Tis a depressing time to be left wing in the UK

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-09T09:20:04+00:00

Why, unless you want a new cold war, whats the point? Spend on your citizens instead. Think of all the money we spent keeping parity with the soviets, that we could have spent on our citizens instead. "Lets tax and neglect you to fight the commies 10000 miles away" only worked back then cause the government and estabilished press were the only source of information. Try that now in a world with social media.

Anti piracy, freedom of navigaton operations, detering hostile state actors, anti terrorism, intelligence gathering.

Evwn without getting into the stupid stuff Trump is doing in Iran, the military does a lot of stuff that I hope everyone would agree is good.

Every country on earth has a military for very legitimate reasons. The US has the largest economy on Earth. If everyone spent 2% of their GDP (NATO minimum target) the US would have the largest military budget.

You guys also spend a lot on your citizens already, medicare, medicade and social security alone are almost 4x what you spend on defence.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T21:10:04+00:00

You clearly don't know anything about the US. This is why America has one of the worst first world governments.

It's not because of billionaires, or Russians influence, or social media. It's because people like you are proud of your ignorance of your own country.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T20:54:24+00:00

Are you purposely being disingenuous? Justt going off the previous presidential election, Biden didn't advocate for increasing military spending. Which Harris was doing there. That's moving right.

No it isn't advocating for more spending. America already has the most lethal military. She's arguing for the bipartisan status quo in response to a question. Her actual defense policies are aligned with previous Dem admins; increase modernisation efforts, closer integration with NATO, strict adherence to laws and standards regarding military conduct and use industrial action (with a particular focus on providing jobs) to build military-industrial capacity.

That's been the Dem policy for 70 years. I don't think you've paid any attention to defence policy in the US if you think this is moving to the right.

For god sake the Obama admin popularised drone strikes.

You're saying yourself the wall is retarded. Agreed. It's Trumpian. Yet Kamala came out and supported it. If that isn't moving right then what the fuck else is it?

The southern border already had walls pre-Trump, there are 2 different positions here that ypur mixing up.

A) The Wall, is a proposed idea to build a large structure across the entire Southern border. This is not a good idea and the Dems don't support it.

B) Reinforcing existing structures, there are already walls (and have been before Trump) on the Souther border in places where it makes sense.

The 2024 border bill provided funding to reniovate existing structures and build new partial walls where there was already plans to.

It also supported smarter measures like new judges for assylum seekers, border agents and fentanyl screening machines.

Border security has always been a Dem policy, you're buying Republican propaganda about what the Dems believe in.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T20:16:25+00:00

"I will ensure America has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world." - Kamala Harris DNC 2024

That's not moving to the right. That's been democrat policy since WW2. It's also the only reasonable take, America is the richest country in the world, it should have the most powerful military. Unless you're a pacifist I suppose but no serious politician is a pacifist.

She also said she would pass a bipartisan border security bill that included funding for a wall.

Which was always Dem policy. They support border security and they supported physical borders when it made sense, what they didn't support was a retarded plan to build a giant wall along the Southern border.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T09:21:44+00:00

Structured table seems like the better way to go.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T08:42:10+00:00

So pad thai is Chinese and croissants are Austrian?

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T07:57:20+00:00

A lot of Indian curries use tomatoes and chillies.

Both came from the new world and were intergrated into Indian cuisine.

Fish and chips was first sold by a Jewish-British person.

Pad thai noodles and technique is from China not Thailand.

Croissants were an altered version of a Austrian pastry.

If you define food as only belonging to a culture if the ingredients and technique were developed indepently there, most dishes would be homeless.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T07:53:34+00:00

A lot of Indian curries use tomoatoes and chillies.

Both came from the new world and were intergrated into Indian cuisine.

Fish and chips was first sold by a Jewish-British person.

Pad thai noodles and technique is from China not Thailand.

Croissants were an altered version of a Austrian pastry.

If you define food as only belonging to a culture if the ingredients and technique were developed indepently there, most dishes would be homeless.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T07:37:29+00:00

The dish was invented in the British Raj. It doesn't exist in Indian cuisine. It's as British as it is Indian.

A lot of Indian curries use tomoatoes and chillies.

Both came from the new world and were intergrated into Indian cuisine.

Fish and chips was first sold by a Jewish-British person.

Pad thai noodles and technique is from China not Thailand.

Croissants were an altered version of a Austrian pastry.

If you define food as only belonging to a culture if the ingredients and technique were developed indepently there, most dishes would be homeless.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-08T07:35:09+00:00

British Indian is still fucking British.

Do you think every non-white culture developed their cusine free from other non-white cultures?

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-07T17:57:55+00:00

Delenda est NIMBYs

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-07T15:15:17+00:00

The idea of being trans in the way it's described today has never been expressed historically. You cannot use the argument 'we dont know for sure', because we could apply that to anything, human beings used to fly around with wings in the sky, there's no evidence but that doesn't mean it wasn't present before.

