Did SJWs help create Trump?

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's look at the facts. You know that funny little word that so many people ignore because it doesn't fit their opinions

Funny you're trying to base an argument on something that does have variance between sources, and yet you still demonstrated the same point, and that is Hillary received more votes than Trump. As for those that didn't vote, oh well. We've never stopped to ask "oh, well, what do they think?" before.

Consider that Trump's campaigned was geared to win electoral college votes.

Were the rules different, then his strategy would've been too.
Who is to say he'd have lost the pop vote if that were his goal?

If more people felt their vote counted, it's likely Trump would have been crushed rather than only loosing by a fairly close margin.
And as I pointed out, Reagan had a landslide. Washington had a landslide. Obama has a landslide. Had Trump not won Florida and Michigan, he would not have won the election. His victory is narrow.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Link?

 

[Neo Deist]

Have something later than this....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/
It's far less than a million.

290 to 228 is a landslide, although there have been bigger ones.

I'm no big fan of the EC either, but rules is rules.
Trump campaigned to win the votes which mattered,
& he did the better job. If we had a different system,
I'm sure he'd have tailored his campaigning to that.

It's 306 to 232.

 

[Quetzal]

It's 306 to 232.

I think it just further illustrates the problem. The fact that someone can lose the popular vote by over a million votes and still win that many electoral votes. It is a broken system and silences those 1.3 million votes that should have dictated who won the election.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Those with body dysmorphic disorder generally see a worsening of their condition when they do alter their body. This is in sharp contrast to those with gender dysphoria who transition, where we generally see improvements in mental health and social functioning, and that is despite the social hardships.

Not always. Surgical changes don't always change their condition. I'm familiar with quite a few trans men and women in the Orlando community and while I would agree that it is different than BBD I sitll don't see how functionally it is different. They both sometimes have similiar roots. Many people who go through the change come out feeling still wrong somehow. Its a hard struggle where some days people wake up and wonder why they ever did what they did. I've seen a woman burst into tears because she was born a man and went through surgery and had oh **** moments like that. Not to mention the incredible depression that many face when they realize they cannot become functioning "men" or "women". At least not as they wished. I haven't seen this as much in the extreme with men (who were born women) but with women (who were born me). They will never have ovaries. They will never ever have the ability to be preganant ect. Similarly but not as extremely I have witnessed men who are very shaken by the fact that they don't have functioning penisis and never will.

Though I must admit. It was a bit of a trick question that I asked you there. I already know a few good answers and arguments against the comparison to BDD and transgenderism. I have never heard it stated quite like you answered but more technical terms about "treatment" and responses to "Treatment". Its still BDD adjacent however. What we need to find out is distinctly what is different and why? Is it based in physical, psychological, genetic or nuture? We are least inclined to assume nuture since it does have fundamental issues with body chemistry. But it isn't totally out of the ball park that there isn't an enviromental possibility. There are several cases of people who were abused who took on the role of the opposite gender out of shame. Much in the same way we have sociopaty, psychopathy and other forms of anti-social disorders. To a degree at least we see that there are inviromental causes that can create these disorders. I however feel, specifically with anti-social disorders, that we know for a fact that one can be born a psychopath but are the ones who are created antisocials through enviromental means even the same disorder? Likewise are those that have developed gender issues because of abuse somehow fundamentally different than those that were, to quote Lady Gaga, born this way?

Another amazing topic not brought up is that transger individuals don't always feel the need to go through surgery. While at least the majority of people I have takled and interacted with have had some form of hormone therapy very few have gone through with full sex-reasignment surgeries. Partial surgeries or "tops" are done pretty often. Stuffing or binding even more often than that. But there are people who identify as the opposite gender to their sex yet totally embrace their genetalia. Where does that fit in our BDD model? Where does that fit in our notions of what gender is? A man I won't name once told me when I inqured about it that he said "Having a vagina doesn't make me any less of a man. I have a manly vagina and thats it." I admit I paraphrased a bit but so be it. Quotes anyway.

