Also in the News - Part 2

[The Doctor]

35 minutes ago, bovril said:

The sub thing feels like a story from the early 2010s. Like tragic but also kind of fascinating in a fun way. Before the perma-crisis we've got used to in the last few years. 

It's tragic in a baffling way. It's piloted using a 3rd party game controller from 2005 FFS.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, SeCrEt FoX said:

My thoughts too. Also would decompression sickness play a factor here? I mean if the only got a limited oxygen surely they need saving ASAP but can't bring them up too quickly because of the risk of the bends. It doesn't look good. They got to be located, somehow attach some sort of lifting device and bring them up. Gonna take a while just to do all that. 

That's another reason why a straight hoist op wouldn't work - pressure differentials of over a hundred atmospheres (possibly). Mess with that in the wrong way and it isn't just the bends you have to worry about, you get the Byford Dolphin incident.

 

I think the only way is to send another submarine down there and transfer the passengers, but as @Zear0 points out above, there aren't all that many that can deal with that kind of op at that kind of depth in the first place.

 

3 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

I'm not an engineer but that submarine sounds very poorly designed, to the point where you have to wonder how it was signed off for use. Apparently from what I've read this morning the submarine capsule is locked in place from the outside with no escape hatch, and whilst it has the capability to send GPS data and other radio communications it has to be on the surface to transmit said signals. 

 

I hope the submarine is found in time and all the passengers are rescued as I genuinely cannot comprehend what they must be going through right now. 

I can why they wouldn't go with an escape hatch - if things go wrong there, "getting out" is not going to help you unless by some miracle you're less than 20-30 metres from the surface. Any more than that and it becomes very unlikely to survive for a variety of reasons.

 

Being able to broadcast position at all times and have redundant radio systems that can work even in the most extreme of circumstances should be a given however and I'm not sure how that was signed off on.

 

1 minute ago, bovril said:

I remember that one. Very disturbing. Seemed at the time like an echo of a bygone age but now seems more a preview of current times. 

And the standard rescue plan for that was sending down something to transfer folks abroad too, if I remember right. But then that was only at 108m depth, this will be well over ten times that.

[SpacedX]

36 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

It's tragic in a baffling way. It's piloted using a 3rd party game controller from 2005 FFS.

 

 

 

Apparently this is common in other submersibles which all aim to use the simplest components to control the vehicle, and to ensure the safety of the personnel. In respect of the latter, the vessel "is better off with robust, uncomplicated hardware."

 

How long before Elon Musk weighs on his Twitter platform with another offer of a submersible as he did several years ago? Seriously though, reportedly, the Titan was using Space X satellite coms, so he'll already be in close consultation I would have thought. 

[LiberalFox]

3 hours ago, Captain... said:

Fair point, I should have twigged from the percentages it was multiple answer.

 

I still maintain it will be very hard to admit that you regret transitioning and it is easier to put other factors down as your reason for reversal, rather than admit to yourself you were wrong, but that cannot be measured.

 

Either way, it will be interesting to see how these trends continue.

 

It's also hard to admit if you are a successful professional or otherwise have an inflated ego that you've been sucked into a moral panic and are repeating whatever misrepresented nonsense and conspiracy theories are being put out by alt-right types. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Apparently this is common in other submersibles which all aim to use the simplest components to control the vehicle, and to ensure the safety of the personnel. In respect of the latter, the vessel "is better off with robust, uncomplicated hardware."

 

How long before Elon Musk weighs on his Twitter platform with another offer of a submersible as he did several years ago? Seriously though, reportedly, the Titan was using Space X satellite coms, so he'll already be in close consultation I would have thought. 

Same in space as well as other hostile environments. There's a reason that space tech appears twenty years (at least) behind what is used on Earth - it's because it's proven to work for the most part and ruggedness and redundancy is key.

[worth_the_wait]

3 hours ago, Daggers said:

If there were a god, which there isn’t, you are doing the Lord’s work here - with a far greater level of patience and far fewer swear words than I’d ever manage. *applause*

Thanks for sorting that minor issue out, Daggers.

 

All we need now ... is for someone to explain who (or what) created the Universe and how life came into being? 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

Thanks for sorting that minor issue out, Daggers.

 

All we need now ... is for someone to explain who (or what) created the Universe and how life came into being? 

 

Random quantum fluctuation and chemical iterations happening untold trillions of times over time eventually resulting in something very interesting, in that order.

[The Doctor]

28 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Apparently this is common in other submersibles which all aim to use the simplest components to control the vehicle, and to ensure the safety of the personnel. In respect of the latter, the vessel "is better off with robust, uncomplicated hardware."

