Michael Hardner

taxme has some issues... he was, I believe, banned in an earlier incarnation... he uses a VPN to log in, which he accused me of being Mossad when I revealed that.... yes... marginal types...

Basically ACCUSED me of being a Jew, as if that's a crime. I did report that one, I think.

Wow. Good thread 🧵

Well sure, but it would also be interesting to be in a plane crash.

Yes, but this phenomenon IS a problem. It was pretty clear that he'd try to cut Medicare and likely implement Project 2025. People really didn't understand that connection.

Well, it's your story. Sri Lanka was definitely materially poor.

Sorry sir, I will do as you command.

1. I inferred that from the claim above. Ok, you didn't say that. 2. I can't search, so I don't remember his name.

1. I was speaking generally. Some discussions don't require experts, I agree. But if someone tries to enter a political discussion with a statement of "nonbinary people don't exist" ... is that policy or is it science they're talking about ? I'm not sure. Either way I don't have to engage... I don't ever have to engage, for that matter. 2. Analogies are tricky but I'll play... So, yes, the mask issue was politics, supply, and science. I suppose it's the same with transgender issues, you're right. For my part we're still in a meta-discussion here but maybe give a more specific example and I'll tell you how I would approach it from both science and politics. 3. I think the thing I can't get my head around is you saying that making a statement on physics vs social issues is analogous ? 4. But policy depends on medical, economic, climate experts because people don't understand these issues at all without them. 5. But how did it start ? It started with people who wanted to live in another gender. That's been in the public eye for decades. Eventually more people did this, and people started making a case (pushing, if you insist) for accommodating them. Right ? 6. Ok - but as we see, they didn't invent the idea - it came from the community. Now, I'm still trying to break down what "pushing" means. If people are telling them that they want this is it "pushing" the idea ? Maybe it is. And for full disclosure, some of those points you listed are fine by me and fine by people I know also. 7. Ok, so let's say "it" is happening. Medical cases are misdiagnosed, people regret their changes... That alone doesn't justify ceasing any medical help to people who justify as transgender. 8. Neither does yours. You don't have to agree to clarifying language, so I would have to ask you "what age" every time you use the term "child". Because medical care can and should differentiate between 17 year olds and 3 year olds. 9. There's a concept of 'mature minor' in Canada, not sure if they have it in the USA. They try to assess how much the under-18-person should be able to say about their own healthcare. I think that's a good idea.

So calling someone a 'pedo' is out of bounds. That's helpful. What did the asexual guy do ?

That asexual guy disappeared a few months back.... Maybe there's some line of insults you're not allowed to cross? I'd like to know what it is so I can report lots and lots of people who have wronged me! WRONGED ME!

BD is claiming he was banned for insulting someone? Comments?

You nailed it. They raised several generations of Americans who were fed jingoistic slogans instead of taught world history. And now you get comments like this. Does anyone realize that when these large international organizations were set up, the USA went out of their way to make sure they were at the middle of all of it? And now they're voluntarily going to give that up?

Except I saw a headline that said the FBI director instructed his employees to defy that order? This is the most disorganized and unprepared administration since Herbert Hoover, and I'm including 2016 to 2020.

Why was a rich woman taking the bus in a poor country?

1. Okay, tell us what you know then. I'm sure you understand that the rest of us understand the conventional knowledge of what goes on with foreign services. 2. Why can a business person get access to a federal minister when I can't? Do you know the answers to these questions? You pay for things. You get goods and services. The economy is an ecosystem, that evolves. The political economy - same thing... Instead of asking obtuse questions, tell us a better way. You're smart enough for that.

They provide in-person services for nationals and businesses in that nation?

But we don't know is how much it matters. Or how much we THINK IT MATTERS. Think about it. For decades, when something was important, we all watched it on the same few TV channels. And so things had an impact. Today, not so much. As I have read, we are in an epistemic crisis. No one knows for sure what facts are, no one knows what's important. No wonder there's chaos.