The final bit on this thought is that we don't even know what we don't know. I am not a fan of hindering questions or assuming moral or social truths are equivilant of facts.

They wouldn't be actual theories. Sexuality doesntt "exist," but we have a concept and term for it. Gender isn't something universally defined, but at the same time there are no genderless cultures. We have also observed gendered behavior in some non-human species.

Exactly. Gender isn't something universally defined. Gender more or less means what roles you feel you fit into in society. Normally it is based on your sexual idenity but in the case of transgenders we find it to be the opposite. Why is that? Does the brain have a "sex" or "identifier" that is differnet than what lay between your legs? Is there a way that a brain can "feel" female reguardless of the genetic makeup of their DNA? If so why?

And what kind of disorder is it? Is it a desire to be seen as a specified gender for the roles of that gender within our society? Is it to appear sexually as though you are that gender for some kind of need? Is it on the purely physical where you feel as though your body is "wrong"? What is the root of feeling that your body is "wrong" if that is the case? What part of the brain made that an issue? Hormonal? Psychological? Does what is strictly defined as "self mutilation" help?

Does gender exist apart from sex and if so where does it stem from? That was the basic question sought to be answered. We found out our theories were wrong. Other studies have found other results in differnet ways of looknig at how to categorize gender from an MRI machine. But is it that simple? No one denies that the trend exists and that the symptoms are real. I use the term "symptoms" liberally here so I ask that no one get offended or caught up in its usage. Instead lets look at what we objectively see and what we know from that obseration. Then we look for answers and test theories as to why.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does the brain have a "sex" or "identifier" that is differnet than what lay between your legs? Is there a way that a brain can "feel" female reguardless of the genetic makeup of their DNA? If so why?

When we consider intersexuals and those with conditions such as androgyny insensitivity, clearly there is more at work than whats between the legs and chromosome markers. And we also have brain autopsies, including the brains of pre-hormone treatment transsexuals. Their brains still looked structurally closer to the sex they identified as, though not as profoundly as those who were on hormone treatment.
We can also examine other cultures, where we find three, four, even five or more different genders. Really, it needs to be considered as a psychosocial concept of human culture, something we have an inert drive to express, but yet we have to look to our culture to know what and how to express it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When we consider intersexuals and those with conditions such as androgyny insensitivity, clearly there is more at work than whats between the legs and chromosome markers. And we also have brain autopsies, including the brains of pre-hormone treatment transsexuals. Their brains still looked structurally closer to the sex they identified as, though not as profoundly as those who were on hormone treatment.
We can also examine other cultures, where we find three, four, even five or more different genders. Really, it needs to be considered as a psychosocial concept of human culture, something we have an inert drive to express, but yet we have to look to our culture to know what and how to express it.

I think we can agree that androgyny insensitivty as well as other forms of issuse such as hermaphradite issues can clearly be set aside as distinct from trans issues.

I also challenge the notion that the brains were male or female in nature. I don't disagree with it but I challenge it. Where is the evidence per se. What was the markers that they found to identify the brain as such? On what basis were they made?

On the Indonesian Bugis society they have the same system we have now. Cis male/female. Trans male/female and somethwere in between. Intersex is different than trans issues in the case that it is definitly a sexual disorder. A trans individual is purely within the mind. Most of the time they are functional in their born sex but still gravitate or self idenfity elsewhere.

You touched on the bit at the end there about psychologiacl concepts perhaps being expressed through our culture. That may be true. If it is culture however it lends itself away from the biological. And I assume you meant "inherent" not "inert" need to express it. But then I wonder where that comes from. What is its function and why does it exist? Where did we evolve those traits.

It seems mostly evident that most animals, even animals that have homosexuality, do not exhibit enough self awareness for gender issuse. What makes humans so special on that frontier?

 

[Neo Deist]

I think it just further illustrates the problem. The fact that someone can lose the popular vote by over a million votes and still win that many electoral votes. It is a broken system and silences those 1.3 million votes that should have dictated who won the election.