 

How long before Elon Musk weighs on his Twitter platform with another offer of a submersible as he did several years ago? Seriously though, reportedly, the Titan was using Space X satellite coms, so he'll already be in close consultation I would have thought. 

Fair enough. I'm not an engineer but I'd imagine most use bespoke hardware and not a $30 windows xp controller though?

[The Doctor]

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/missing-titanic-sub-structural-concerns-2423409

 

Can probably get a good guess what happened then, and it's pretty unpleasant 

[ClaphamFox]

35 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

So for starters they're based out of 55 tufton street: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/lgb-alliance-55-tufton-street-think-tanks/

 

A site that is exclusively for far right think tanks.

 

Launch assisted by CBC consultant Gary Powell who has heavy connections to far right think tanks in the heritage Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom:

 

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/06/03/lgb-alliance-gary-powell-center-bioethics-culture-alliance-defending-freedom-anti-lgbt/

 

Anyone approaching from a reasonable position would see a think tank based out of a site for far right think tanks, launched with help from consultants for far right think tanks and say "yep, that's a far right think tank".

You made a very specific claim - that the LGBA is directly funded by the 'far right'. Your basis for that claim appears to be that they've rented an office space in a building that also houses some libertarian/pro-free market think tanks. That's a bit of a leap - it certainly doesn't come close to providing evidence of direct funding. There are plenty of organisations and media outlets (two of which you cite above) that are vehemently opposed to the the LGBA and who would jump at the chance to prove they're funded by the far right, but so far they've come up with precisely zero evidence for it. If and when they do, I'll be curious to see it. 

 

But ultimately this is just an elaborate variation of the guilt-by-association argument - ie, the frequently-repeated claim that left-wing feminists who oppose aspects of gender theology must be funded by sinister Christian right-wing groups because they happen to share common ground on one issue. It's a logically absurd position, but one which some activists will dutifully trot out because they lack the evidence and/or the intelligence to directly engage on the issues at hand. The teacher in the video I linked this morning is classic (and depressingly common) example of somebody whose sanctimonious passion on this issue far exceeds their ability to discuss it in a coherent way.

 

Do you consider a disabled woman who doesn't want her intimate care to be provided by a biological male to be 'far right'? Is a female swimmer who opposes the inclusion of biological males in her swimming competition 'far right'? Are people who express concerns about vulnerable young people undertaking irreversible medical procedures that render them infertile and rob them of sexual function 'far right'? Are people who think the concept of gender is an absurd confection of religious mysticism and regressive stereotypes 'far right'? 

 

The concerns that some people have about the more extreme demands of transgender activists are not going to go away. I suspect the period in which such people could effectively be silenced by accusations of bigotry or far-right associations is coming to an end, and that this period will be regarded by future generations as a bizarre interregnum in which we temporarily abandoned reasoned debate in favour of emotional hysteria.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

You made a very specific claim - that the LGBA is directly funded by the 'far right'. Your basis for that claim appears to be that they've rented an office space in a building that also houses some libertarian/pro-free market think tanks. That's a bit of a leap - it certainly doesn't come close to providing evidence of direct funding. There are plenty of organisations and media outlets (two of which you cite above) that are vehemently opposed to the the LGBA and who would jump at the chance to prove they're funded by the far right, but so far they've come up with precisely zero evidence for it. If and when they do, I'll be curious to see it. 

 

But ultimately this is just an elaborate variation of the guilt-by-association argument - ie, the frequently-repeated claim that left-wing feminists who oppose aspects of gender theology must be funded by sinister Christian right-wing groups because they happen to share common ground on one issue. It's a logically absurd position, but one which some activists will dutifully trot out because they lack the evidence and/or the intelligence to directly engage on the issues at hand. The teacher in the video I linked this morning is classic (and depressingly common) example of somebody whose sanctimonious passion on this issue far exceeds their ability to discuss it in a coherent way.

 

Do you consider a disabled woman who doesn't want her intimate care to be provided by a biological male to be 'far right'? Is a female swimmer who opposes the inclusion of biological males in her swimming competition 'far right'? Are people who express concerns about vulnerable young people undertaking irreversible medical procedures that render them infertile and rob them of sexual function 'far right'? Are people who think the concept of gender is an absurd confection of religious mysticism and regressive stereotypes 'far right'? 

 

The concerns that some people have about the more extreme demands of transgender activists are not going to go away. I suspect the period in which such people could effectively be silenced by accusations of bigotry or far-right associations is coming to an end, and that this period will be regarded by future generations as a bizarre interregnum in which we temporarily abandoned reasoned debate in favour of emotional hysteria.

