Conservatism is a worldwide problem and they all borrow each other’s notes. It’s not going to be a fun time for us coming up. I can only hope that when the shit hits the fan down there those up here start rethinking their bullshit.

Not saying our shit doesn’t stink but there’s a certain matter of scale to consider. Leastaways we don’t have nukes we can hand over to the psychopath we are looking at voting in.

The national identity of being Canadian over the last while has been every four years wondering if the downstairs neighbors are going to decide to restart up the meth lab they keep tinkering with and bracing for the sounds of domestic violence to resume.

Well I dunno if he is an anti-christ. There never is a specification that there is a singular anti christ and they are often pluralized. There’s a pretty low bar to be an anti christ and they aren’t particularly a big deal. Basically according to script anybody who denies Jesus as being the son of God is an anti-christ and that’s pretty common. Any given day you’ll encounter a half dozen anti-christs. “The Antichrist” as in the one big one though isn’t super specified in character and there’s a bunch of options of not goodos who could fill the role

There is a separate nasty called the “the man of sin” and “son of perdition.” supposedly he will come at a time of a general apostasy, deceive people with signs and wonders, sit in the temple of God, and claim to be God himself. And a “Little Horn” (which I am not unconvinced just is a reference to a tiny dick) setting himself in the wing of a temple acting as though he is a divine authority and causing devistation of the Holy land… Which could fit?

I’ve seen a fair number of people on here who deny the spoiler effect is a thing… I for one am glad that idiot RFK didn’t catch on until AFTER he signed the paperwork.

Fucked up?

I am in Vancouver Canada and the whole week has been a knife edge dance of a provincial election between a party that is basically Republican-lite and two Progressive parties where either could make a majority government… And given the projection is of a Conservative win in the Federal elections having two levels of trans hostile groups in charge of one of the most trans friendly places in the world feels a bit like the one place I feel safe is under fire.

I know I am more durable than most. Because I basically chose my partner’s sexual phenotype preferences over transition I live under general permanent assumption that I am cis and straight passing. It sucks literally all the time for the dysphoria and feeling of living inside this illusion created by my body that people think treating me as cis is okay… but I don’t have to worry about a lot of medical continuity of service vulnerabilities. I have so many friends not in my situation who are down to the bricks clinging by their fingernails already that I worry.

My partner has stepped up the cuddles to keep my spirits up. Things have been getting better as things are being forcast but it’s been a rough ride.

I mean… We here in Vancouver BC just had a Provincial election that is so fiercely fought they are still tallying votes a week after the fact and the winner still has not been officially declared and we have no idea if we have a minority or majority government because some districts (ridings) are like 20 votes apart.

Our election is on fire… Just not literally.

Simple - one must strive not simply to be A shit but to be THE shit - The plutonic ideal of shit, the perfect shit from which all other shits are derivitive. Anything less is a failure. So following this logic.

“You ain’t shit” = You are invalid from the rubric, so below par as not to be mentionable.

“You are shit” = Acknowledgement that you are shit of average or middling status but with the implications that vast improvement is nessisary because you are still a failure.

“You are not the shit” = More directed pointed reminder that you are far below the goal of being THE shit and maybe are overestimating yourself.

That the tech has evolved to be better actually is an assumption. The novel data problem hasn’t been meaningfully addressed really at all so mostly we assume that progress has been made… but it’s not meaningful progress. The promises being made for future capability is mostly pretty stale hype that hasn’t changed year to year with a lot of the targets remaining unchanged. We are getting more data on where specifically and how it’s failing, which is something, but overall it appears to be a plateau of non-linear progress with different updates being sometimes less safe than newer ones.

That actually safe self driving cars might be decades away however is antithetical to the hype run marketing campaigns that are working overtime to put up smoke and mirrors around the issue.

I mean seeing how he has probably pissed off just about every theater kid living by now it’s just deserts. Nobody is racing down from the booth with a lav for this guy.

My Grandmother always called this sort of thing being a “red letter Christian”. Basically like you take a highlighter to everything Jesus specifically did or said and discard the rest.

My Mom’s family all followed this principle since like the 70’s thus saving my trans ass from any hint of intergenerationally inflicted religious trauma so I am a fan. My 92 year old great uncle went to bat to fight for non-binary gender accommodations in his seniors home because one of his nurses is an enby who was getting a raw deal from a number of their paitents. Honestly, though I don’t think the Christian God is what he says he is, his kid seems weird but as a rules for life kinda thing the results seem good. .

A lot of the distinction of sex and gender gets muddied because as scientific evidence mounted about how blurry the lines between the sexes actually were “gender” ( not as we understand it in a modern queer context) started out as a construct that played fast and loose with phenotype and form to create a scientific construct of sex. It’s in part why gender is sometimes a synonym for sex because it was aiming to preserve a biological binary which was really falling apart.