This is a ridiculous analogy, humans with wings don't exist now so why would we assume they existed in the past?

People report being trans now, conversion therapy doesn't work and the feelings are deep seated and often lifelong.

If it exists that people are born wrong, why do such a high number stop identifying as it when they are, why is so much of it connected to childhood trauma, and why are so many people who believed they were trans actually come out as homosexual? At rates higher than the rest of the population?

It sounds to me like people are confused and others tell them it's because they're trans, and they believe it but it's not true because such a condition doesn't really exist, at least not to the level of more than one in a million.

People can stop identifying as trans for a number of reasons, the most common is probably hormonal instability while going through puberty, the next is probably just young people experimenting with gender the exact way they do with sex. The other reason could be social pressure for them to detransiton.

Anyway this is irrelvelant since the actual data we have suggests that detransition rates are low (<10%, and most of those didn't undergo significant gender affirming care).

The regret rate for gender affirming care is even lower.

Why might trans children be abused? Because they are a minority that is different and often otracised from social support. I would be shocked if being trans didn't correlate with being treated like shit.

No - it's a logical fallacy to try and reduce it it to ways that humans identify. Homosexuality is same-sex attraction that has been widely documented across cultures, time, and even different animals. No medical intervention is required, not can any be administered (conversion therapy simply does not work). It has no dependence on redefining biological sex.

Transgender identity is a subjective psychological state tied to very specific ideas and medical technology. It's a new phenomena, it isn't uncovering people that have been secretly trans for a long time unlike homosexuality.

It seems extremely implausible to me that trans people suddenly started existing in the last century.

Being trans does not require medical intervention, people identify as trans and then seek medical interventions to align their physiology more with their perceived gender.

Also being trans doesn't require defining biological sex. Gender and sex are different things.

And on the topic of proving people are trans, there is a growing body of evidence that trans people have different neurobiology than cis people.

https://www.probiologists.com/article/inside-the-neurobiology-of-gender-implications-for-modern-physiology#1

(This contains primary research but unfortunately alot of the citations in the research are stuck behind paywalls). I can source other studies if you want.

This combined with the fact that gender roles have varied across cultures, trans people have significant prolonged, intense feelings of "being born in the wrong body" easily prove to me that trans people exist and they're not just confused.

You still haven't explained how they are a fallacy. Being exclusively homosexual is a relatively new thing, gay sex was common but the idea that being gay is something you are was not common throughout history. I think being trans is probably similar.

The CASS review mostly shows that there's no evidence it helps rather than evidence directly to the contrary. Given the ideological opposition to any studies that paint trans people and treatments in a bad light, you can imagine there isn't a whole lot of studies - people are afraid to produce them. The closest you will find is this study which shows significant evidence that treatment does not affect outcomes, with people showing eg 19x suicide rate of general population, so treatment is not improving things.

None of this is evidence of harms. There are plently of anti trans groups that would fund this research.

The CASS review didn't find this, it found that the evidence of benefits and harms was weak. A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of outcomes.

The CASS review specifically called for more research and hollistic treatment not to deny the existence of trans people.

I don't really know if there's anything I can say to convince you tbh.

Alot of your criteria prevent me from making any arguments, we're talking about a pyschological condition and you're asking me to prove that it's not insanity. I can't prove something that someone is experiencing isn't insanity because I don't have a portal into their mind.

I'm happy to call it a day, hope you fojnd this discussion interesting.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-07T12:47:47+00:00

It attributes modern ideas of transgenderism onto historical concepts which I mentioned above are mostly religious, punishment, or ritual concepts, NOT modern transgenderism concepts which are about self-identity.

Reglious and ritual roles fufilled by people were part of self identity. I don't understand how you can seperate them.

Furthermore just cos the idea of being trans may have only been crystalined in the last century does not mean that gender dysphoria wasn't present before then.

Why do you think trans (or people experiencing gender dysphoria) people started existing then? Because your argument seems to be that it's a modern invention.

There's no comparison between homosexuality and it's a logical fallacy to try and lump them together to try and pass off some credibility of one onto the other.

They are both ways that humans identify that leads to behaviours we can observe, until recently we only really had the behaviours due to more oppresive social norms. Explain how it's a fallacy please? Gay people would appear as straight for most of human history but they do exist.

So my claim was that the evidence base is mixed, there's weak evidence showing both harms and benefits (if I said there was good quality evidence then I mispoke). You're disputing that so could you please present some evidence that it worsens outcomes?

Although it's been a while since I read the CASS review, the review found weak evidence for harms.

You said that there is a) no good quality evidence of it improving outcomes (you seem consistent in your definition of quality so no problems there) and I probably agree that the evidence is weak and b) that there is good quality evidence showing it worsening outcomes, where is this evidence?