 

 

 

A couple of observations on the bolded.

 

- is the argument here that "sinister right-wing Christian groups" have no influence at all in this matter, then? Some clarity would be appreciated.

 

- is it really emotional hysteria when there is a bona fide proven body count as a result of the bigotry being displayed? Not entirely sure the deaths of people just wanting to live their lives should be so easily overlooked.

[Zear0]

22 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Fair enough. I'm not an engineer but I'd imagine most use bespoke hardware and not a $30 windows xp controller though?

Quite common actually, no use re-inventing the wheel.

 

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

You made a very specific claim - that the LGBA is directly funded by the 'far right'. Your basis for that claim appears to be that they've rented an office space in a building that also houses some libertarian/pro-free market think tanks. That's a bit of a leap - it certainly doesn't come close to providing evidence of direct funding. There are plenty of organisations and media outlets (two of which you cite above) that are vehemently opposed to the the LGBA and who would jump at the chance to prove they're funded by the far right, but so far they've come up with precisely zero evidence for it. If and when they do, I'll be curious to see it. 

 

But ultimately this is just an elaborate variation of the guilt-by-association argument - ie, the frequently-repeated claim that left-wing feminists who oppose aspects of gender theology must be funded by sinister Christian right-wing groups because they happen to share common ground on one issue. It's a logically absurd position, but one which some activists will dutifully trot out because they lack the evidence and/or the intelligence to directly engage on the issues at hand. The teacher in the video I linked this morning is classic (and depressingly common) example of somebody whose sanctimonious passion on this issue far exceeds their ability to discuss it in a coherent way.

 

Do you consider a disabled woman who doesn't want her intimate care to be provided by a biological male to be 'far right'? Is a female swimmer who opposes the inclusion of biological males in her swimming competition 'far right'? Are people who express concerns about vulnerable young people undertaking irreversible medical procedures that render them infertile and rob them of sexual function 'far right'? Are people who think the concept of gender is an absurd confection of religious mysticism and regressive stereotypes 'far right'? 

 

The concerns that some people have about the more extreme demands of transgender activists are not going to go away. I suspect the period in which such people could effectively be silenced by accusations of bigotry or far-right associations is coming to an end, and that this period will be regarded by future generations as a bizarre interregnum in which we temporarily abandoned reasoned debate in favour of emotional hysteria.

 

 

 

There is a very clear link between the far right and the LGB Alliance in terms of founding and operations, and rather questionable spending practices (when interrogated in court, they had done nothing they could point to for LGB people in 3 years of operation).  The funding link is implied but is an obvious and reasonable conclusion.

 

The rest has no reflection on anything I've said. I've been explicit, when I talk about the far right and antitrans activism, I'm talking about your LGB Alliance, WoLF, Women's Place UK and the rest. I'm talking about Klu Klux Kellie getting consistent nazi backing on her "Let Women Speak (unless they disagree with me" tour. I'm talking about JK Rowling thanking far right militias like the 3%ers for their support. I've been clear when responding to Mac yesterday that I think most people are decent and have just been mislead by a media blitz (see for instance all the suggestions that GRA reform would allow trans women into women's spaces, that's not the case, trans women already are allowed in unless there's a legitimate aim and an exclusion has been allowed under the EA), and the people you describe very much are misled by that media blitz. 

 

As for reasonable debate being abandoned in favour of hysteria. How do you reasonably debate with people who consider trans people existing to be a huge problem? I go back to Helen Joyce's comments I posted earlier:

 

“[Trans people] are a huge problem to a sane world… Every one of them is a difficulty… they’re going to need things the rest of us don’t need… so the fewer of those people there are the better.”

 

How do you debate and compromise with what is very explicitly a genocidal view point (no bones about it, you cannot get to a world of fewer trans people without genocide).

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

There is a very clear link between the far right and the LGB Alliance in terms of founding and operations, and rather questionable spending practices (when interrogated in court, they had done nothing they could point to for LGB people in 3 years of operation).  The funding link is implied but is an obvious and reasonable conclusion.

 

The rest has no reflection on anything I've said. I've been explicit, when I talk about the far right and antitrans activism, I'm talking about your LGB Alliance, WoLF, Women's Place UK and the rest. I'm talking about Klu Klux Kellie getting consistent nazi backing on her "Let Women Speak (unless they disagree with me" tour. I'm talking about JK Rowling thanking far right militias like the 3%ers for their support. I've been clear when responding to Mac yesterday that I think most people are decent and have just been mislead by a media blitz (see for instance all the suggestions that GRA reform would allow trans women into women's spaces, that's not the case, trans women already are allowed in unless there's a legitimate aim and an exclusion has been allowed under the EA), and the people you describe very much are misled by that media blitz. 