However philosophy looked at that construct and elaborated on what they were seeing and realizing that we draw arbitrary cultural lines around these things so “gender performativity” theory tends to group gender as something you do.

However gender performativity theory doesn’t really cover what trans people experience. Basically, a lot of gender dysphoria is actually closer to the original use of gender. It involves people reacting to their physical bodies sex characteristics not falling in line with a sort of internal compulsion…so for a severely compressed example if I feel like everytime I am reminded through language that I do not conform to the physical features typical of the male phenotype I feel depressed, anxious and like essentially life has denied me something essential to me then I can backwards engineer that series of reactions to “I am a man / male”… Man might be a cultural category but the lack of the cultural category isn’t what is upsetting, it’s the social construct of woman drawing attention to the real problem of existing in my own body.

So where this gets culturally sticky is if someone insisting I am “female” it really is no different then misgendering. What’s often culturally happening is they are just trying to do it in a pseudo scientific way which is why people will call you out on it… Here’s where it gets complicated. Trans people are a group of people who are lay masters with personal experience of the malleable nature of physical sex and the science of sex. Since the people often trying to categorize us as “male and female” alone are not actually giving any kind of scientific specificity it’s not actually correct in a scientific biology based context so when we say you are wrong we usually don’t mean it on a strictly metaphysical axis. We mean, * that’s not how science uses those words*.

If I have been on testosterone a while and a couple of surgeries / or if I never went through a feminizing puberty at all I am going to fit more aspects of the male phenotype than female. I might have female chromasomal make up… but chromasomal makeup is only one facet of sex. If you wanted to be actually scientifically correct in regard to the “biological sex” of a trans person then you are going to have to take us on as individuals and that answer is going to be a lot more complicated than just rendering it down to “male” or “female”. From a strictly taxonomic perspective a lot of us have become intersex. We biologically fit a category that is beyond the male/ female binary… We just did so as a matter of using technology to achieve that end.

That is calculated I think… Having been stuck in forced proximity to Conservatives for awhile the party line is that Russia isn’t as bad as people make it out to be, Putin is a good guy, the left is constructing Russia as a boogey man when they do “so much right”.

Kamala I think is pretty adept at code switching. When dealing with Conservative audiences you pick your battles because if you trip too hard on one of their landmines where you have to go on a long fight to up end one of their propaganda efforts then chances are they stop listening to everything.

It’s what this person does. Check their post history and you will see how often they flog that specific piece of literature.

Alberta adopted this model and saw an increase in public health wait times and a sharp increase in the required government spending required to run the public system.

Creating a two tiered system means that it bleeds doctors, nurses and admin into the private sector which is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy that everyone deserves the right to life sustaining care. If the rich want to dodge the cue then they can quite frankly afford the plane ticket. If the system is being undermined by politicians - oust the politicians. Let them know that that system is of the highest priority and should be first to see reinvestment.

But we should all be aware that Canada is one of the most challenging landscapes for delivery of any kind of health care. We are diffuse over a large landmass and the commitment to the system means that if you live in a remote place 2 hours away from the nearest surgery then the government is on the hook to spend an outsized amount of budget to uphold the commitment of care for you. The temptation to cut corners is always there and each Provincial trust is its own battleground. That we have the level of service we do is a credit to the efficacy of public health systems… Which means upping the costs to create competitive private sector development hurts us all.

It may be a step up for Americans to have any system at all as a right to health safety net but it’s a sharp step down for anywhere running a full public system.

That is actually one of the major issues at play. One of the kind of predatory things about right wing politics is it plays into a fallacy that the truth is simple, easily recognizable and can be rendered down into axioms a child can understand. Anything that doesn’t fall under these parameters cannot be the truth.

But science moved away from big axiomatic stuff like 50 years ago. It became the study of variation and nuance.

The left attempts to have a aspects of this simple explanation stuff in sections by adopting almost slogan-like things - take “Trans women are women” as an example. That easily digestible slogan sits on top of a whole bunch of consequentialist based philosophy, psychological research with a focus on harm reduction, a history of uphill public advocacy to just put trans issues on the radar and being trans itself isn’t easy to explain. It is simple and quippy - but not axiomatic. So a lot of people on the right tear into it as a target because the optics of defending a short quippy but nuance laden argument in slogan form while keeping it short and easily digestible is basically impossible.

This issue is throughout progressive political thought. Any short form word we use to describe practically anything has a whole swack of addendums, hidden complications, edge cases and multiple historical definitions. If you use very technical language you can be more specific but then you can easily talk over the heads of your audience.

