this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
559 points (99.1% liked)

politics

26282 readers
3130 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
559
Zohran Mamdani Speaks Out For Trans Rights (globalcocktails.com)
submitted 4 days ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 109 points 4 days ago (3 children)

If any group doesn't have rights, than everyone else can easily lose rights.

Doesn't matter who you are, ICE could grab and disappear you and no one would ever know.

So you just need to not give anyone the right for the removal of anyone's rights, and boom, problem solved.

But the oligarchs donot want the problem solved. They want us fighting over this instead of asking why we let them hoard all of our wealth.

LBJ said it one time after seeing racist graffiti in an area where everyone was experiencing severe poverty.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

It wasn't that he was advocating for it, it was the blunt realization of how effective republicans were using racism to distract from wealth inequality. There's a lot of racists in power, but the people who put them there don't care about race, they see anyone who isn't a billionaire as not a real person, regardless of race.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago (1 children)

it was the blunt realization of how effective republicans were using racism to distract from wealth inequality.

Definitely. I notice my colleagues, who are kind of on the right, are more animated and vibrant talking about culture wars. Not once I have heard them talk about wealth inequality. I mentioned it in another post that it's easier to stoke angry emotions towards one another.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

my colleagues, who are kind of on the right, are more animated and vibrant talking about culture wars. Not once I have heard them talk about wealth inequality.

Bring that shit up.

Be a broken fucking record about it.

Either you'll get thru to them, or they'll avoid talking "politics" around you because you always just being up how it's the billionaires fault...

Which they do agree with, and they even understand they agree with.

But then you're not having to talk to them and a constant reminder that whatever they were about to bitch about:

Yeah, but also billionaires shouldn't exist

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it be nice to just support human rights? The one thing all of these groups have in common is their humanhood.

Well at least until we reach a 'body of Theseus' point in technological augmentation. Then we may need to rebrand 'human rights' to 'consciousness rights' or something more catchy.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

We don't even know what "consciousness" is, let alone any kind of "consciousness rights".

Like, it's just not something really anyone's been looking into, with the exception of probably the legit worlds smartest human who "retired" from physics 30 years ago

Like, one old dude dicking around in retirement, and a couple of associates.

There's a long way to go before we can replicate a consciousness.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Physicists are often pointed to as the 'smartest' among us, yet when they turn to other fields, their genius isn't always transferable. I personally would prefer psychologists or philosophers to determine what is consciousness.

Also, I wasn't suggesting we replicate consciousness. I was touching on whether a human is still a human if, to put it extremely, neck down is machinery instead of biology. I might be okay with a Wall-e body.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's Roger Penrose...

Dude started with "pure math" gave MC Escher the ideas for his most famous artwork from doodles, then decided applying math in physics was better, so when he and Stephen Hawking finished up Einstein's work, Hawking was the charismatic "face" everyone knew while Penrose was doing the real heavy mental lifting off screen.

When he reached a normal retirement age, he devoted 30 years to the study of consciousness, most of that time he was literally the only person researching it.

Like, it's good to doubt, and I didn't drop the name at first...

But it's not like he jumped from computer science to biological engineering.

It's like 70 years of research along a continued evolution from pure math to consciousness...

Like, he literally "wrote the book" on how it's all connected. Someone who doesn't know anything about science can read "The Road to Reality" and learn everything from 1+1=2 to what's still pretty much bleeding edge physics.

Literally no one who has ever existed on the planet Earth is more knowledgeable on what consciousness really is, and how it works

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm aware of Penrose and his position relative to Hawking.

When I wrote psychologists or philosophers, note I didn't write psychologist or philosopher. It's great work Penrose did to be sure, but I'd prefer not to rely on a foundation of thought laid by a single mind, no matter their intellect or dedication to science.

With respect to you, I made a quick joke about whether human rights would be applied to cyborgs in the future, I was not questioning the fundamental nature of what it is to be.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well at least until we reach a ‘body of Theseus’ point in technological augmentation. Then we may need to rebrand ‘human rights’ to ‘consciousness rights’ or something more catchy.

