The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left

[rmgill]

Does this include actual transgender folks of just folks identifying as non-binary for the social credit score? 

[R011]

A fraction of one percent is difficult to believe?  Even if it's double the actual number, the reported crimes by Trans people don't add up to a very high rate.

[Rick]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Does this include actual transgender folks of just folks identifying as non-binary for the social credit score? 

My thought too.

[R011]

So do you have better numbers from a non-political source?  If so please post.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

So do you have better numbers from a non-political source?  If so please post.

The transgender debate is highly politicized. We're told constantly that they're FAR more of them and we have an entire month to celebrate them. Rainbows everywhere. 

On the flip side, we see a great deal of the same activists that are asserting that they're under grave threat and MUST fight back. 

Here's a note, I've been semi-active in the Pink Pistols since Bush was president. I'm big on RKBA as a big tent issue. There's been a weather change in the group. While generally reasonable with folks like Erin Pallette who run it. Lawdog and Oleg Volk are both familiar with her. She is part of a larger extended circle of folks I've known for nearly 15 years or more. 

However, when you're on the same social media sites with various local members like I, you see things that are mentioned that raise some eyebrows. There's radicalization going on within the LGBT Activist community. More so, you can see this demonstrated in the Pro-Hamas-Anti-jew rainbow coalition. LGBTQs for Palestine is patently absurd, but it's there. 

 

[R011]

17 minutes ago, rmgill said:

The transgender debate is highly politicized. We're told constantly that they're FAR more of them and we have an entire month to celebrate them. Rainbows everywhere. 

On the flip side, we see a great deal of the same activists that are asserting that they're under grave threat and MUST fight back. 

Here's a note, I've been semi-active in the Pink Pistols since Bush was president. I'm big on RKBA as a big tent issue. There's been a weather change in the group. While generally reasonable with folks like Erin Pallette who run it. Lawdog and Oleg Volk are both familiar with her. She is part of a larger extended circle of folks I've known for nearly 15 years or more. 

However, when you're on the same social media sites with various local members like I, you see things that are mentioned that raise some eyebrows. There's radicalization going on within the LGBT Activist community. More so, you can see this demonstrated in the Pro-Hamas-Anti-jew rainbow coalition. LGBTQs for Palestine is patently absurd, but it's there. 

 

A long winded way to say that you don't have better numbers or apparently any kind of estimate at all.

[rmgill]

No, I don't. Because the very nature of what counts as Trans has become as mutable as what you feel like from day to day. The advocates are VERY clear on that. My long winded point was to note that I've been around this part of the culture for a very long time. 

A substantial argument is that one can effect gender on a spectrum as one feels from day to day. So, how exactly do you put a number on something as mutable as what a woman feels like is her favorite makeup this week? 

Also, what would have been, 10 years ago a gay woman who manifests as butch is now a "they" who manifests as trans while still being clearly butch as trans while still just being a lesbian who is butch. 


 

[R011]

If there's no real definition of trans, then the reports we hear of trans people breaking the law cannot be taken as having any value.  Or, and here's a thought, what counts as trans isn't as hard t define as you're trying to claim.  IOW, your going with your usual rhetorical nonsense.

[rmgill]

No there's a mutable definition for trans. One need merely assert that one is a They and one is trans. Or, if you desire, because it's politically advantageous to do so, one can be ascribed as NOT being trans. 



Suffice to say, there ARE people who are Trans and have been convinced by way of social pressure that they MUST fight back against the heteronormative patriarchy. These are, as I noted, the same people who align with Hamas and are convinced that they must decolonize the west, among other things. 

This is all part of a culture war of the radical left upon the rest of the world. A slow cultural revolution as it were. Being hetero and male is one of the 4 olds. 

[Ssnake]

6 minutes ago, R011 said:

If there's no real definition of trans, then the reports we hear of trans people breaking the law cannot be taken as having any value.  Or, and here's a thought, what counts as trans isn't as hard t define as you're trying to claim.

If the perps define themselves as trans, I'm all for taking their word for it. That is a hard definition, but it's limited to criminal offenders that got caught/identified. When it comes to the social sciences estimating the percentage of trans people in society but they can't even define what counts as trans, well, the statistics are worth shit, and you know it.

[R011]

1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

If the perps define themselves as trans, I'm all for taking their word for it. That is a hard definition, but it's limited to criminal offenders that got caught/identified. When it comes to the social sciences estimating the percentage of trans people in society but they can't even define what counts as trans, well, the statistics are worth shit, and you know it.

If self identification is good enough for the people  arrested for crimes then it's good enough for the general population.  That's where the numbers are coming from.

[rmgill]

For the sake of demonstration. 

Ok. I'm trans now.


Ok, now I'm not. 


How many trans people am I? 

Remember, you MUST adhere to MY definition as an honest and sensitive social scientist. 

[seahawk]

Since when are patients with a mental sickness allowed to decide if they are ill or not?

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, seahawk said:

Since when are patients with a mental sickness allowed to decide if they are ill or not?

Since the debate on CNN last night, I think.

In terms of the argument here, I think RO11 is broadly correct.  Just ask the population the question and count whoever identifies themselves transgender as transgender.

[rmgill]

So what ratio of violent criminals to population is  indicative of a problem? 

[Murph]

This: Todays Democrat Party-

 

 

[bojan]

54 minutes ago, rmgill said:

So what ratio of violent criminals to population is  indicative of a problem? 

It it is significantly higher than among general population.

[Murph]

Jan 6th is toast.  A very well reasoned decision.  The Feds CANNOT do what they want.  

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf

[Murph]

CHEVRON IS DEAD!  OMG! This is earthshattering.  CHEVRON IS DEAD!

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

[sunday]

5 minutes ago, Murph said:

CHEVRON IS DEAD!  OMG! This is earthshattering.  CHEVRON IS DEAD!

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

This?

Quote

One of the most important principles in administrative law, the “Chevron deference” was coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron deference is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question. 

The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in Chevron, when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute. 

First, the Chevron deference requires that the administrative interpretation in question was issued by the agency charged with administering that statute. Accordingly, interpretations by agencies not in charge of the statute in question are not owed any judicial deference. Also, the implicit delegation of authority to an administrative agency to interpret a statute does not extend to the agency’s interpretation of its own jurisdiction under that statute.

Generally, to be accorded Chevron deference, the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute must be permissible, which the court has defined to mean “rational” or “reasonable.” In determining the reasonableness for the particular construction of a statute by the agency, the age of that administrative interpretation as well as the congressional action or inaction in response to that interpretation at issue can be a useful guide; if Congress was aware of the interpretation when it acted or refrained from action, and when the agency’s interpretation is not inconsistent with the clear statutory language. 

 

[Murph]

Yes, WOW!  This is probably the biggest opinion released today, and the usual liberal women disagreed with it.  

[sunday]

6 minutes ago, Murph said:

Yes, WOW!  This is probably the biggest opinion released today, and the DEI judge agreed with it!!!!!!!

Some elaboration to harness the meaning of that in plain words would be welcome.

For instance, does this mean the EPA has not jurisdiction any more on ponds or CO2?

[Tim the Tank Nut]

they're been regulating ditches as navigable waterways.  It's ruined A LOT of lives.  It really is a big deal if it works out like it looks like it will

[Murph]

12 minutes ago, sunday said:

Some elaboration to harness the meaning of that in plain words would be welcome.

For instance, does this mean the EPA has not jurisdiction any more on ponds or CO2?

No, all it says, as I read it, is that unelected bureaucrats no longer get unbridled deference by the courts when they make a unreasonable rule, and cannot stop people challenging the rule in court.

 

Roberts, however, notes that "courts need not and under the [Administrative Procedures Act] may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous." That's the whole ballgame in which federal bureaucrats got away with extensive regulations merely because they were given deference by courts. 

Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do. The Framers, as noted, anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment. And even Chevron itself reaffirmed that “[t]he judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction” and recognized that “in the absence of an administrative interpretation,” it is “necessary” for a court to “impose its own construction on the statute.” Chevron gravely erred, though, in concluding that the inquiry is fundamentally different just because an administrative interpretation is in play. The very point of the traditional tools of statutory construction—the tools courts use every day—is to resolve statutory ambiguities. That is no less true when the ambiguity is about the scope of an agency’s own power—perhaps the occasion on which abdication in favor of the agency is least appropriate.

[sunday]

Ok, thanks.