Also in the News - Part 2

[Captain...]

7 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I'm not sure that's a distinction worth making. like the Nazis also would have denied Izzard's gender - whether you consider trans women to be women or to be men in dresses doesn't change that the Nazis targeted trans people for extermination and saying izzard would have been safe in Nazi Germany is denying that for my money.

 

I struggle to believe anyone could genuinely not be aware of the implications of insinuating that a rich Jewish person is pulling the strings of the government and advancing their own agenda when that is one of the most common antisemitism conspiracy theories out there (and was literally one of the things Corbyn was criticised for for that mural)

The point Lineham was making was that Izzard is a straight white blonde male and as such would be favoured by the Nazis as part of the Aryan race. His point was, in my opinion, a transphobic joke at Izzard's expense. He was not denying anything that the Nazis did, just saying that Izzard, a trans woman, would not have been persecuted because she's a man. 

 

Don't get me wrong it's a vile thing to post, but the intention is gender denial not holocaust denial.

[The Doctor]

11 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The point Lineham was making was that Izzard is a straight white blonde male and as such would be favoured by the Nazis as part of the Aryan race. His point was, in my opinion, a transphobic joke at Izzard's expense. He was not denying anything that the Nazis did, just saying that Izzard, a trans woman, would not have been persecuted because she's a man. 

 

Don't get me wrong it's a vile thing to post, but the intention is gender denial not holocaust denial.

but the point is the Nazis would see her as such and then still kill her for being a degenerate in their eyes. saying she'd not be persecuted is literally denying what the Nazis did (aggressive persecution of anyone LGBT)

[Captain...]

18 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

but the point is the Nazis would see her as such and then still kill her for being a degenerate in their eyes. saying she'd not be persecuted is literally denying what the Nazis did (aggressive persecution of anyone LGBT)

Yes, but that is not the point Lineham was making, Lineham is denying Izzard's gender, he's a massive transphobe not a holocaust denier, he is stating that Izzard is a man and is attracted to women so therefore would not be persecuted by Nazis.

 

Put it this way: His assertion that Nazis didn't persecute straight white blonde men is true, his assertion that Izzard is a straight male is the falsehood that he is playing upon. 

 

If you disagree with the above, fair enough, I won't convince you otherwise so I'll stop here. It is still a vile comment either way.

[Daggers]

I evacuated from Venuezuela when the civil insurrection was about to kick off. 
 

For the life of me, I don’t understand anyone crying about the government not helping them to escape from the Sudan. 
 

Your time to escape from the Sudan was during the last couple of weeks. I loathe this government - but this sure as shit isn’t on them. 

[The Doctor]

45 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Yes, but that is not the point Lineham was making, Lineham is denying Izzard's gender, he's a massive transphobe not a holocaust denier, he is stating that Izzard is a man and is attracted to women so therefore would not be persecuted by Nazis.

 

Put it this way: His assertion that Nazis didn't persecute straight white blonde men is true, his assertion that Izzard is a straight male is the falsehood that he is playing upon. 

 

If you disagree with the above, fair enough, I won't convince you otherwise so I'll stop here. It is still a vile comment either way.

I get that, but my point is that even if you deny her gender and consider her a straight white man, is it true to say the Nazis wouldn't persecute her as a straight white man? no. the Nazis wouldn't have viewed her as a woman either, they'd have viewed her as a straight white man, but a perverted and degenerate man and killed her anyway. That bit (ignoring that the Nazis saw trans women as men and killed them for being perverts) is Holocaust denialism in my book.

 

personally with Linehan I think there's parts that are a distinction without a difference. Transphobia is his sole motivation now and he'll lean into it so much that he will downplay Nazi crimes in pursuit of it (e.g. when he went on newsnight to claim gender affirming care was a mengele like experiment when one of the most famous book burnings in Nazi Germany was that of the research of the institut für sexualwissenschaft, which included a lot of research into gender affirming care)

[Tommy Fresh]

10 hours ago, Daggers said:

I evacuated from Venuezuela when the civil insurrection was about to kick off. 
 

For the life of me, I don’t understand anyone crying about the government not helping them to escape from the Sudan. 
 

Your time to escape from the Sudan was during the last couple of weeks. I loathe this government - but this sure as shit isn’t on them. 

I think one of the biggest issues here is that they seemingly had no idea that it was about to kick off.

[leicsmac]

Biden officially running as incumbent for 2024, then.

 

I just hope that it doesn't hand the keys to the kingdom to Trump, deSantis or someone even worse because he was too proud to back down, even though the omens were that he should. That would be somewhere between unpleasant and catastrophic for anyone not of a particular demographic in the short term, and everyone in the long term.

Edited 25 April 2023 by leicsmac

[Facecloth]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Biden officially running as incumbent for 2024, then.

 

I just hope that it doesn't hand the keys to the kingdom to Trump, deSantis or someone even worse because he was too proud to back down, even though the omens were that he should. That would be somewhere between unpleasant and catastrophic for anyone not of a particular demographic in the short term, and everyone in the point term.

Am I right in thinking that if incumbent runs nobody can run against them for their party's nomination? So he's definitely the Dem candidate for 2024.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Am I right in thinking that if incumbent runs nobody can run against them for their party's nomination? So he's definitely the Dem candidate for 2024.

Someone *can* run against them, but usually they don't, because it's treated as an unnecessary distraction for the incumbent and from party unity when it is really needed.

 

For that reason, I would rather he hadn't chosen to run at all.

[Dunge]

Can’t say I’m keen on the idea of Biden running again, but is there someone better who should be backed instead?

