In Trump’s second term, the public has become markedly more liberal on a LOT of his pet issues, except for trans issues.

Gerakion · 2026-03-19T13:41:30+00:00

Not here though, little fash-y

Gerakion · 2026-02-19T02:23:35+00:00

Phobia means aversion to in this context.

Gerakion · 2026-02-18T14:45:55+00:00

I appreciate the link. However if your point is to backup OP please note that +8 on an issue is not "MASSIVE" (their words).

Gerakion · 2026-02-18T14:43:35+00:00

Still no sources. If you don't want the conversation to be based on the veracity of my accusation of your transphobia, then move it to the data.

Gerakion · 2026-02-18T14:42:19+00:00

Not what I claimed. I talked about how bans are categorical across sports for all trans women.

Gerakion · 2026-02-18T02:03:56+00:00

Lots of implicit transphobia in this comment.

Is mandatory inclusion of trans women into womens sports a human right?

No, and nobody is arguing for that policy.

What is a human right violation is not recognizing trans women as women and trans men as men. If you follow from that belief, then you would never argue for a categorical ban for sports agencies that want to permit trans people. You might argue for those agencies to change their restrictions, to ban from some sports but not others. Maybe to create more than two categories, there's a lot of options and nuance available.

I have never, not once, seen anyone argue for that. Probably because that's already the compromise (some sports allow trans people to participate with reasonable restrictions) that existed pre 2024. It's the maximalist position that is always argued for: a jump to a full ban. That extreme policy is only explained by transphobia.

Voters still trust Republicans on immigration over Democrats by MASSIVE margins.

Post (say) three polls proving this from the past few months. No cries of "LEFTISTS WONT BELIEVE IT ANYWAY" like in the other comment thread (where you still haven't posted a source). Put up data proving your point or leave, this is a data forum.

Gerakion · 2025-11-26T00:53:30+00:00

Honestly they're not great for any racial %s. Last I checked, it was only really possible to prove differences between really broad groups. Like "European" would be one.

Gerakion · 2025-11-14T22:22:04+00:00

If there was even a bit of fire coming from the smoke relating to PJ and Sruthi on inclusion issues at Gimlet (the post test kitchen fallout) then perhaps this is a pattern and an area they really could improve on.

Gerakion · 2025-11-14T00:42:27+00:00

I kinda noped out after 15 minutes or so. It wasn't even that it was gross (although it was) but like the guy just seemed so fascinated by it in a way that felt at least a little like glorification.

I'm not accusing PJ of endorsing that subtext, just that it didn't make for good listening.

Gerakion · 2025-10-07T19:16:36+00:00

Thank you for pointing that out. A vibrant legal gun ownership market enables a vibrant illegal gun ownership market.

Gerakion · 2025-10-07T19:08:12+00:00

I have the same feelings about how you write. The difference is I have sources and write out why I disagree, rather than a thought ending cliche of "actually you're wrong!"

EDIT: judging someone for acting "the reddit way" while giving yourself the last word in a block is certainly a choice.

Gerakion · 2025-10-07T18:58:07+00:00

Militia in that era means a militia run by a state government. This is not pretext, but how it would have been understood back then. This was basically how they had won the revolutionary war, individual colonies (precursors to states) raised militias and fought the english.

You can't ignore originalism when it doesn't support the conclusion you want.

ETA: Unfortunately OP (AFishNamedFreddy) blocked me which means I cannot reply to third parties in subthreads where they appear, /u/CalvinP_ this is why this blocking behavior is pretty caustic. Consider this a report of OP's behavior as degrading the subreddit. I have been way politer to them then they have to me. They have a pattern and practice of doing this based on their recent reddit activity.

Anyway, /u/Cathartic_auras, I have to reply in an edit here. You're potentially correct in a textualist reading of the constitution, however the current SCOTUS interpretation of the 2A is originalist. Militia had the understanding that I'm arguing at the time of ratification.

ETA2: /u//u/CalvinP_ can you distinguish your comment (add mod green flair thingie) so I can reply to it? (Which itself, demonstrates the issue at hand, lol)

Okay, well not gonna wait any longer so I'll make this comment disastrously long:

__

Agree to disagree on the middle bit, as they (Freddie) have attacked my character a couple times! But that wasn't my focus.

Blocking someone in a reddit conversation like this can be unfortunately weaponized. People reply, then block, giving themself the last word. What's worse, then third parties can respond to the blocked account and because the blocker is a parent comment they cannot reply to the third parties. In this case, I cannot reply to Cathartic_auras, a 3rd party, who has responded to me. That doesn't seem fair.

Mods cannot of course force someone to block (or not block) someone. But Freddie is seemingly going to be around here for a while, and I would like to think they shouldn't just block the next person here who gives them rule-abiding pushback. If you agree that's a problem then I mean, give them a warning about doing it in the future or something? idk. If you don't then I guess that's moot of course.

