"trans women are not female," — Mikie

“trans women are not biologically female” — Jamal

Fair enough. I almost always consider “female” to refer to sex, and hence biology— but I suppose that’s not always the case for others.

But if one wants to distinguish between trans women and non-trans-women, we already have a term that’s better than “men”, which is … “trans women”. — Jamal

Also fair, but this implies to me that “trans women” is distinguishing from something else…What would that something else be, though? If “trans women are women,” as is often said, then aren’t we simply in a confused state?

Trans women are women, but not biological females. So then “woman” doesn’t necessarily mean an adult (biological) female, as is often meant— and that leaves many, including myself, rather annoyed at the semantics.

I think “woman” when referring to a trans woman is fine. No need to be technical. But if people are trying to convince others that there’s no difference whatever between a trans woman and a biologically female adult, I think that’s at least a blunder politically for the trans movement (which I otherwise wholeheartedly support).

Anyway— any more discussion on this I’ll move to the transgender thread. My posts, I mean.

mtf literally stands for male to female. So no, its just arguing in a circle. — Forgottenticket

“Mtf” wasn’t used above.

But you can’t go from male to female, or vice versa, unless we radically redefine “male” and “female”. I think there’s a lot of resistance to that, and for good reason. Strikes me as insane.

Intersex and those without gametes are exceedingly rare. People can be born with six fingers too — but I don’t think it’s bigoted or discriminatory to say human beings have five fingers on their hands.

In any case, I’m moving this response to this thread so as not to derail the “motte-bailey” thread.

A good example. :up:

The gun debate is egregiously bad.

A: Trans women are not women. [bailey]

B: That's a transparently bigoted comment, functioning as it does to directly negate the gender identities of trans people and thereby deny their claims to equal treatment. — Jamal

I know it's just an example, and I don't want to go off about transgenderism, but just so I'm clear: The more correct statement would be that "trans women are not female," yes? Since "woman" (and "girl") can often relate to gender identity.

It's true that people making statements like (A) are probably bigoted. But in the cases where a person is meaning to express the corrected statement, it may just be an honest mistake. I would put myself in this camp, although I see no reason to make either statement.

To the posters that are saying it's similar, I'm not seeing where the strawman fallacy comes into play here. What would be considered the strawman in this scenario? Person A's initial (bailey) argument?

Anyway, I see the motte-bailey used a lot. One look at the Wall Street Journal editorial page is a goldmine of it. Take climate change, which usually goes something like this:

Bailey: We can't do a, b, c because of x, y, z. No carbon tax because that's the government picking winners and losers. No banning of oil drilling because people are gonna need oil for years to come. EVs are "losers." It's gonna be way too expensive. Climate is always changing. Etc.

Interlocutor: It'll require drastic changes to keep CO2 levels (and warming) under dangerous levels. You're arguing we can't do anything, essentially. Do you even believe this is an emergency?

Motte: The climate is changing. Something should be done. We're not climate change deniers!

A good example is Bjorn Lomborg - a monument to this fallacy.

The republicans are no longer a political party. Here I agree with Chomsky.

But what they’ve left behind is hardly admirable— the “intellectual” republicans are still neoliberals through and through. All their talk of small government always was a pretext for vicious class warfare and their complete obedience to corporate power. Even more savage than the Wall Street democrats, who at least throw a few crumbs to the 80-90% of the population struggling to keep up once in a while, and believe in things like climate change.

Unfortunately there’s no choice anymore for anyone thinking rationally about the world. The Democratic Party is currently the place to push for changes. We’ve seen that in the old bones of Biden, who doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on, but who has been far more progressive than Obama or Clinton, largely due to activist pressures and the strength of the Sanders campaign in ‘16 and especially ‘20. His advisors know that many voting blocks simply won’t accept the policies of his predecessors whole hog.

But that’s national stuff, where we don’t have much impact other than in how we vote. What matters more isn’t really any party, but what we do locally and how we organize— i.e., how we increase our power. There’s a great book on this called Politics is For Power, by Eitan Hirsch. I think this is where our focus should be; the choice for who to vote for in ‘24, in contrast, should take 5 minutes of brain power.

The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market

Naomi Oreskes

Yes, because black markets and Bronze Age trade really factors into the modern world. You should apologize for having assumed you were dealing with adults.

there's no such thing as a market without state intervention. Markets are instantiated by states. — Moliere

Yes indeed. Worth emphasizing again and again.