 

I get the impression the stronger personalities might put certain sections of voters off for being too far to the left? (Like Ocasio-Cortez)

[Facecloth]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Someone *can* run against them, but usually they don't, because it's treated as an unnecessary distraction for the incumbent and from party unity when it is really needed.

 

For that reason, I would rather he hadn't chosen to run at all.

So basically it's like the final stage of the Tour De France. There's no rule you can't challenge the leader, but nobody does due to an unspoken rule.

[Jattdogg]

Neither trump nor biden should be running.

 

Get some younger blood in there. You have over 300 million  people and this is what they can come up with lol.

 

I'd rather biden win of the two but think "sleepy joe" will lose this time. Then 4 more years of Trumpism until his son takes over. Ffs. 

 

Lol

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Can’t say I’m keen on the idea of Biden running again, but is there someone better who should be backed instead?

 

I get the impression the stronger personalities might put certain sections of voters off for being too far to the left? (Like Ocasio-Cortez)

Someone like Cory Booker would be nice. It's a shame that Harris seems to have tainted her reputation because I thought she'd be a good shout too.

 

2 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Neither trump nor biden should be running.

 

Get some younger blood in there. You have over 300 million  people and this is what they can come up with lol.

 

I'd rather biden win of the two but think "sleepy joe" will lose this time. Then 4 more years of Trumpism until his son takes over. Ffs. 

 

Lol

 

I just hope you're wrong on this one. Four years of Trump,  deSantis or whoever else is four years a lot of people and possibly the Earth itself (or our place on it anyway) doesn't have.

[Zear0]

Not sure on the negativity re: Biden.  Don't forget, It's the economy stupid, and it's doing much better than most currently.  Trump has the Republican votes by the jaffers but hasn't got a prayer in an election.  He's already lost two popular votes with the latter including the shame of being a one-term president.  Add his current rap sheet including 34 counts of fraud, a potential rape prosecution and the small matter of Jan 6th catching up with him too.  I know the loon wing have his back, but when he inevitably wins candidacy I don't think he'll be a threat.

 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure on the negativity re: Biden.  Don't forget, It's the economy stupid, and it's doing much better than most currently.  Trump has the Republican votes by the jaffers but hasn't got a prayer in an election.  He's already lost two popular votes with the latter including the shame of being a one-term president.  Add his current rap sheet including 34 counts of fraud, a potential rape prosecution and the small matter of Jan 6th catching up with him too.  I know the loon wing have his back, but when he inevitably wins candidacy I don't think he'll be a threat.

 

The thing that worries me most is the polling being massively in favour of Biden not running again on account of his age. Hopefully that won't translate to voting patterns.

[foxy boxing]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Biden officially running as incumbent for 2024, then.

 

I just hope that it doesn't hand the keys to the kingdom to Trump, deSantis or someone even worse because he was too proud to back down, even though the omens were that he should. That would be somewhere between unpleasant and catastrophic for anyone not of a particular demographic in the short term, and everyone in the point term.

There should be upper age limits on who can run for presidency. Anyone can see Biden is slowly losing his faculties. Why can't people like Biden and Trump just enjoy their retirement with the millions they have in the bank.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

There should be upper age limits on who can run for presidency. Anyone can see Biden is slowly losing his faculties. Why can't people like Biden and Trump just enjoy their retirement with the millions they have in the bank.

I'm on the fence on this one tbh - there have been a great many brilliant leaders that were of...advanced age. But there have also been a great many terrible ones, too.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

So basically it's like the final stage of the Tour De France. There's no rule you can't challenge the leader, but nobody does due to an unspoken rule.

exactly the same except the person concerned wouldn't actually be able to get on a bike .....

[Facecloth]

24 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

exactly the same except the person concerned wouldn't actually be able to get on a bike .....

Well he did fall off one a while back. Stopped and then just stacked it 

[Izzy]

40 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

There should be upper age limits on who can run for presidency. Anyone can see Biden is slowly losing his faculties. Why can't people like Biden and Trump just enjoy their retirement with the millions they have in the bank.

Disagree.
 

I’ve been watching Bernie Sanders doing some talks during his recent book tour.

 

The blokes 81 and still sharp as a tack.

[marbles]

Fear mongering at its finest

smh

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, marbles said:

Fear mongering at its finest

smh

 

I'm curious to know what environmental policy of a Repub administration could be described as if not "four years the Earth possibly does not have", given their past record over the past couple of decades.

 

That's accurate, not fear-mongering.

[marbles]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm curious to know what environmental policy of a Repub administration could be described as if not "four years the Earth possibly does not have", given their past record over the past couple of decades.

 

That's accurate, not fear-mongering.

Im curious - do you believe the Dems have been consistent over the past couple decades with their beliefs?

 

[Otis]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

"four years the Earth possibly does not have"

What does that even mean?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, marbles said:

Im curious - do you believe the Dems have been consistent over the past couple decades with their beliefs?

 

I believe that while their environmental policy hasn't been as good as perhaps what is needed, it's a damn sight better than that of the Repubs - and that could make a vast difference in terms of the future.

 

Pardon me for the single issue wonkery here, but if there's another issue outside of global nuclear holocaust that puts so many lives around the world at risk, I'd be happy to consider it equal in terms of importance.

 

1 minute ago, Otis said:

What does that even mean?

It means four years that would be spent doing nothing (and possibly more afterwards reversing changes) on a matter that's already urgent and is beginning to have a cost in lives and materiel, and the more time is wasted, the higher the overall cost will be.