It's gotta be 100% replacement to be Theseus but arguably even just a preserved brain in a robot like fallout wouldn't still be "you".

So I took it as replicating a brain, which for a long time was built on the assumption we just needed to replicate an amount of neurons. So that's why I went off on a tangent. We don't know 100% how it works, just that replicating neurons alone won't replicate a consciousness.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Interesting viewpoint. I disagree the Theseus argument requires total replacement, but that's minutiae not worth getting into at the minute.

I always considered the more complex question of the thought experiment not being if the whole is different when the components are replaced, but when that change would occur if you assume change occurs in the first place.

Difficult to think about. I might need a bigger brain.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

disagree the Theseus argument requires total replacement, but that’s minutiae not worth getting into at the minute.

It's ...

It's literally the whole point. Not just to the saying, but the miscommunication that led here, it's literally and figuratively the point.

Tldr:

  1. Thesus leaves on a ship

  2. Has to replace 50% of components

  3. Replaces the other 50%

  4. Returns home.

  5. People welcome his ship back, but no piece of his ship has ever been to his homeland, the ship hasn't returned, it's the ships first arrival.

If it's not completely replaced, Thesus isn't relevant.

It can be made a lot simpler, if you use something like an axe than a whole ship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNOk4yyxE38

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Seems to me the misunderstanding was my joke being interpreted as an opening to a semantics debate when it was merely an offhand remark loosely connected to the subject matter of this post.

However I've checked the clock just now and it does appear to be minutiae time.

I don't consider the literal tale of Theseus to be the only point of valid argument when invoking his name. Had the man returned with 85% of the ship boards replaced, the same philosophical argument about the ship not returning with him could be had.

Mentioning his name in relation to an issue communicates a concept. Similar to a child suddenly spouting a detailed piece of factual information being called Einstein. The concept being communicated is that Einstein was a genius, not that he was a mathematician.

To frame this with an analogy, when I'm at the grocers looking for salted peanuts, I go to the section where I also find almonds, hazelnuts, and pistachios. I wouldn't berate management if I couldn't find them around the chickpeas and lentils.

Oh, would you look at the time.

[–] Rezoie@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

reminds me of the game soma by the authors of amnesia

[–] atmorous@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Lets also bundle it with getting cool things

You want new cool things made sooner rather than later, and existing stuff to be maintained better then focus on building up people instead of destroying them

That would definutely get a lot more people on board. From left and right. More so right

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well at least until we reach a ‘body of Theseus’ point in technological augmentation.

Yah I'm sure that will be any day now.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Progress is being made. I've been smacking coconuts together these past couple days.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Fascists? White supremacists? Eugenicists? Genocidists? Rapists?

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's what's neat about human rights. Even people who are bad at this particular point in time have them.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what's going on..

It seems like you started listing people who took other's rights away, but then you threw "eugenicists" in the middle, which make me think you just listed things people dont like to be called?

I 100% understand that you knew exactly what you meant. But literally no one else knows what your thinking bro.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You think eugenicists didn't take people's rights away?!?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I think ones that are also fascist, or even just authoritarian do...

Like, I don't think nuclear energy is bad just because we can build nuclear bombs with the same technology.

We've "beat" evolution, we have zero evolutionary pressure right now. And because most mutations are detrimental and very very few actually beneficial, everything goes downhill relatively quickly.

Like, you know the result of no evolutionary pressure is the Dodo, right?

And even if humans hadn't shown up, any know and of predator showing up would have had the same result, and realistically was a matter of when not if.

Like, were really not that far off from humans not even carrying their own children in an evolutionary timescale. Genetic screenings are already a thing for IVF...

If done properly it's not taking anyone's rights away, it's preventive measures to prevent lifelong incurable conditions.

Like, I know it's tough, but can you try to actually type your thoughts out? I'm going to get tired of this kind and of exchange very quickly.

But you really don't seem to know what that word means, and unfortunately it's important enough these days I want to try and help.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We should not forcibly sterilize people, or murder those that are deemed inferior.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Agreed.

But that not what a eugeniist is or what they believe in...