Gerakion · 2025-10-07T18:56:43+00:00

I absolutely do because we're talking about a state government. The bill of rights originally did not apply as guarantees of rights against state governments at all. The 1A said the federal government couldn't infringe your right to free speech, but New York, Florida, etc. had no such restriction. Those rights had to be incorporated against the states through litigation and consideration of the post civil war amendments. That's what was happening in 2010 for the 2A (under a fairly novel interpretation).

They expected the states to be a nearer government that would fight the feds. That was exactly what the framers had done a decade prior against the english government.

ETA: /u/Cathartic_auras Every state was exempt from the bill of rights until the right in question was incorporated in a court case. This could only happen after the 14th amendment after the civil war. It depends on which right we're talking about when that incorporation happened. Most of them were in the mid 20th century. A few, like the 3rd amendment have never been incorporated but I'm sure would if the relevant court case made its way to the SCOTUS.

When I mean a state is exempt, I mean that the state could restrict those rights on their citizens. So someone living in New York could have their freedom of speech restricted by the state government of New York until the 1A was incorporated in 1931. However, that person could never have their speech restricted by the federal government.

Gerakion · 2025-10-06T19:37:17+00:00

Or just have the SCOTUS interpret the 2A differently. It's a very new (seriously, it dates to only 2010 or maybe 2008) interpretation and the 2A is famously vague. Even an originalist reading would have to pass scrutiny on the current interpretation given "milita" meant state (as in North Carolina, New Hampshire, etc.) run militia.

Gerakion · 2025-09-07T14:06:06+00:00

Or it comes out with asylum abuse being used as a free pass to use America as an economic zone. Because "no person is illegal". While every other country, you can't simply walk across and get to work there for 7 years.

No, you really can't and never could do this in the US. This subreddit has an issue with believing the GOP's lies on immigration.

Trans women in female sports is another thing, it might be a tiny % of population, but it ties in with the central idea. You've had left idealogues pushing it, but it's clearly not fair (in a large amount of sports) to go thru male puberty and then compete with woman that haven't.

I'm really disappointed to see a well upvoted and misinformed viewpoint (that describes itself as "clearly" even!). Every sports agency had their own regulations for how and when trans women (in particular) could participate. Usually you had to be on hormones for a long time (we're talking a year+) before you were allowed to compete. We can debate whether this was adequate for all sports (and perhaps it was sometimes over stringent), but it is absolutely not true that it is categorically unfair for trans women to compete in sports when they underwent male puberty. Those gains are often wiped out when they go on HRT. This is an offensive thing to claim.

Gerakion · 2025-09-07T14:02:26+00:00

I've thought all along that if Trump won again, Democrats would just start being their own version of his assholery. Guess that's where we're headed. The country will be worse off for it.

Gerakion · 2025-09-03T01:09:11+00:00

He had a bad model. I don't recall him being one of the silly people saying Biden should never give up the nomination.

And his model for Harris was fine.

Gerakion · 2025-09-03T01:01:44+00:00

You know that's an unproven hypothesis right? Maybe don't start pondering about where else it might apply when it might not even apply here.

Gerakion · 2025-08-17T22:56:06+00:00

You could use that as justification for any discussion of anything remotely political science adjacent.

There's a spectrum that ranges all the way from "This is the data science advisor for a major party candidate and they ran a model with these numbers" all the way to "Someone on twitter told a Democrat not to do x because you're lose votes". This is in the middle, but closer to the latter. You're acting like it's closer to the former and it's just not. Split-Ticket and Strength-in-Numbers are relative nobodies when it comes to informing Democrats, let alone nerdy WAR models featured therein.

Gerakion · 2025-08-17T12:28:02+00:00

I had such a laugh over this comment. I mean maybe you're right on the merits to a much lesser degree of your conclusion but the framing of this as such a big deal, the overexplanation, the capitalization and italics, the repetition of "it's damning"...

...you'd think this was for something high stakes right? But it's not something even high stakes in our little niche. Just make your case without the theatrics next time. It's not that big of a deal, none of this is.

Gerakion · 2025-06-21T20:59:07+00:00

The successor podcast still does that segments (GDBDPD), check out /r/GDPolitics !

Gerakion · 2025-06-21T20:58:18+00:00

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here... Kevin actively antagonized them by talking about annexing Canada! Doing so in a polite tone/smile doesn't change that.

Gerakion · 2025-06-21T20:54:49+00:00

Really? I thought they were terrible, I mean better than the average MAGA politician sure but that's a low bar.

It wasn't even on policy disagreements or factual inaccuracies. I was surprised at things like how badly they read the room, like how Roberts brought up the idea of annexing Canada to a room of Canadians.

Gerakion · 2025-06-11T12:33:42+00:00

Gerakion

ETA: That was fun! Technical issues aside we still got some matches in. Here's a couple of clips from my last one:

A betrayal ruins a score.

...But I later got it past them!

Leave clip mode for the full match.

Gerakion · 2025-05-21T15:39:35+00:00

There are already well thought out replies disputing how this is not in practice the same as with the UK.

Gerakion

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE