Shouldn't be but they tend to be.

Sometimes people just straight up use them as agree/disagree buta lot of folks struggle to admit that an argument in favour of something with which they disagree can still be a worthwhile argument.

Plus the idea that trans rights lost Democrats the election is ridiculous. There were zero trans speakers in the DNC, and Harris did cater to transphobes by saying she will go with state laws.

You think republicans were watching the DNC or are listening to Harris on trans rights?

There is a reason that one of the ads the trump campaign ran most heavily was about trans issues and casting Harris as too liberal on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BXYjoAzq0&ab_channel=TheJimHeathChannel (it's a horrific ad, so uhh, trigger warning but you can see what they're doing.)

How many conservatives do you know socially and how many of them didn't say this was a victory against woke?

so the question remains, who else are you willing to throw under the bus because you think that their rights are too edgy?

I mean, I just answered the logic of the question. I'm not sure what the answer is, nor am I confident abandoning part of the Dem coalition works as we'd split the progressive vote which is death in a 2 party system.

BUT. If the Far Right keeps winning elections, which they generally seem to do by killing the Left on culture issues (this keeps playing out across the world) this will doom billions of the poorest on Earth.

I'd ask you a similar question. Forget trans rights, say the abolitionists had included gay rights but back in the 1800s. Unless you have a wild perspective of history, it's pretty safe to assume they wouldn't have won nearly as much popular support as they did. So, how much longer would you have allowed slavery in order to be morally right but unable to help either slaves or homosexuals?

Do I wish the world were better? Absolutely! But, we live in the world that is, not the world we wish it was.

Finally, this is exactly what utilitarianism is. Utilitarianism is trying to promote the maximum good for the maximum number of people. The chief criticisms are generally around situations much like this, where the philosophy implies you are willing to inflict unfair suffering on a small number of people to maximize the collective gain of everyone else (technically including the small number.) What do you think Utilitarianism is?

Hey there, sorry for the delay! This has to be one of the best argued responses with which I disagree.

I think you're right that the republicans have significant division but I think with trump in the actual presidency, they may be a lot less fractured. The freedom caucus wing takes orders from him and the rank and file are terrified of being primaried from their Right flank, as has happened to so many moderate Republicans.

That being said, I fully agree that hey, let them trip over themselves and fail if they don't have the votes (I think back to Mcain's infamous thumbs down.) And I'm basically okay denying those votes. I don't think you need bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.

But, when more than half the country rejected you, I don't think the right answer is to hold temper tantrums and silly stuff like not doing photo ops around the presidential transition.

simply voting no on literally every single committee hearing, bill, and budget proposal for the next four years.

Doesn't seem helpful and gives the republicans more ammo than we'd like. It might feel good in the moment but I think the US is in a very dangerous place right now and I'll put winning back political power over trying to stop government from functioning. (Especially when, holding the trifecta, that makes it easier for hard line Republicans to win over their more moderate colleagues on changing procedure/decorum etc.)

Yes, Dems try too hard to accommodate but I think that's the result of their coalition which skews heavily to highly educated, high income folks who actually pay attention to the nuances of politics. If we simply become the anti government party part 2, it hurts our coalition without any obvious gains.

Again, I'm not saying they need to compromise on all or even much legislation. But blindly trying to gum up all the works by voting no on every committee hearing etc just doesn't seem useful. I dunno, whom are you trying to win over with that strategy? Is it a moral victory that somehow encourages more Dem supporters? Does it somehow appeal to the middle who drifted over to trump and apparently don't agree that he is an existential threat? Is it just trying to limit damage? I just don't see a convincing win scenario and a reasonable amount of possible downsides (gives republicans ammo, loses independents, some of the Dem coalition etc.)

I think the logic is essentially right wingers keep winning elections. Their supporters tend to argue first and foremost it's a win against "woke" while the money/interests behind it tend to be "let's burn this planet down and get ALL the oil." If the Left conceded on say trans issues or whatever, maybe we'd win, whixh would undoubtedly benefit the billions who may die because of climate change issues.

(Unsure if this would work or if it'd just split the left etc myself but I think that's the logic.)

An analogy a friend made while making this argument was that the Civil War was essential for Black emancipation etc and we can all agree it was a good thing. BUT, especially in those days, if abolitionists had also demanded trans recognition or whatever, maybe fewer states would've joined the Union or maybe the movement would've never gotten off the ground and there's a possible future wherein Black people might still be slaves because, even with the best intentions, we didn't pick our battles.

It's a utilitarian answer to a Sophie's choice.

Trump can incite a riot to attempt to overthrow democracy but Democrats are the ones who want to avoid looking petulant? Fuck off.

And how does stupid shit like refusing a photo opp while transferring power help us in any way?

Remember, Dems just lost the popular vote, the people aren't with us. I'd argue this was at least in part because in 2016 we also took trump's bait every time and screamed fascism at every stupid thing he said. And the vast majority of voters remember that, right, there were free and fair elections two years and four years after.

Maybe of screaming until people tune us out again, we can approach this one halfway seriously?

simply voting no on literally every single committee hearing, bill, and budget proposal for the next four years.

That has worked because Republicans held a branch of government. Dems have no power or leverage. How do you envision this slowing anything down when Republicans hold the trifecta?