Well… Short answer talking about “the left” and “the right” is effectively doing something called “constructing a public”. These are are not just political constructs, they are political constructs that do certain things. Neither of these constructs have hard boundaries and throughout time they shift.

But there is a distinct difference. When you look at the right, while the presentation changes they have a fairly straightforward citable group of guiding philosophy traceable through a small handful of writing. If you read Thomas Malthus and Edmond Burke they will sound like slightly more archaic versions of modern pundits on the right. When you listen to the modern pundits you will notice that they are very repetitive and what differentiates one from another is more or less just presentation style. That repetition of talking points changes it’s arguements but never it’s foundation. Since it’s mostly in service of protecting a status quo where hereditary privilege is upheld it doesn’t have to get complicated. It just has to justify the world as it has been and that humans are sneaky, fundamentally flawed and morally defunct but that by structuring society as a winnowing process where playing the game the rightful and just few will rise to the top.

But when you look at “the left” it’s not an easy gradient, it’s a loose scattering of little clusters of very different ideologies and guiding philosophies. Since it largely works of a guiding concept of dissolution of established aggregated personal fortunes and radical anti-supremacist framework of various forms it’s not uniform. There’s anti-colonialism, anti-racism, anti-monopolist, anti-capitalist, anti-discriminatory, pro-neurodiversity, expanded personal rights, pro public service, pro democratic and anti democratic groups, pro freedom of movement, anarchists, and acedemic political theorists each with individual theories about how to bring about a state of all these things when none of this has in living memory existed. It’s not generally trying to defend a status quo but trying to feild test different ways of doing things… So basically everybody and their dog has a slightly different opinion of what is a good idea.

It’s kind of hard to see " bad faith actors" as it were because any two leftists might have almost no ideological overlap as far as praxis. They might not see each other as being part of the same tribe even if outsiders looking in would classify them as “left” and they might all claim to be “left” themselves… It’s not that it’s contradictory, it’s that the branching paths of divergent evolving philosophies have rambled off in a whole bunch of different directions and effectively become whole other creatures entirely.

This is just a bunch of gestures. The reality is that AES states are truly guided by Marxism, and are true attempts at Communism, but haven’t made it to the Communist stage of development.

Why are you including things which have not yet made it to the Communist stage of development as examples of success of Marxist theory? That isn’t a proof that Communism is great yet. It’s calling the experiment before actually seeing if it works.

And I am not quick to call the USSR or Cuba particularly Dictatorships of the Proletariat. They became actual Dictatorships that carried forward the heirachy of the paramilitary organizations that spawned them never ceeding them to the workers councils like they were supposed to do instead creating new dynasties of career politicians…Career politicians of a one party state are not “working class”.

It really is a hype based philosophy. I look at Marx as a bit of a stochastic terrorist of his time. His ideas aren’t dangerous particularly taken with a grain of salt but because they are written to lead one to become angrier and angrier without being given an outlet to work towards things on a constructive way Communist communities start hopeful and sour over time.

He always dances around how that limiting of other classes authority and individual inequities is going to be handled because the answer… Is violence. A generous read is that he is naive to believe everyone will see he’s right and kumbaya the whole thing into existence but more likely because of the language he uses other places he’s flat out for the nessisary purge required to achieve his aims.

Issue being is anarchic mobs are generally fairly weak… So to make a successful change you basically need paramilitary leaderships and military like heirachy to achieve that purge… And then so far in history that paramilitary heirachy never has effectively dissolved after the fact because if everybody is doing communism correctly creating competeting heirachy is antithetical… You are just supposed to ignore that the paramilitary heirachy that becomes the state isn’t strictly playing by Marx’s rules either but by then a population isn’t in a position to argue.

It depends on what ideas you deem to be “correct”. He was very good at elucidation of the nature of how European models of property rights were impacting large swaths of the population at large… But its difficult to say if he had everything figured out because his “dictatorship of the proletariat” doesn’t seem to ever actualize in a lasting fashion. It usually ends up as an authoritarian state arguably because the system is vulnerable to the first group that decides to break faith with the covenant. A lot of Communist hopefuls tend to either take the examples of this happening as “not true Communism” or try to minimize the bad aspects of regimes that adopted the principles… It does seem once power is too laterally spread it becomes weak to any hierarchy that as long as they can talk a good game and use Marxist language.

In either case a lot of us would not call those outcomes “proven correct”. I would say he had some very lasting ideas which are useful tools… But the fact that none of the places where attempted enactment have particularly lived up to his hype means that like a lot of philosophy of his time that the answers are a lot more complex and nuanced than he could have forseen.