 

As for reasonable debate being abandoned in favour of hysteria. How do you reasonably debate with people who consider trans people existing to be a huge problem? I go back to Helen Joyce's comments I posted earlier:

 

“[Trans people] are a huge problem to a sane world… Every one of them is a difficulty… they’re going to need things the rest of us don’t need… so the fewer of those people there are the better.”

 

How do you debate and compromise with what is very explicitly a genocidal view point (no bones about it, you cannot get to a world of fewer trans people without genocide).

Well, you can make them all closet cases instead, which would also serve their purpose.

[ClaphamFox]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A couple of observations on the bolded.

 

- is the argument here that "sinister right-wing Christian groups" have no influence at all in this matter, then? Some clarity would be appreciated.

 

- is it really emotional hysteria when there is a bona fide proven body count as a result of the bigotry being displayed? Not entirely sure the deaths of people just wanting to live their lives should be so easily overlooked.

Sinister right-wing Christian groups may well have influence in certain circles, but people are capable of reaching their own conclusions. The fact that some Nazis were passionate environmentalists does not mean that modern-day environmentalists can be described as being influenced by Nazis.

 

Any act of violence against somebody because of any aspect of their identity is utterly deplorable. But I've yet to see evidence that people expressing reasonable concerns about safeguarding and privacy, fairness in sports, and the use of life-changing medical procedures against vulnerable people, are responsible for such acts. My point is that these concerns can no longer be shut down with baseless denunciations - those who disagree with them are just going to have to come up with better arguments.

[ClaphamFox]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

There is a very clear link between the far right and the LGB Alliance in terms of founding and operations, and rather questionable spending practices (when interrogated in court, they had done nothing they could point to for LGB people in 3 years of operation).  The funding link is implied but is an obvious and reasonable conclusion.

 

The rest has no reflection on anything I've said. I've been explicit, when I talk about the far right and antitrans activism, I'm talking about your LGB Alliance, WoLF, Women's Place UK and the rest. I'm talking about Klu Klux Kellie getting consistent nazi backing on her "Let Women Speak (unless they disagree with me" tour. I'm talking about JK Rowling thanking far right militias like the 3%ers for their support. I've been clear when responding to Mac yesterday that I think most people are decent and have just been mislead by a media blitz (see for instance all the suggestions that GRA reform would allow trans women into women's spaces, that's not the case, trans women already are allowed in unless there's a legitimate aim and an exclusion has been allowed under the EA), and the people you describe very much are misled by that media blitz. 

 

As for reasonable debate being abandoned in favour of hysteria. How do you reasonably debate with people who consider trans people existing to be a huge problem? I go back to Helen Joyce's comments I posted earlier:

 

“[Trans people] are a huge problem to a sane world… Every one of them is a difficulty… they’re going to need things the rest of us don’t need… so the fewer of those people there are the better.”

 

How do you debate and compromise with what is very explicitly a genocidal view point (no bones about it, you cannot get to a world of fewer trans people without genocide).

There are plenty of transgender activists on social media who openly advocate extreme violence against people who disagree with them. This of course does not mean they represent the views of all transgender activists - it would be absurd to suggest such a thing. Likewise, Helen Joyce is not the Emperor of gender critical people. 

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, you can make them all closet cases instead, which would also serve their purpose.

UN convention on Genocide

 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

 

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

a) Killing members of the group;

b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

 

I'd argue that ticks off B, C and potentially E. 

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

There are plenty of transgender activists on social media who openly advocate extreme violence against people who disagree with them. This of course does not mean they represent the views of all transgender activists - it would be absurd to suggest such a thing. Likewise, Helen Joyce is not the Emperor of gender critical people. 

Those people however are not public figures or mainstream representations, Joyce is, you can literally buy her writings on the subject from Waterstones: https://www.waterstones.com/book/trans/helen-joyce/9780861543724

 

The person she's talking to, Helen Staniland, has been invited to parliament to give evidence to committee 

 

The two are far from comparable 

Edited 20 June 2023 by The Doctor

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Sinister right-wing Christian groups may well have influence in certain circles, but people are capable of reaching their own conclusions. The fact that some Nazis were passionate environmentalists does not mean that modern-day environmentalists can be described as being influenced by Nazis.

 

Any act of violence against somebody because of any aspect of their identity is utterly deplorable. But I've yet to see evidence that people expressing reasonable concerns about safeguarding and privacy, fairness in sports, and the use of life-changing medical procedures against vulnerable people, are responsible for such acts. My point is that these concerns can no longer be shut down with baseless denunciations - those who disagree with them are just going to have to come up with better arguments.

