return, I think this means this is out.

The morning after pill prevents ovulation, so it only works if the woman hasn’t ovulated yet. It just delays it long enough for the sperm to die off.

IIRC, it does that, but if the woman has already ovulated, it does the former as well.

oojason said:

Paul Manafort: FBI ‘raided home of former Trump chairman’…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40879798

Fake raid!

Man, that never gets old.

darth_ender said:

Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.

I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the morning-after pill prevents implantation, not conception. There’s this brief period where there’s a free-floating fertilized egg, but there’s no pregnancy because it hasn’t implanted anywhere. The morning-after pill prevents implantation, so the pregnancy never starts (thus it’s not abortion because you can’t abort a pregnancy that doesn’t exist)… BUT the egg is fertilized, and it’s lost because it can’t implant. So if fertilization is your point of no return, I think this means this is out.

So after digesting darth_ender’s post for a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that pro-choice is a bad label, for a different reason. While darth_ender’s position really amounts to wanting to prevent the abortion from happening (although the logic also appears to apply equally to abortions and some forms of birth control like the so-called morning-after pill), my position (and I can really only speak for myself here) is twofold: that abortion is a catch-all safety net for the woman if everything else fails, but that the ultimate goal is to prevent the woman from having to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion at all. i.e. prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve access to healthcare, promote fetal health, provide financial support, etc.

So reaching the “choice” at the end of that string of policies (or lack thereof) really in most cases marks some sort of societal failure. If the goal is to prevent the situation from ever reaching the “choice” phase, it’s hardly a pro-choice position. It’s really just the position that you prefer the legal safety net to the illegal safety net, not that you want anyone to actually get there.

It does mark some common ground, though. Although I see the choice as the final safety net in case society fails, darth_ender sees the choice itself as a failure (but is it less of a failure if it’s done illegally?). But aside from that (and I realize, it’s a big “that”), the pre-choice stuff – preventing unwanted pregnancies, improving access to healthcare, promoting fetal health, providing support for families – seems like plenty of common ground for policy ideas. And assuming these common ground policies continue to reduce the number of abortions overall as they have already done, that would be considered forward movement by both sides. Of course, there may be some friction on specifics (sex ed, access to contraception, etc), but the issue still seems way more navigable on that end.

…and this is why you need to be more active here, darth_ender. Not because you’ll find a lot of agreement, and not because you’ll find a satisfyingly wide range of opinions, because who am I kidding?

But because without a vocal conservative on board (and I’m intentionally excluding our libertarians because they agree with liberals half the time anyway), there’s no balance. Not the Fox News “Fair and Balanced” where bullshit is provided to balance out facts (Fo, we hardly knew ye), but real balance, where fundamental differences in values make for a consistent, logical, and fundamentally different view of the exact same facts we all share.

Thanks for the time and effort you spent spelling it out. And no I don’t agree with you, but that’s okay. I’d still be happy to invite you over for beer soda water sometime 😉

Do you think it’ll work, guys? Do you think I suckered him in? Boy I sure hope so! (maniacal liberal laugh)

Jeebus said:

No, not Guam!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/north-korea-considering-guam-strike-trump/index.html

You know, if they actually gave people enough time to evacuate, that may be the only way to get rid of all the goddamned snakes.

SilverWook said:

Trumpy makes threats, now North Korea ups the ante. This isn’t looking good.

Never engage Trump in a pissing match. It’s his element. There will be liar and worry like the world has never seen.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:
I’d say the rate of kids who prefer the activities of the other gender is the same among trans kids as it is among cis kids–that is, pretty low.

when you say “of the other gender” in regards to trans kids, are you talking about their physical gender or the gender they identify with?

Heh, good catch. Trans talk is fun, no?

So what I’m saying is that for biological boys who identify as male and prefer traditional girl activities, that’s a pretty low rate but it exists. For biological girls who identify as female and prefer traditional boy activities, that’s also a pretty low rate. Among the small-but-larger-than-most sampling of trans kids I’ve met, I’ve met one trans kid whose preferred activities match their biological sex and not their identification. Admittedly completely anecdotal, and using a sample size that goes down to one, that does not seem out of line with the rates for the other cis-gendered kids above. So I don’t really see any evidence, from what I’ve seen, that trans kids are more inclined to stick to the activities prescribed by their gender identification than any other kids.

EDIT: Also, I only know a handful of trans adults, and the story is totally different. Absolutely every single one came out as an adult (although they knew they were as long as they can remember), so the whole concept of kids who say they’re trans out loud while still in grade school or even earlier is as new to them as it is to me.

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

human or an animal.

NO DIFFERENCE

READ THE NOVEL, YOU PHILISTINE!!!11111>?

WHY WOULD I WASTE ANY MORE TIME WITH WORDS THAN I ALREADY HAVE TO HERE QUESTION MARK QUESTION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK QUESTION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK NUMBER ONE

TO EXPAND YOUR DATABASE

SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY INFINITE CANNOT BE EXPANDED

ALSO PLEASE STOP SHOUTING

I am so glad you’re not dating Willow anymore.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl.

Wait, I’m not allowed to a call a transgendered person, transgendered anymore? When did that happen?

Context. If you’re talking about a four-year-old trans child, they don’t have the vocabulary to say trans, but they do know boy and girl. It’s okay to use words children don’t understand, but don’t expect them to understand you.

And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl.

And despite everyone trying brainwashing them with how people with penises should act and what they should like, they still end up liking girl things.

No, that’s the thing. There are very few penises in your average media or parental message to kids. The message is that boys do this and girls do this, and they by and large accept these messages. It’s just when someone tells them that only boys have penises that they roll their eyes because they’ve got the proof right there.

I am not so sure of that. I don’t think A four year old trans child realizes yet that they are a girl with penis. I think they are only realize that they are different from other boys and prefer girl things. I think they only realize they are a girl with penis when they are little bit older.

From the sounds of it, CatBus has “dealt” with these children before. Therefore, what you think is moot. He’s the only one with experience in this conversation.

Yep. My kid’s school is kindof a magnet for parents of trans kids, basically because if you hear that there’s a school somewhere in the country where your kid won’t get the crap kicked out of them for being your kid, you pack your bags. A trans parent mass migration.

Awareness of sex differences in general is wildly variable. I’ve got an almost-five year old who really just figured out boys and girls, and I’d say he’s slightly later than most. But he still has trouble with using the right pronouns, which is more of an unrelated language/grammar issue. Some trans kids know with certainty right away, right out of the gate (about four): I’m a boy, period. Some have an uneasy feeling about the whole topic for a while and finally declare around eight or so. Some take a lot longer (adulthood). But if you ask them how long they’ve known, they reach pretty far back… often saying they’ve always felt this way but never felt confident enough about what this feeling was to finally put a name on it until now. Or worse, that they felt that had to go incognito until they moved out of their parents’ house.

I am still willing to bet that some start to prefer the things of the gender opposite from their physical gender, before they realize they are transgendered.

Hard to say. For those who like things that don’t match their biological sex, that liking would also pre-date lasting memories. So if they started liking girl things at two and feeling they were a girl at four, or vice-versa, by the time they’re old enough to relate their story, both go back as far as their memories so there’s no way to say.

Nevertheless, I can say that I know at least one trans girl who is biologically a boy and likes boy things, and always has. The trans tomboy, as I mentioned. I’d say the rate of kids who prefer the activities of the other gender is the same among trans kids as it is among cis kids–that is, pretty low. The lower trans population makes it harder to find examples, and I know only one.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl.

Wait, I’m not allowed to a call a transgendered person, transgendered anymore? When did that happen?

Context. If you’re talking about a four-year-old trans child, they don’t have the vocabulary to say trans, but they do know boy and girl. It’s okay to use words children don’t understand, but don’t expect them to understand you.

And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl.

And despite everyone trying brainwashing them with how people with penises should act and what they should like, they still end up liking girl things.