It's just the betterment of the human genome. Saying every eugenicist was like the Nazis is like saying every communist is like Stalin.

What's ridiculous about it, is every human is a eugenist on a personal level. Every time you feel attracted to someone, it's because you think mixing your genes with theirs would improve your offsprings genes.

Like, I know I've said this a couple times, but you just fundamentally don't understand the meaning of the words your using, and I'm starting to understand why you've never learned...

[–] BrilliantantTurd4361@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Imagine the deep dark hole you had to climb out of to write that and genuinely stand by your demented conviction.

Get help.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So...

If a couple both are carriers for a serious and lifelong medical condition, but they really want kids.

If they used IVF to make sure their kids don't have either copies of that gene....

To you, that's the same as killing the couple?

Because both methods is eugenics.

Just one is fucking horrible and one ensures future generations don't suffer.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

What you're talking about, with using IVF to reduce the chances of genetic conditions, is called prenatal screening. And while it relies on genomics, and even borrows some concepts from Eugenics, it is not Eugenics, at least as far as most people understand and use that term. Eugenics is widely understood to be the pseudo-scientific shield fascists frequently hide behind to justify bigotry, forced sterilization, genocide, and other atrocities. You may think this is just a semantic argument over an umbrella term that can cover anything to do with improving the human genome, but modern geneticists are very careful to disassociate anything they do with the term "Eugenics", due to the authoritarian implications it carries.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So you think the government should have no laws about reporduction?

If a father wants to reproduce with his own daughters, assuming he waits till they're 18, you're cool with that?

Any law against inbreeding is eugenics after all, and your pretty clear that because someone corrupted it, the baby has to go out with the bathwater.

Like, you realize on a long enough timescale, all you're arguing for is the repeated and continual renaming of every system after someone abuses, which only leads to a general populace ignorant of history and that any system can be abused.

You think this is just me being pedantic, but word choice literally shapes how we think.

It matters more than you think it does.

And what you're arguing for is literally why so many ericans are against socialism.

That's the ironic part, you're method is easily and recently disproven. But likely due to that very train.of logic you don't understand it.

It's like a blind man arguing everyone should be blind be cause he never sees anything scary, ignorant that if everyone was blind we'd all be fucked

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My guy, you wanna stop putting words in my mouth and have an honest, productive discussion, I'm all for it. Otherwise, don't bother replying.

Also, pay attention to usernames when replying. That was my first comment in this chain, but I have a feeling you thought you were replying to someone you'd already been talking to.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If I've replied to you once why start with this:

you wanna stop putting words in my mouth and have an honest, productive discussion, I’m all for it. Otherwise, don’t bother replying.

This is a two day thread I've blocked multiple low activity accounts in, and a new one only shows up after I block the last one...

Like, it should be obvious what's going on here, but I'm betting a new account will reply in a couple hours after I don't reply to your next one.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

If I've replied to you once why start with this:

Because your one reply to me claimed that I was saying a bunch of stuff that I never said in my one comment?

Like, it should be obvious what's going on here

My account is over two years old with thousands of other comments. My writing style is vastly different than anyone else's in this thread. I'm not creating new accounts to avoid blocks. I'm not out to get you. I'm flattered, but it's not that serious.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Nobody is superior to others. We are all equal.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

One more reason the establishment democratic leadership is allied with the right in trying to do everything imaginable to sabotage or at least marginalize and dismiss Mamdani's mandate and popularity.

The more he stands up for what people actually want, and stands up for marginalized or "controversial" groups and ideas, the more glaring it becomes how they won't.

Unfortunately, the average liberal, middle-class American is largely ambivalent on things like trans-rights still, BUT that doesn't mean they don't care. A lot of people DO want to see people protected broadly. This can influence elections, this can become a tipping point for "regime change" in the Democratic party.

The current Dem leadership loves the fact that liberal america is ambivalent about trans rights and will work actively to keep it that way, because it means they don't have to take a stance on it, they don't have to actually care, and this lets them court the neo-libs and conservatives as the Overton Window is bought and sold on the market to whoever has the deepest pockets.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

You don't mess with the Zohran.