Neoliberals support globalization, deregulation and privatization, believing that the role of the private sector ought to be expanded beyond the limits traditionally adhered to in the decades following the Great Depression and the Second World War. — Jamal

Exactly. When I talk of neoliberalism, I’m referring to the policies enacted since the late 70s. It’s a label for those policy changes, hence the neoliberal “era.”

So yeah: globalization, deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, destruction of unions, etc. We could go through the list: Carter deregulating the railroads and trucking, Reagan and the airtraffic controllers, SEC rule changes on buybacks in ‘82, fair doctrines act repeal, Clinton and NAFTA, telecommunications act, etc etc.

That’s neoliberalism to me. Often the justification for it all was flimsy and varied — usually something about free markets, trickle down economics, Friedman doctrine, capital flight, the Laffer curve, and other nonsense — but that’s somewhere different, the “justificatory” aspect you mentioned.

Incidentally, Naomi Oreskes has just released an interesting book about this latter part which is worth reading. It’s called The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market.

Four years of Trump, and we get upset about PR notes. :rofl:

It’d be fine if it wasn’t coming from a Trump apologist and Ayn Rand cultist. That just makes it hilarious.

I see Chomsky as saying the following, based on several interviews I've seen over the years:

There are two factions of the business party. That's undeniably true. But that doesn't mean there's not differences. In a powerful state like the US, even small differences can have a big impact. So they still matter.

I think with the Bernie campaign, Trump, and the GOP going so extreme as to not even be considered a political party anymore -- that's changed things a bit. The differences are now stark. Not just the ones @Michael mentions, but also on climate change -- which, in my opinion, eclipses even the others.

I don't see anyone saying both parties are the same, though. That they're both beholden to special interests who finance their campaigns, usually have ivy league educations, are generally wealthy or have become wealthy, etc. -- yeah, that's a commonality throughout -- whether it's Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz. In that sense they're both the business party. But even the business world isn't a monolith. Fossil fuel interests are different than teachers unions and tech companies.

So Bernie announced he's not running, and will be supporting Joe. That means an end of an important period. Bernie will never be president (not that there was a huge chance anyway, given the DNC).

Bernie ran two very important campaigns. His policies are now in the mainstream discussion, and his supporters have helped push Biden farther than he would have otherwise been.

So Biden versus Trump, again. What a pity. An easy choice, though. Vote against Trump again. Prevent him from getting into office. Then keep grinding on with local/state work.

That should be the extent of the mental energy used these next 16 months. But I'm guessing it won't be. Because when it comes to the US, we have to turn it into an overwhelming spectacle. Talk about overcomplicating.

How would a 'no party' system work? Say more about that. — BC

People run for office, but without any party label. I know at the start of the US, there was a lot of debate about the usefulness of parties, whether they were good, etc.

Yes, it's a one-party system: the business party.

A real two-party system is kind of the wrong question, in my view. Ideally there would be either no parties or several parties, including a serious labor party and socialist party.

I wish all the "government is the problem" folks could just come out and say what they really feel: they're anti-democracy. "Demos" is a collective, too, after all. "The people," collectively.

But they won't do that. They know they'd be ignored and marginalized.

So they have to talk about "collectivism" and "communism" and "statism" as great evils, throw in Stalin and Mao, add a touch of individuality, a dash of "freedom," stir. The product? What's today called libertarianism, I suppose.

So that's their devil: groups. The "collective," the demos. All vague and abstract, because anything more specific reveals some interesting patterns. Anything that's happened in history is because of governments (collectives), unions (collectives), social welfare programs (collectives), political movements like civil or women's rights (collectives).

They're that guy who doesn't want to pay union dues but is happy to accept the benefits the union offers. So they'll complain endlessly about taxes. They'll whine about how crappy everything the "state" does.

Yet when it comes to corporate America? Silence.

Poor wages? It's a contract you enter, so you can just quit and get another job.

Monopolies? That's because of the government.

Massive transfer of wealth to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks? Well, that's their right as private owners.

Just once I'd like to have an honest discussion with these kinds. It'd start by them simply stating, "I'm against democracy, I don't want to be part of society, and I don't care about what happens to people I don't know."

At least I'd respect that.

:rofl: Thanks for the jokes, I needed that laugh.

The arguments for taxation, in the US anyway, go back to the founding of the country. The articles of confederation were a disaster largely because they couldn’t levy taxes.