Better than silencing 11 states.

 

[Quetzal]

Better than silencing 11 states.

I think you are only saying that because the outcome supports you (for those keeping score at home, this has occurred six times in our nations history, all six times have favored republicans I believe). If we are going to continue to humor the fact that the EC is the best we are going to do we also have to accept a few things.

1. The current voting system does not accurately reflect the voters. If it did, Clinton would have won this election.
2. The current voting system does not weigh votes equally. The voter to EC ratio in a state like California is much much higher than say Wyoming. That is, a single vote in Wyoming counts more than a single vote in CA.
3. Votes in politically dominant states that go against the dominate party are irrelevant. Example, a republican in CA is just as useless as a democrat on Texas.

Personally, I don't think this is okay. Folks like to argue that the EC system somehow protects us from certain scenarios. Maybe, but what two elections have taught us since 2000 is that a candidate can effectively lose the election and still get the position.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Better than silencing 11 states.

Instead it silences....what 40?

 

[Mister Emu]

My problem is the "left" is being treated as a threat when there evidence shows that such a threat (in terms of political violence or terrorism) barely exists. There hasn't been a problem of left wing extremism (so defined) for the US since the end of the Cold War.

You asked why the left is distrusted. It is because in the American political landscape, the organized left has a history of terrorism and violence for the purpose of revolutionary incitement. Any sense of a return to that is going to have a response. So when leftists incite violence in response to election results, when they attempt to run roughshod over the ability of detractors to speak, or the myriad things the left does that echoes their historically violent opposition to our way of life, you're going to get a significant push back.

 

[Quetzal]

...the organized left has a history of terrorism and violence for the purpose of revolutionary incitement.

Evidence? Examples? Citations? Heck, anything to give some body to this statement would be more than helpful.

 

[Mister Emu]

The current voting system does not accurately reflect the voters. If it did, Clinton would have won this election.

It accurately reflects the voters of the states. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy and our system has always existed and was formed such that less populous states have greater proportional representation.

The current voting system does not weigh votes equally. The voter to EC ratio in a state like California is much much higher than say Wyoming. That is, a single vote in Wyoming counts more than a single vote in CA.

Yes, that is as intended.

 

[Quetzal]

It accurately reflects the voters of the states.

No it does not. If electoral votes were distributed based on the ratio of how voters voted in the state. Fine. But it doesn't. A winner take all system does not accurately reflect voters of the states because as much as 49.9% of the votes get tossed out.

 

[Mister Emu]

Evidence? Examples? Citations? Heck, anything to give some body to this statement would be more than helpful.

Sorry, I know Laika is politically informed so I didn't think to include anything. Look up Weather Underground and its offshoots like M19CO, and the United Freedom Front.

 

[Mister Emu]

No it does not. If electoral votes were distributed based on the ratio of how voters voted in the state. Fine. But it doesn't. A winner take all system does not accurately reflect voters of the states because as much as 49.9% of the votes get tossed out.

States decide via their legislature how they distribute their electoral votes.

 

[Quetzal]

Sorry, I know Laika is politically informed so I didn't think to include anything. Look up Weather Underground and its offshoots like M19CO, and the United Freedom Front.

No dice. Burden of proof falls with you. When you make cases condemning an entire political ideology, it is up to you to prove your point.

 

[Quetzal]

States decide via their legislature how they distribute their electoral votes.

My point still stands. The closer to look at the EC the more evident it becomes in it's inadequacies at accurately representing the voting public.

 

[Mister Emu]

No dice. Burden of proof falls with you. When you make cases condemning an entire political ideology, it is up to you to prove your point.

Uh, I listed three left wing organizations who acted via political terrorism, as you requested.

 

[Quetzal]

Uh, I listed three left wing organizations who acted via political terrorism, as you requested.

Does a fringe group from the 70s give you distrust of the left today?