"Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being destroyed by the Democrat Party and the media. ... We're standing at the precipice and we're looking into the abyss." https://t.co/jOlcM6dMD4
Not sure who needs to hear this, but if you're continuing to baselessly argue that there was widespread fraud and/or that the election was somehow "stolen" from Trump, you're encouraging people to attack again.
It's time to stop lying to your audiences, to your constituents.
"Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being destroyed by the Democrat Party and the media. ... We're standing at the precipice and we're looking into the abyss." https://t.co/jOlcM6dMD4
More from Parker Molloy
This is what pisses me off about the constant bad faith victimhood crap people on the right do:
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
Shot/Chaser pic.twitter.com/NwAZg7TTrL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 2, 2021
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
I told you they’d bring this up
I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see
Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.
There are 3 important moments in that transcript.
1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.
2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “
Okay!
Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
Right-wing media have essentially convinced themselves that Trump never said "very fine people." They're lying. https://t.co/5960NPMYLJ
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) February 11, 2021
I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see
The Fine People Hoaxers are trying hard to keep you from reading the actual FULL transcript because then you would see how the hoax was pulled off with devious editing. https://t.co/PQLj0DWuPj
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) February 11, 2021
Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.
Trump defense talking about how the then-president was praising the peaceful protests at Charlottesville that occurred "the night before" the violence on Saturday. That was the night where the torch-bearing crowd chanted "Jews will not replace us." pic.twitter.com/HCKS6Q9LBY
— Anthony Zurcher (@awzurcher) February 12, 2021
There are 3 important moments in that transcript.
1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.
2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “
Okay!
Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
There are a number of reasons bills like these are wrongheaded. One is that it tries to implement the same kind of one-size-fits-all solution that opponents of trans inclusion claim to oppose.
But let’s get nuanced for a minute...
Do trans women and girls have an advantage in sports over other women and girls?
I’m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.
What sport are we talking about?
How old are people competing in it?
What sort of hormone treatment has the person in question had and for how long?
Those are all factors that play into the fairness question.
Trying to implement broad policies in the name of ensuring fairness can actually have the opposite of the intended effect.
Take the case of Mack Beggs.
A few years back, Beggs was a high school student in Texas. He was a wrestler, and wanted to do it at the college level.
Beggs is a trans man, meaning his birth certificate said female on it. Like many trans guys, he takes testosterone as part of his medical transition.
He wanted to wrestle. Specifically, he wanted a spot on his school’s boys team.
He wasn’t allowed.
But let’s get nuanced for a minute...
NEW: Hawaii Rep. @TulsiGabbard introduces bill called \u2018Protect Women\u2019s Sports Act\u2019 \u2014 would clarify Title IX protections to be based on biological sex, which would impact transgender athletes participating in athletic programs for women and girls @KITV4 pic.twitter.com/VcDDgO1mFL
— Tom George (@TheTomGeorge) December 10, 2020
Do trans women and girls have an advantage in sports over other women and girls?
I’m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.
What sport are we talking about?
How old are people competing in it?
What sort of hormone treatment has the person in question had and for how long?
Those are all factors that play into the fairness question.
Trying to implement broad policies in the name of ensuring fairness can actually have the opposite of the intended effect.
Take the case of Mack Beggs.
A few years back, Beggs was a high school student in Texas. He was a wrestler, and wanted to do it at the college level.
Beggs is a trans man, meaning his birth certificate said female on it. Like many trans guys, he takes testosterone as part of his medical transition.
He wanted to wrestle. Specifically, he wanted a spot on his school’s boys team.
He wasn’t allowed.
If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa
The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.
And in fact, this predates Trump.
In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop
That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the
In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.
The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.
And in fact, this predates Trump.
In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop
That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the
In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.
More from News
You May Also Like
So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.
The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.
This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.
The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."
This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
If everyone was holding bitcoin on the old x86 in their parents basement, we would be finding a price bottom. The problem is the risk is all pooled at a few brokerages and a network of rotten exchanges with counter party risk that makes AIG circa 2008 look like a good credit.
— Greg Wester (@gwestr) November 25, 2018
The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.
This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.
The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."
This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
