You sure showed that strawman. He'll never get up again. Support? No. Throwing dice? Yeah, kinda. You and your binaries. Time to lose the Ayn Rand, Rorschach.
People have short memories, and the bits that seem to stick the most are the pleasant things. Especially memories of childhood, when you lacked the experience to properly interpret what was going on around you. Whatever you experienced in childhood seems "normal" to you in most cases, and is viewed through the rosy lens of innocence. Now look at the way American history is taught in most schools. It's an overview that glosses past a lot of the messy details. In 1776 a bunch of very wise men gathered in Philadelphia for a few days and came up with America. Most kids don't get much more detail than that unless they're into history, and that simplistic view of things colors all their future perceptions of the topic. I've been actively researching the founding period for some years now - basically the French and Indian War up through the War of 1812 - and yeah, there was a lot of shady shit going on as the thirteen colonies went through the revolutionary period. The mistake a lot of modern folks make, tho, is applying 21st Century moral and ethical standards to an 18th century society. It's easy to look back from 250 years later and say things like "but slaves!" or "but women!" but that was the normal way of things at that time. I have no doubt that 250 years from now, our descendants are going to look back on our time with much the same sense of horrified superiority at our backwards antics. That the founders were able to bring about a system of governance that has proven so successful, flexible, and ultimately positive is a wonder.
I still don't understand why it's a mistake. If I were somehow ressurrected in 250 years and saw mu descendants hadn't solved any of the issues that plagued my life today... and somehow hadn't solved the issues we grapple with, I'd be appalled!! I have no doubt they will look back at us as primitives. Savages even! Why should I revere a slave monger?
How would you feel if all visible evidence of those issues were hidden, destroyed or redacted somehow? We do not learn from history by hiding from it.
You shouldn't revere a slave monger. But you should understand the society in which that slave monger operated. If there were no social pressures against his activities, if everyone around him viewed it as normal, if entire generations had been raised on the belief that slavery was an acceptable institution, what urge would that slave monger feel to change his ways? You'd have to hope he'd be one of the people to recognize slavery for the abomination it is and find a better way to make a living, but since slavery was perfectly normal in his time, you can't impose your belief on him from more than two centuries later and count it a failing for him. Two centuries from now people will likely look back on how we do health care and feel pretty much the same way about that as we do about slavery. And like we hope for our putative slave monger, it is slowly being recognized that our health care situation is completely fucked up and we're starting to look at fixing it.
A lot of people revere Lincoln despite his actions as president. Should we not praise Lincoln for the good he accomplished?
Calling a trans woman "a man in the dress" and "tranny" is all in good fun. They like it. I mean, they never say so, but you can just tell. Y'know, like how all those women liked Trump grabbing their crotch, and nerds really like getting atomic wedgies from jocks. The PC police just hate fun. How'm I doin? If I mic-ed the inside of your head that about what I'd hear?
I think it's fair to say that Lincoln was a flawed individual who did some good things and bad things. He's revered for finally ending slavery, but he's no hero among Indigenous nations for that mass execution of Native Americans in 1863. FDR isn't loved by Japanese Americans despite the admittedly strong social net he put forth.
so are there any American leaders/icons who don't deserve to have their statues torn down/destroyed/removed? Fuck wads destroyed a Frederick fucking Douglass statue last summer. Give me a fucking break already!
yeah, I had to go back and parse lanzperson's and alphaperson's posts that he referenced. That's not the argument they're making. Absolutely we should apply today's moral and ethical standards to an 18th century society. What else would you use? Unless you're an 18th century white land owning bigot. And Al-person: no one is saying to hide or redact the issues (as fisherperson states). They need constant analysis as more is known and as we evolve as a society.
It depends on the individual's assessment, and I certainly won't countenance yours. But in my view, the stain of slavery while enormous isn't the sum total of many of these men. I don't revere the Founding Fathers, they made huge and dramatic mistakes that we are still facing now, but they also brought forth a new age where there was more freedom, even if initially that freedom was limited to people like them. The claim of democracy being an ideal unto itself ultimately set forth the changes that overthrew many of the institutions they were involved in. What I keep seeing as problematic is the conceit that there is just one truth. In some respects I understand that, there is just one thing that happened, and perspective by itself isn't a valid way of countering that. Some perspectives are complete and utter bullshit, like the neo-Confederate's lost cause. Washington was both a slave master and perhaps the single most important person to the creation of the US. And that success was a huge inspiration for burgeoning democrats across the world, and even invoked by anti-colonial forces 150 years later. We can understand both these truths at the same time. I can understand a personal choice not to revere the man, but hopefully you can see why many still do, even with such a massive stain on his character.
What "objective reality" might that be? (no, I don't pollute my brain with whatever garbage flows through Joe Rogan's microphone) I can guess, but I don't want to rebutt a claim I'm guessing at.
Here's the actual quote from Rogan. “She calls herself a woman but I tend to disagree. She used to be a man but now she has had, she’s a transgender … And she wants to be able to fight women in MMA. I say no f***ing way. I say if you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You’re a fucking man. That’s a man, OK?” Joe Rogan said in a 2013 episode of his podcast. Can Dicky tell us what's so anti-trans about that statement? It seems like a reasonable position to me.
gotta agree. Whether you like Rogan or not what he said - taken as a "stand alone" issue - is exactly right. MMA is not tennis or baseball - it can be extremely damaging and dangerous. The whole focus of the sport is intense physical contact. Bones get broken all the time even in the female fights - orbital bones, noses, fingers, arms, and lower legs for the most part. Making it even more dangerous by a giving a trans fighter even a slight but measurable difference doesn't make sense from a safety viewpoint.
Are there still weight categories in MMA? If so, putting a trans fighter up against folk of the other gender that are in the applicable weight class can't be considered any more of an advantage than putting any two cis fighters in that class against each other.
do you not understand that weight classes aside a former 135 pound male* has a deeper gas tank (larger lungs) wider shoulder (longer reach) and slightly thicker bones than 135 pound female? Even if their hormone levels are exactly the same - yes everyone competing in elite level MMA in America is drug tested constantly - the former male has physical advantages. Follow the science - you can google what I just said if you don't believe me. Granted you might know more about MMA than Joe Rogan and the commissioners who regulate MMA but I'm guessing that you do not. That said what I said about MMA also applies to gloved boxing and bare knuckle as well of course. * referring to a male who transitioned well after puberty
You now what would fix all that? Letting trans women got through female puberty with puberty blockers. You know what's stopping that? Christian moral crusaders. You know what party has all the Christian moral crusaders? The one you vote for.
For starters, the idea that “having a dick” is the defining characteristic of either biological sex or gender identity.
what I don't feel good about is kids making the decision at a young age to be on puberty blockers. Granted some kids might be mature/intelligent enough to make such a life changing decision but I sure don't think it should be taken lightly. Just my 2 cents. As for all the Christian moral crusaders being right wing and/or Republicans? You're straight up full of shit. Plenty of left wing parents wouldn't want their kids on puberty blockers either. Tell me I'm wrong. Better yet prove me wrong. No matter who somebody votes for (or claims to vote for) parents are still going to be parents and that's a fact.
For those who are actually interested in further understanding the issue and are willing to take 20 minutes out of their time to listen to what Joe Rogan has to say, here's a video of him explaining his rationale. I know nobody will do that because it's easier to take a quote out of context and slam him for not going along with the left wing narrative.