😂 So they say. They haven't earned trust, yet, to get broad acceptance of their claims. Meanwhile, Trump's dirty charity was dissolved by a COURT. 😂

1. I am not talking about activists, I'm talking about the medical/health experts only. I feel like the tactic of picking out extremists on the other side of an issue and painting their views as the central thesis of that side is not honest. And it's not argument from authority, it's trusting expertise and listening to opposing views and discussion from within that group. Here's a counter example. If, in 1990s, I stated that there was no opposition to Climate Change theory whatsoever and portrayed skepticism by quoting a know-nothing who cited volcanoes as the cause of CO2 or somesuch then that would not be honest. In fact, that's what happened in the liberal media. That, in itself, was an inconvenient truth. There was opposition to climate change from reputable climate scientists, even if it was a minority view. I do not want to branch into a different topic here, it's an illustration of how the culture can and should use honest experts. 2. I'm arguing meta, as in arguing about how we argue. You say that you know for sure things about the topic of transgender as sure as you know that gravity works (I think). That's what I'm talking about. 3. Sorry, I didn't mean "you" as in "user", I meant "you" as in "a person". 4. I'm really glad you said that. I agree that politics shouldn't lead in such areas - it should follow. 5. I doubt that the medical/psychological practitioners started working in this area after politicians brought it up. At some point, it ended up in the public sphere. I have some hunches as to how that happened but I don't have a full history. 6. You seem to be saying that the politicians are more the ones "pushing" it - correct ? I haven't thought of that. It makes sense, but as I haven't heard of it. What's an example ? 7. It's only the point if it's getting as much attention as it deserves. I'll admit that that is subjective but I'm sure you agree that their are limits as to how much attention it should get either way, ie. we should devote much more attention from the medical side or we should devote zero political attention. Negligence is a problem, for sure. 8. I don't think I am. I'm mostly making medical arguments. I never said negligence and poor practice doesn't happen, and I'm pretty sure of that. 9. I'm mostly making meta- arguments. I can't argue with you, at least not yet, because I don't know what "pushing things onto children" means. Even now. You seem to be saying politicians are "pushing things"... well let's get there and figure it out. Maybe we will agree. I can draw a line between institutions that are supposed to be factual and objective... and the political sphere where people are supposed to be persuasive, but honest. I can agree that all politics has to be kept in check by a skeptical public. If one side is allowed to bullsh!t then it gives more room for the other side to, and so on. 10. But you can find other experts who disagree, in cases where there is doubt. If you can't, then you are definitely in strange territory. Someone doing this is not in the frame of "Copernicus vs The Church" as they sometimes say because Copernicus was an expert and the pope was ignorant. Someone saying that the experts are all wrong has a HUGE burden of proof, extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence etc. Again, I would point you to the podcast interview with Jesse Singal and Dr. Erica Anderson (trans doctor) to edify your knowledge about gadfly experts etc. The point about experts not being entirely fact-based is wise. If you read "A Brief History of Time" by Dr. Stephen Hawking you will learn that he was personally frustrated and p!ssed off at papers that challenged his theories. 11. And I would say you are putting an unwitting reader into a mode where they may think you are talking about young immature children. So - meta-wise - can we agree on clarifying language ? Why not ? It would make both of our arguments easier to figure out. 12. My argument is (while still meta, as we're speaking of the language of the discussion) that the term "child" is inexact enough to require us to define it before we engage. Or are you saying that there should be no distinction when we are talking about 3- or 17- year olds. Canada even has a legal distinction, did you know ? Interesting discussion, anyway. It takes a lot of time to reply to these but I am starting to prefer the meta discussion to the discussion. Cheerio

Classic newspaper caricature.... One thing I've learned about MAGA is that the hate being made fun of. If that's the only thing that works then so be it ...

Maybe... but what IS on their minds ? I assume that the content of the message is at least meshed with the form. So, Trudeau's style of flattering the national images with sweet platitudes about our tolerance is - at a minimum - detested. We get that. In addition, it flies in the face of the reality that we are not doing well economically. But... the form of the new populism has landed in the USA and food and housing prices hardly seem to be a priority. People want less politics, and more confidence. Poilievre is more political than substantive, and that's been fine up until now. Interestingly, it might actually come down to BIG IDEAS for the first time since 1988. FREE TRADE or TRADE WARS ? Environment or Enterprise ? I find it fascinating how little the politicians trust people to understand details, and to accept big changes.

The specter of hard leftism is around the corner at this point.

1. "Flouting immigration law"? 2. I didn't say that.

All good points. I didn't mean to say that the USA administration, by avoiding these steps, would not be fascist. What I meant to say is that those steps are the worst and most feared aspects of fascism. And I'll stand by my assertion that I think the three of them are unlikely.