Fair to say.

 

However, how exactly do such "legitimate concerns" match up in terms of importance and therefore priority compared to lives being taken? This all just sounds like a reason to overlook those deaths because facing them is somehow distasteful or there is no good argument involving them that will also involve the other, lesser talking points.

 

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

There are plenty of transgender activists on social media who openly advocate extreme violence against people who disagree with them. This of course does not mean they represent the views of all transgender activists - it would be absurd to suggest such a thing. Likewise, Helen Joyce is not the Emperor of gender critical people. 

Let people know when one of them actually kills someone, as has happened multiple times the other way, ne? Words being matched by deeds there.

 

5 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

UN convention on Genocide

 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

 

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

a) Killing members of the group;

b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

 

I'd argue that ticks off B, C and potentially E. 

That seems pretty black and white to me, fair enough.

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair to say.

 

However, how exactly do such "legitimate concerns" match up in terms of importance and therefore priority compared to lives being taken? This all just sounds like a reason to overlook those deaths because facing them is somehow distasteful or there is no good argument involving them that will also involve the other, lesser talking points.

 

Let people know when one of them actually kills someone, as has happened multiple times the other way, ne? Words being matched by deeds there.

 

That seems pretty black and white to me, fair enough.

Tbf afaik I know, people explicitly describing themselves as gender critical have never murdered a trans person, the murders tend to be by cis men motivated by shame and embarrassment or American style right wing politics.

 

On Genocide, the argument would be that that definition applies to ethnicities, religions, nationalities and races, but really doing the same on the basis of sexuality, gender or disability would still be genocide.

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Tbf afaik I know, people explicitly describing themselves as gender critical have never murdered a trans person, the murders tend to be by cis men motivated by shame and embarrassment or American style right wing politics.

 

On Genocide, the argument would be that that definition applies to ethnicities, religions, nationalities and races, but really doing the same on the basis of sexuality, gender or disability would still be genocide.

 

 

I reckon that those folks are themselves "gender critical" by definition simply because of their deeds (can't get much more "critical", after all), but I hear that.

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

You made a very specific claim - that the LGBA is directly funded by the 'far right'. Your basis for that claim appears to be that they've rented an office space in a building that also houses some libertarian/pro-free market think tanks. That's a bit of a leap - it certainly doesn't come close to providing evidence of direct funding.

They are though and everyone knows it. The whole way they structure their groups is to hide the funding network. I used to have to work with them all - and am currently in a hotel with a shedload of Tufton St fvckers for the next three days. 
 

I can tell you precisely where the cash comes from and who they are linked to but I can’t give you one citeable source. You’re going to have to trust me that when it comes to this matter I am genuinely a ITK. Or don’t, I don’t care 😂

 

From the Koch Brothers to the Proud Boys, from Charlie Kirk to Philip Morris International, from Shell to the fruitloop MPs who supported Truss and Johnson. They are all tied into the net with money sloshing about. 
 

And the space in Tufton St wasn’t “rented”, the location isn’t an accident - this is all about leveraging anger for political ends in the same way they got people to hate and fear and vote for Brexit. 
 

They are Far Right. 

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Quite common actually, no use re-inventing the wheel.

 

Nice try, That is clearly just one intense game of Call of Duty 

[The Doctor]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I reckon that those folks are themselves "gender critical" by definition simply because of their deeds (can't get much more "critical", after all), but I hear that.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's helpful to dilute gender critical the same way TERF has been. Like, it originally sprung up as a term for a specific chism in radical feminism, around the likes of michfest and the west coast lesbian feminist conference and the fighting that broke out there over a trans woman (Beth Elliott) being on the billing, now you see people on twitter chucking round TERF to describe people like Boris Johnson, who's never had so much as a feminist bone in his body. Gender critical now fulfils the same role, describing opposition to trans rights on the pretext that they impact women's rights, has a very real political influence, and diluting it down to include Joe Bloggs from Alabama who thinks women should be barefoot and in the kitchen and hates trans women for being "poofter fags" is counterproductive to then organising against that political influence 

[worth_the_wait]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Random quantum fluctuation and chemical iterations happening untold trillions of times over time eventually resulting in something very interesting, in that order.

I would've thought that thinking you go from from Hydrogen, Helium, a few "metals" and some dust to life, by random quantum fluctuation and chemical iterations, is as big a leap of faith, as believing in god!     (Not that I'm necessarily saying god exists, by the way ... just not ruling it out.)