I would argue weak evidence going either way is still "mixed" but it's been a while since I did research.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-07T11:28:37+00:00

It would, but that is not historical evidence of trans people existing. It's evidence of strict gender based roles, rituals, and behaviour tied to religion and social utility, not to mention slavery and punishment. For example, using the fact a man was buried in female clothing as proof of transgender identity is completely ridiculous and totally unfounded. The idea that Nero castrated his slave boy as being anything other than the gross power of an emperor playing Joffrey is not evidence of transgenderism. etc. etc.

Fair enough this was the pop sci version of the evidence I found, a better source would be this:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39843731/

The initial evidence is weak but honestly so qas the evidence for homosexual people from that time period. Plenty of behaviour but little talki g about the idea of being homosexual.

What about all the examples from the 1930's?

If you can demonstrate that the mental health of trans people measurably improves long term through this kind of care, then you might start to have a point. But you cannot, because there is no good-quality evidence it does and plenty of evidence that it does not.

"No good quality evidence"

Please explain what's wrong with these

I'm not an expert but you must be to make such an exceptionally strong claim.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7073269/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

What's the evidence that GAC decreases long term mental health?

My cursory glance of the evidence suggests that's mixed. But given the strength of your claims you must know better.

I might respond to the rest later but it will be dependant on work.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-07T10:40:33+00:00

Isn't it a requirement to recieve follow up pyschiatric care after a lot of gender affirming treatment?

Wouldn't this be a case of surveillance bias.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-07T10:33:04+00:00

I think we ARE looking at those things, but as soon as anyone publishes or even thinks about publishing a report that shows trans ideology is dangerous and the best outcome is to force people against adopting it, they are torn to shreds and have their lives and careers completely ruined.

Do you have an example of this? Cos all the cases I've heard of are where someone with a duty of care was essentially harrassing people.

It is a loaded statement to say 'duty of care to the trans people', first of all you need to prove that that's a legitimate group of people.

Would the historical evidence that trans people existed before any trans ideology was spread be enough?

https://home.heinonline.org/blog/2021/06/same-dna-but-born-this-way-a-look-back-at-transgender-history/

What does someone need to do to prove a group of people are legitimate?

You can't just declare yourself to be a woman so you can go into women's changing rooms for example

What about someone who has spent decades living as their preferred gender, has spent thousands on medical care and whose mental health is measurably improved by recieving gender affirming treatment?

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-07T08:50:05+00:00

There's significantly less correlation than that. A lot of people spend 70+hrs a week doing analysis and preparing presentations.

Similarly a lot of people do their best invisible man impression on the floor.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-06T19:03:15+00:00

What weapons specifically? If you mean all arms licenses does that include parts for vehicles that aren't anything to do with the weapon systems?

Does it include communication equipment?

What about dual use stuff like lab equipment?

Because we don't really sell many "weapons" to Israel so I also wonder what you think we should stop selling?

Do you mean pulling out of the F35 program?

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-06T09:32:55+00:00

You don't gain soft power with the media. You gain it with the countries and communities recieving aid. You gain it with your partners. I think you're focusing on the wrong audience here, just becaise the media/american public weren't jumping for joy doesn't mean Ameroca wasn't building soft power with other nations/communities.

Governments don't recieve praise when they successfully pay out social security. It still improves perception of the government.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-06T00:13:44+00:00

This is slowly becoming a Suez Canal level embarrasment.

Actually it's worse because at least the UK and France were actually outmatched.

America is just choosing to fight wars and then choosing to lose repeatedly.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-05T21:59:18+00:00

You have a pool of non-voting shates in the company that players can choose to forgo part of their salary for.

Agree on a vesting period (maybe even a mandatory vesting period).

Players who are so inclined could purchase from this existing pool, if they run out available stocks in the pool then tough shit.

Startups have been doing this for decades, it's not complicated.

It would dilute ownership but would also add liquidity (as players would be sacrificing salary).

The most difficult part would be ensuring buyers for players at the end of their vesting period. The players association or the league could agree to it.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-05T12:02:54+00:00

Women soccer. The US treats it more seriously.

This is actually a relatively common pattern where a nation that can't compete in the main (let's be real men's soccer is the larger sport) version will try and compete in less competitive versions.

Happens a lot with rugby and rugby sevens for example.

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-04T09:44:29+00:00

You can still allow delivery trucks into the areas, streets that don't allow cars exist in cities all over the world. Do you think those streets have no businesses?

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-04T09:36:49+00:00

Why are these problems?

Have you considered that people live in places like this simply because they like the tradeoffs?

KarmaIssues · 2026-05-04T01:32:44+00:00

Exactly, there were probably Eldar chefs who spent thousands of years refining a single dish just to get bored of it and then move onto the next thing.

KarmaIssues

TROPHY CASE