I've got a Joke about homeopathy...

...but it doesn't work.

And then on top of all this we now seem to have more and more populist snake oil nonsense like 'solar roadways', actually starting to siphon government funding away from real projects.

Good article BTW, thank you.

Nor in fact are they whales

Proof positive!

The Aliens used wood and pebbles!!!

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

Wut?

Edit: Oh I see what you mean now. It's because of how the video has been cut together. "She" made sense in the original lecture as a follow on from what he was talking about before.

I can see why it seems funny in isolation though now I've noticed it.

Mutually assured destruction I think is often woefully overlooked as a stabilising force in the world.

I don't think it's at all a co-incidence that since nuclear proliferation we have only seen wars vs non nuclear nations. You can never really win meaningfully vs a nation that has the thermo-nuclear trump card in their back pocket.

When superpowers come to blows now, proxy wars are the only realistic option. That may still suck for the poor bastards that get caught up with it, but it does mean a world war is somewhat off the table (even if they like to rattle the sabres from time to time).

Also Starship troopers is an oft misunderstood book I think. Some people get so hung up on the underlying idea of a Military dictatorship that they miss much of the nuance and wisdom woven into it.
I'm not even sure Heinlein was even necessarily advocating such a world, but rather using it as a narrative device to explore how our societies really work once you drop the wishful pretences (especially the stable ones).

It seems like there is perhaps some intrinsic relationship between peace and the capacity for effective and controlled violence. There are few people as calm and non aggressive as the ones who truly know they have nothing to fear from you in a fight.

I started to loose it somewhere around the 1 min mark.

I failed!

Thing that really sticks in my throat here.

The most generous current estimate of trans % by population is 0.6%.

The mother of the child here is a vehement and very pro-active trans rights campaigner.

I don't know the proportion of life long trans campaigners, but I'm pretty sure the odds of them having a trans kid are vanishingly small. Much more so for such an extreme and unusual case as this one.

We are both relegated to pure speculation here but, I know at least one example (my brothers partner) of a girl being raised by a lesbian mother, who had deep emotional problems instilled into her from a very early age. i.e. men are bad, she should be attracted to women etc.

Took her well into adulthood to get over that and she is still a mixed up person (mother is to put it politely; a bit mental)

This is a different example of course, but the underlying problem and how it messed her up for most of her childhood seems like it could be similar. We are so used to the prejudices against "normal" gender roles and sexual orientation that it is perhaps easy to forget that this can work just as easily in reverse.
The problem can essentially be asshole parents instilling a mixed up and narrow concept of what is normal. Which either restricts their existing exploration of identity, or actively coerces towards a particular outcome.

IDK, you may just be right and the kid manifested this underlying genetic problem at a very early age. Her mother may be a perfectly even handed and caring person etc. etc.

It just concerns me that it could so easily be the other way around. But you are right about many people simply adopting alternative gender roles rather than physically transitioning. But if this kid starts the hormone blockers, she is sterile for life and will undergo irreversible changes in her development.

If she were to change her mind later in life as she matures... that 40% suicide rate is no joke

& yeh there are certainly strong arguments from inside the trans community against ideas of non binary genders. Most trans people are one gender wishing to transition to, or be treated as the other gender.

I can see an argument for perhaps having a third intermediary gender, beyond that it seems more like lifestyle choices than actual gender issues. e.g. like you say a T.V. man who likes to dress as a woman isn't someone who wants to be a woman, or even gay. It's just a man who likes to feel beautiful in a dress and makeup (to quote Eddie Izzard "male lesbian").

Anyway I don't think you have said anything offensive. This is a mire of a subject and anyone reasonable is going to appreciate your (our) confusion & concerns.

So after a brief google-foo: The mother of the child is an active trans campaigner (what a co-incidence!). And the child in question began transition at.....wait for it.....FOUR FUCKING YEARS OLD!

Mind-blown

Is there someone better educated on the physiological and psychological science of this that can explain why gender transition at that age is not child abuse?

Because from everything I understand about how complicated and frequently fraught with remorse and confusion that issue is for adults....how in the name of fuck can someone that young be mature enough to make that kind of life changing decision? (or indeed have it made for them)

Gender dysphoria is usually only diagnosed in adulthood and usually requires years of psychotherapy and adoption of the desired gender role before any respectable doctor in the UK would allow the transformative process of hormone therapy to begin. (let alone reassignment surgery)

The suicide rate for transitioned people is about 40% I'm told. This appears to mostly be a combination of depression brought on by using the idea of transition to avoid other underlying emotional problems and/or remorse in later years.

None of this is to say people should not transition. There is plenty of evidence to support many a diagnosis of dysphoria and many a success story. But the thing those happy transitions seem to have in common is a very through and mature understanding of themselves.

i.e. things a child is incapable of doing when their mind and personality are still developing.

IDK, the very idea deeply concerns me. Is she actually happy transitioned? Or has she had that idea re-enforced by her parents and such?

I have this hypothetical vision of them panicking at their little boy playing with dolls and tea sets and finding solace in the idea that they are just the wrong gender, instead of being "odd".

I know how silly that sounds, but especially in the south of the USA, gender transition is sometimes considered more socially acceptable than homosexuality and/or being an effeminate male (or so some people in the trans community tell me).

Am I just behind the times on this one? Seems like there would have to be some pretty fucking spectacular medical science to back it up where children that young are concerned...

For those not in the know, Canada apparently just passed a bill that makes "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” legally prosecutable.

i.e. calling someone He or She when they would prefer xe, ve, per, ae, zie (or anything else they care to make up), that is now legally actionable.

I suspect however the reality of the situation may be overblown. Some people are claiming it's now a hate crime which seems a little misleading.
Though that it is technically somewhat correct, the law really just added gender identity to the existing list of classes protected from "hate speech". That is to say, a legal offence predicated on apparent prejudice or hatred towards a specific minority group.

Now the idea of hate speech laws themselves is another can of worms (I have my misgivings). But as far as I can tell the law isn't really about casual use of pronouns, so much as institutional prejudice against said groups, or extremist rhetoric ("Kill all the queers" or whathaveyou).

Still strikes me as questionable, but it's the precedent of having hate speech law in general that concerns me (or rather the ripe potential for misuse).

IDK, complicated issue.

Edit: To be clear that's context for the joke, not the content

I'm pretty much with you on this one dude. But I think arguing kidnapping & lethal force is a bit of a stretch even in (most of) the USA.

I realise you aren't advocating for that anyway, but I suspect in most jurisdictions lethal force here (or even just a good kicking) would have been a trip to jail.

"Spirit of the law" is very significant in most courts. While this could be defined as kidnapping on the most narrowly technical of terms, it would take a hell of a lawyer to make it stick don't you think?

It definitely wouldn't fly in the UK at any rate.

I can only take the video author at his word, but he claims to have repeatedly attempted to deescalate before he started filming.

And even then, the video begins with him attempting to explain that she has no legal right to detain him in an even tone of voice.

The woman appears belligerent and is acting well outside of her legal rights by physically blocking him.

I think the guy acted with remarkable restraint under the circumstances. The woman shows no signs of being open to reason or changing her mind.

Some people simply cannot be reasoned with. And I say that as a mental health worker who deals with rude and belligerent people constantly. (frighteningly often not the service users but the general public they have to deal with)

I do entirely feel the sentiment of what you are saying. It would be a better world, but it's not the world we live in. Lamentably, wishing will not make it otherwise.