I'm not saying Dems should vote with Republicans but I would save our hystrionics for matters that are going to be important, not say refusing to take photos or stymieing the peaceful transfer of power.

I dunno, I think the Dems are going to have more success picking very specific and important battles.

If things go as bad as they might, the Dems will need to appeal to more than just the converted, they'll have to win over some percentage of those who chose not to vote or voted trump.

Being whiny bitches who can't shake their opponents hand or whatnot isn't going to help and makes us look petulant instead of serious, which may diminish the effectiveness of pointing out serious future transgressions.

As America is legit in danger, more than ever the Dems need to be the adults and conserve their political outrage for specific, important and hopefully winnable (in the public eye) battles. Anything else may make us ineffectual when it comes to making a difference.

My first instinct would be to lean on whatever digital stuff got you through covid?

Or maybe there's drop in sessions of whatever hobbies you enjoy doing with folks? I've met a lot of awesome immigrants playing rec league soccer.

Having read the other comments, is there much of a Russian community where you are? Even restaurants or some such?

Yup!

So, I'd argue there's two parts two good sex, the orgasm and the whole post coital endorphins, blood flow and good vibes described above.

For all but the orgasm, it's not quite the same but after any exercise where I well and truly push myself just a bit past what I thought I could do feels fairly similar.

If you're not in shape, swimming is pretty good for this as no matter what shape you're in, you can push yourself to exhaustion without much risk of hurting yourself. When you're done the lap after the one you thought would be your last, hug the wall, gasp for air and feel the triumph flow through you. If you're not feeling rubbery, exhausted and amazing, next time, swim for longer and push through the mental wall that made you stop. Either way, you can always jump in the hot tub and feel like a champ.

As for the orgasm, picture a longer sneeze. Or the magnificent release of a pee that you've held in too long.

"None of the Tiktoks I saw said anything about that, are you sure?"

I haven't watched it in maybe a decade so I forget the plot details. But for all her faults, I liked the notion of including someone who was meant to be sympathetic while also defending the sorts of folks whom we generally disagree with. Especially with how both sides are at each others throats now, characters like that seem more important than ever.

Regardless, the combination of Sorkin dialogue and some great set pieces just really worked for me. Enjoy the heck out of the show!

It's worth reading the article. You might be conflating a report released in 2024 with the numbers from 2023.

People have called for it but it slowed during the war etc. There's a reason Smotrich waited until after the American election to announce that he was tasking government officials to draw up plans etc.

Gaza violence is not the same as annexing the West Bank.

I don't encounter a lot of ads but I was just listening to the Economist talk about this one which the trump campaign played over and over again and it struck me as a small window of an answer to your question.

The ad strikes me as cruel but the thrust (and I imagine there's a blend of fact and fiction) is that Harris used tax money to pay for a woman's sex change after being convicted of first degree murder and serving life in prison. They also have Harris saying she was using her power to "push forward the movement and the agenda."

Even for supporters of trans rights, I imagine not everyone loves having to defend using tax money to pay for expensive gender surgery, especially on criminals.

So I could see people, who might otherwise be supportive of trans folks in their own lives, being "against trans people" on an issue framed like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BXYjoAzq0&ab_channel=TheJimHeathChannel

I just don’t think it’s as much of a random fad for kids as conservatives worry.

I agree. And the science might as well!

But I think Conservatives look at recent research, especially anything touching social sciences, as the product of what they view as an extremely liberal academic elite. Admittedly, I am similarly skeptical of most reports and analyses by the Heritage foundation and the like even when they share their methodology.

A charitable version of the conservative parent viewpoint might be something like "if my kid is genuinely trans, of course I'll support them. But I am a parent and know best about how to protect them, even if it is from themselves."

At the end of the day, I think a lot of conservative parents are opposed to the idea that government, or experts, or whomever could over-rule them about their own kids. Especially on a subject about which they probably feel somewhat uncomfortable.

I also don't think religion is a requirement for close mindedness, though there is significant overlap.

I gotta admit, I don't know my trek as well as most of you. Might have seen this as a kid but looking at the non porn Unification, Stephen Root AND Leonard Nimoy? I might have to watch this and uhhh, any full length unedited sequels, authorized or not.

[My microwave is] full of esoteric lights and dials and meters that I would never understand.

That's very kind of you!

We became serious friends which was much better for us. (She also wanted, and now has, kids. I didn't and don't.) But I was one her bridesmaids/dude at her wedding.

I don't know what the answers are!

A lot of this stuff is mostly at the state level which seems almost reasonable.

I imagine the big actual fight on this would come down to when are parents able to over-ride their kids wishes and vice versa. It's a shitty battle for trans kids; if you don't let them access medicine early, it puts them on a brutal path as you pointed out. But I also can't imagine conservatives would be chill letting their kids alter their sex at such a young age. (From the parents' perspective, what if this is just some teenage drama with lifelong repercussions?)

We don't let kids get tattoos (and thank Christ for that, otherwise I'd probably have Wolverine fighting the Zerg on my chest or something) this seems bigger.

I dunno, like most real world issues, it's tricky. And at the fun intersection of children and a rapidly changing perspective of gender, well damn, there are going to be some ugly fights.