Taxes is a distraction from the real issue here— and the OP: systems of governing. Thus, about power.

I’m in favor of democracy. Our libertarian friends are not. They’re in favor of free market fantasies which, however noble the intention (although I don’t see that here really), only serve to shift blame from the plutocrats who own and run the government, to the government itself as an abstract entity.

This is exactly why these ideas have been disseminated for decades, making their way into the minds of said people. They’re very useful to the ruling class.

The low hanging fruit in the US and elsewhere is to reign in corporate power, as we’ve done before — with far better socioeconomic results. Not to drone on about abolishing the state, or whining about having to pay taxes.

Yes— to say nothing of tax protesting and tax resistance. Each have a long history, as you know— I know some people who have done it for very valid reasons. Last time I checked, none of them were in prison, nor had a “gun placed to their heads.”

People can resist only theoretically (the same as people can theoretically resist the violence of the government), but in practice it's just too hard for most so they are forced, against their will, to work according to the terms set by the capitalist class. — Isaac

:up:

A point that’s almost always glossed over when discussing wage jobs. “You’re free to go elsewhere, you consented to it.” Way too cavalier, and ignores reality.

As justified as saying “don’t like the state? Leave the country.” Which I’ll often say; the connection is not readily understood, in my experience.

What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something — you know, your wages are going down, etc. — you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous glitz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

(Chomsky)

:chin:

One can search the entire website for “statist” and find something else out — Namely that the term is often used to describe me by none other than the guy who finds it hilarious that I’ve used the phrase “abolish the state” before.

I drone on about abolishing the state, yet I’m a statist. :lol: (Says the guy who whines about taxes and monopolies of violence. Now that’s hilarious.)

To get back to the OP (apologies for contributing to its derailment): of course communism is possible. That a community can control production, and produce things for need and use and not for profit, is not hard to imagine. The word “communism” is so loaded, however, as to make a discussion about it rather tricky.

Has it ever been tried? Not in modern history.

Has capitalism (in the sense of Adam Smith or laissez fair) been tried? No.

Both ideas have been used as a guise. For what? Well, look around. Look at history. Look at the distribution of wealth and power. Whether it be the USSR, China, Cuba, Sweden, the US, or Japan — nowhere do you find capitalism or communism. All you find is varying policies of what C. Wright Mills called the “power elite.”

So yes, it’s possible. But for now it’s a pipe dream. Similar to the pipe dreams of the couple “libertarians” (i.e., unwitting corporatists) we have here who drone on about abolishing the state. They could very well be communists for all we know! All it really serves as, however, is an obfuscation of real world issues.

So take healthcare. What’s the strategy for better healthcare in, say, the US? “Abolish the state” people will be violently against any government intervention. It must remain in the hands of the private sector, despite some of the worst outcomes and despite what other countries do (national healthcare). Result? Poor people suffer and die unnecessarily.

Or take guns. Can’t have government regulations, because they do everything wrong, and we must abolish the state. So we mustn’t impose the undue burden of going through training or filling out some extra forms before we place an assault weapon in the hands of a lunatic. That’d infringe on “freedom.” Results? More mass shootings than days in 2023. People suffering and dying, unnecessarily.

So once again it’s just a cover for those in power. In this case, insurance companies, private healthcare, and gun manufacturers. They don’t want the government to interfere, so it doesn’t happen. And our “libertarian” friends, and some communists as well, who think they’re being so very principled and consistent, are simply a new kind of useful idiot.

If you want to delegate your responsibilities to your fellow human beings to someone else, go for it. — NOS4A2

No, you’re confused. I’m the one voluntarily paying for these programs so that other people who can’t work can get something to eat. You’d deny them these programs because you’re an apologist for plutocracy. But thankfully you’re on an island somewhere, so it doesn’t matter.

But I don’t think that favoring a piece of legislation—in other words sitting around and doing nothing—is any sign that you’re helping anyone but yourself. — NOS4A2

Nice projection.

Not nothing: paying taxes. Which hardly helps me. Some of that goes to things like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That helps a lot of people indeed — far more than I could ever help individually.

On the other hand, the onus is on the person crying about paying taxes and about state programs to be going out of their way to help others. Show all us suckers how it’s really done in a libertarian paradise. So until I see YOU out there feeding people or housing them, take your bullshit elsewhere.