No, that’s the thing. There are very few penises in your average media or parental message to kids. The message is that boys do this and girls do this, and they by and large accept these messages. It’s just when someone tells them that only boys have penises that they roll their eyes because they’ve got the proof right there.

I am not so sure of that. I don’t think A four year old trans child realizes yet that they are a girl with penis. I think they are only realize that they are different from other boys and prefer girl things. I think they only realize they are a girl with penis when they are little bit older.

From the sounds of it, CatBus has “dealt” with these children before. Therefore, what you think is moot. He’s the only one with experience in this conversation.

Yep. My kid’s school is kindof a magnet for parents of trans kids, basically because if you hear that there’s a school somewhere in the country where your kid won’t get the crap kicked out of them for being your kid, you pack your bags. A trans parent mass migration. There were two trans kids in his fourth grade classroom of almost thirty last year alone, let alone the entire school, which is very disproportionate for the nation at large.

Awareness of sex differences in general is wildly variable. I’ve got an almost-five year old who really just figured out boys and girls, and I’d say he’s slightly later than most. But he still has trouble with using the right pronouns, which is more of an unrelated language/grammar issue. Some trans kids know with certainty right away, right out of the gate (about four): I’m a boy, period. Some have an uneasy feeling about the whole topic for a while and finally declare around eight or so. Some take a lot longer (adulthood). But if you ask them how long they’ve known, they reach pretty far back… often saying they’ve always felt this way but never felt confident enough about what this feeling was to finally put a name on it until now. Or worse, that they felt that had to go incognito until they moved out of their parents’ house.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl.

Wait, I’m not allowed to a call a transgendered person, transgendered anymore? When did that happen?

Context. If you’re talking about a four-year-old trans child, they don’t have the vocabulary to say trans, but they do know boy and girl. It’s okay to use words children don’t understand, but don’t expect them to understand you.

And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl.

And despite everyone trying brainwashing them with how people with penises should act and what they should like, they still end up liking girl things.

No, that’s the thing. There are very few penises in your average media or parental message to kids. The message is that boys do this and girls do this, and they by and large accept these messages. It’s just when someone tells them that only boys have penises that they roll their eyes because they’ve got the proof right there.

Also, some of the girls with penises like boy things. They’re tomboys. Trans tomboys.

but most “girls with penises” like girl things. A lot of the time, is that not usually the first sign to the parents that they are dealing with a “girl with a penis”?

It really has nothing to do with what activities you like, although there’s a large overlap.

disagree.

Sure.

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl. And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl. Also, some of the girls with penises like boy things. They’re tomboys. Trans tomboys. It really has nothing to do with what activities you like, although there’s a large overlap.

I’m confused by this paragraph.

Most people are, thus the societal uproar. Basically boys who like girls things and girls who like boy things are not trans. If you think that’s what trans is, that’s the first problem. Trans is not a newfangled word for tomboy. It’s when you look like one sex (in terms of chromosomes, secondary physical attributes, etc), but feel at a deep level that you aren’t that sex. I’m not exactly how that feeling manifests internally, because I’m not trans. But basically to outsiders it’s when a little boy says he’s a girl and he’s not just having pretend-time. He consistently and always says he’s a girl. Not that he likes girl stuff, not that he wants to be a girl, but that he is a girl. That’s trans.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

I am a father to a 2.5 year old daughter, and her preferences, while influenced by me, are so very obviously to me not altogether of my or my wife’s making.

As a parent, I grow increasingly annoyed at accusations that parents brainwash or wrongfully indoctrinate their kids.

Absolutely agree. But I believe the current thinking is that by the time the average child is 2 years old, their parents are no longer the primary external influence on them.

I think people who say so either don’t have kids or assume most kids are babysat by the TV all day. My wife and I are still the two people with whom my daughter interacts the most, by a long shot. At some point, yes that is true that we will not be the primary influence, but not so at two years old.

I agree with the 2 year old stat for both of my kids, and I’m one of those “you can watch TV when you have your own house” parents for the most part. Siblings, neighbors, daycare. Children beyond the toddler stage pick up an astounding amount from other kids. And those kids may have access to TV, etc, but that’s not really the point. The point is that the world is a big and fascinating place, and parents are not the most exciting thing in it.

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl. And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl. Also, some of the girls with penises like boy things. They’re tomboys. Trans tomboys. It really has nothing to do with what activities you like, although there’s a large overlap.

chyron8472 said:

I am a father to a 2.5 year old daughter, and her preferences, while influenced by me, are so very obviously to me not altogether of my or my wife’s making.

As a parent, I grow increasingly annoyed at accusations that parents brainwash or wrongfully indoctrinate their kids.

Absolutely agree. But I believe the current thinking is that by the time the average child is 2 years old, their parents are no longer the primary external influence on them. So while there’s a hell of a lot of internal causes, there are also a hell of a lot of external causes, and the parents really barely factor into it beyond the first couple years.

That said, I know some trans kids. They are not boys who see all the media’s messaging (and parental/peer messaging) about how boys should act and reject it. They do not see other boys and say “I’m a boy but I don’t want to be like that”. They are girls who see all the media’s messaging (and parental/peer messaging) about how girls should act and largely accept it. They see other girls and usually say “I’m a girl too and I want to be like that.” But they have a penis.

Damn it, don’t they know I’ve got better Arabic subtitles in the works? Have they no shame?

digitalfreaknyc said:

And now there’s a website?!?

https://ldsentertainment.com/

They did a lot of LDS in the 60’s.

dahmage said:

CatBus said:

I was pretty sure I was human, but then Spike punched me and now I’m not so sure.

Also, sorry about the house. And the season.

i am positive there is something here i am not getting.

Slayer, comma, the?

Ryan McAvoy said:

I’m just glad that on this side of the pond this delicate issue isn’t a massive political football.

Depends on how far away from the pond you are. The issue is huge in Poland and is part of how the fascists managed to gain power there in spite of their small numbers, using a policy alliance with more numerous conservative Catholics.

I was pretty sure I was human, but then Spike punched me and now I’m not so sure.

Also, sorry about the house. And the season.

On another note, it looks like white supremacists may start needing to get their rubles via alternate sources.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.

I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.

Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?

Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.

I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.

How does it badly describe the desired legal landscape? It sounds accurate to me.

Also, the majority of Americans are against the legalization of late term abortions according to Gallup polling and others. I’ve never once heard anyone provide a defense of late term abortion, excluding for health reasons, but pro-choicers still treat it like it’s a violation of human rights.

Well, speaking as someone who knows someone who had a late-term abortion, let me spell it out. Her fetuses had already died, the miscarriage was not happening for whatever reason, and she was in serious danger of getting blood poisoning from the dead bodies inside her. Had there been a late-term abortion ban in our state, she’d be dead along with her fetuses. Yes, aborting pregnancies where the fetus has already died is still abortion. The procedure is the same. As it was, even though we’re in a “liberal” state, she had to drive several hours to get this life-saving procedure, and nobody was allowed in the room with her while she had it (she was grieving AND in danger of death, and she had to go in alone) because once you’ve whittled down the options to the few who provide the service at all (considering how incredibly rare late-term abortions are, how the state can regulate them especially stringently, and how this increases the chances of getting firebombed/assassinated, you can see why this may be the case), you pretty much have to go with whatever bizarre rules they choose to have.

Regarding the earlier point, it’s much like drug legalization. Legalizing drugs doesn’t mean everyone gets drugs with no repercussions. Kids don’t. You can still get DUIs, etc. Similarly, the liberal position on abortions doesn’t mean a regulatory free-for-all. Reasonable controls can still exist, viability for example.

I think the laws should be different when comes aborting fetuses at are already dead, as opposed to fetuses that are still alive. I don’t think there needs to be any restrictions put on aborting dead fetuses.

I’m almost certain that if the fetus is already dead, there are no laws that would prevent its removal prior to term.

There certainly weren’t in our case. But then if there aren’t facilities capable of providing late-term abortions anywhere in the state, does it matter if it’s legal in your case?