In any case, anyone paying taxes does so voluntarily. Anyone working for a wage — likewise, voluntary. Never mind the nuances. Those who truly don’t want to do either have alternatives: leave the country or become a farmer (or just not be poor), respectively.

I think I get it. I hope I’m made an honorary libertarian.

So you WOULD deny them the means. Got it. Apparently paying taxes is worse than poor children and the disabled starving. Cool.

Your sick worldview never fails to deliver. :clap:

Until I see you feeding any of those people I will never deny them any means to acquire food. You would. — NOS4A2

:lol:

Yes, I’m often in the habit of pulling babies away from their mothers.

I wonder of the two of us, who is in favor of food assistance programs and who isn’t? :chin:

Oh well, guess that doesn’t count as “means.”

All food is acquired with work, buddy. — NOS4A2

Yeah, so I guess babies, the disabled, children, the elderly, etc., better get off their asses.

his money taken from him without his permission, — NOS4A2

Oh no, WITH permission. It’s totally voluntary. Just like working for a corporation.

For those who don’t want to obey laws they don’t like— such as paying taxes — they have the same choice a person who doesn’t want to be exploited by an owner has: don’t do it! Just move to a place where they don’t tax, or don’t tax as much.

Seems simple enough to me.

The employer is forced to deduct a specific amount or else he is breaking the law. — NOS4A2

The employee is forced to work, or else he doesn’t eat. Guess one is voluntary and the other isn’t though.

Keep shilling for corporate America buddy. You’re doing a great job.

If you want to call voluntary activity between consenting parties “slavery”, be my guest. — NOS4A2

So if a child of 10 wants to work, it ceases to be child labor. If a person voluntarily becomes a slave (as has happened throughout history), it’s no longer slavery.

Cool. So, again, you don’t really give a shit about “taking the fruits of another’s labor.” You’re fine with it, provided it’s “voluntary” (wink wink).

Unfortunately, the use of “voluntary” is complete garbage.

not the voluntary activity between consenting parties. — NOS4A2

So slavery and child labor is fine, as long as it’s done voluntarily. Got it.

Laughable, isn’t it? This coming from the same guy in favor of child labor. “What about the kid who wants to work?”

Apparently it’s not just consenting adults. It’s whatever corporate America wants.

So it has nothing to do with principle. But we knew that already. Which is why your claim against slavery is absurd as well. What of the people who wanted to be slaves? Who are you to interfere with an individual’s freedom?

When it comes to the demands of capital or the prerogatives of the right kind of Americans, Republicans believe, absolutely, in the light touch of a “small” government that stays out of the way. But when it comes to Americans deemed deviant for their poverty or their transgressions against a traditional code of patriarchal morality, Republicans believe, just as fervently, that the only answer is the heaviest and most meddlesome hand of the state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/opinion/republicans-abortion-guns-big-government.html

Reminds me of someone.

So much for someone’s “fruits.”

Any one watch “Extrapolations” on AppleTV? It took me three times to finish the first episode. Tons of good actors, and it’s about climate change — but man, so far it suuuucccckkkkks.

It’s wrong to take fruits of someone’s labor — NOS4A2

Which happens to an extreme degree in corporate America, the “private sector.” Oddly, we never hear you railing against that. It always works out somehow that this kind of exploitation is perfectly justified. :chin:

So you’re just reiterating that you’re against states and laws. Brilliant. :ok:

Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison. — Tzeentch

Someone who refuses to obey speed limits gets thrown in prison too.

So I guess the state has a literal gun to my head there as well.

In which case, all you’re saying is: if you break ANY law egregiously and repeatedly, you’ll perhaps be convicted and thrown in prison. Yeah, no shit. So should we eradicate laws now too? Or just tax laws?

Let’s start with property laws.

If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. — Tzeentch

No they don’t. Stop with the theatrics just to serve your confused libertarianism. (But nice to see you’ve moved on from “literal gun to your head” to a more nuanced view.)

You can be “thrown in prison” for speeding and jaywalking too, or any number of other things that are against the law of the land. But we never say that. Let’s not dramatize taxes.

The reality is that throwing someone in jail for taxes can occur, but is rare. What usually happens is that penalties are accrued and, if one cannot prove a reasonable reason for not paying, liens and levies can be imposed. That takes a decent amount of time. The charges are usually for fraud anyway.

https://www.levytaxhelp.com/can-the-irs-really-send-me-to-jail-for-unpaid-taxes/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20IRS%20cannot,failing%20to%20pay%20your%20taxes.