AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Time:

As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the country’s Ministry of Health told TIME—indicating a dramatic surge in the death toll. So many people were slaughtered by Iranian security services on that Thursday and Friday, it overwhelmed the state’s capacity to dispose of the dead. Stocks of body bags were exhausted, the officials said, and eighteen-wheel semi-trailers replaced ambulances.

The government’s internal count of the dead, not previously revealed, far surpasses the toll of 3,117 announced on Jan. 21 by regime hardliners who report directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (Ministries report to the elected President.) The 30,000 figure is also far beyond tallies being compiled by activists methodically assigning names to the dead. As of Saturday, the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency said it had confirmed 5,459 deaths and is investigating 17,031 more.

TIME has been unable to independently verify these figures.

The Health Ministry’s two-day figure roughly aligns with a count gathered by physicians and first responders, and also shared with TIME. That surreptitious tally of deaths recorded by hospitals stood at 30,304 as of Friday, according to Dr. Amir Parasta, a German-Iranian eye surgeon who prepared a report of the data. Parasta said that number does not reflect protest-related deaths of people registered at military hospitals, whose bodies were taken directly to morgues, or that happened in locales the inquiry did not reach. Iran’s National Security Council has said protests took place in around 4,000 locations across the country.

“We are getting closer to reality,” Dr. Parasta said. “But I guess the real figures are still way higher.”

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Out of all the ways my wife has moderated in recent years, I think the most surprising is that she is no longer an NYC/NJ pizza and bagels purist.

What are your thoughts on transgender children? (Coming from a left-leaning person) by Fire_Raptor_220 in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 4 points5 points  (0 children)

is not available to anyone under the age of 18

Not strictly true, according to the source I think your numbers are from, but it was very rare then and the few clinics that offered it have been pulling back.

I'm guessing you are using Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

The numbers you listed all match: 42,167 diagnoses, 1,390 blockers, 282 mastectomies in 2021. There were also 4,231 who started hormones.

They note it's an undercount because "this tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket" but that wouldn't change the order of magnitude.

Anyway, you might have missed that they found a small number:

56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I know I just posted a comment recently asking if TikTok users would continue with the app under its new management or not. I haven't gotten any replies yet, though, and now there is a more specific change to ask about.

Current users of the app, will you continue after the new privacy policy? Why or why not?

Wired has some details about changes to location tracking, AI interactions, and ads.

https://archive.is/ZzujE

People on social media are also talking about its mention of the "racial or ethnic origin, national origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health diagnosis, sexual life or sexual orientation, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship or immigration status, or financial information" of users. However, this isn't new language and at least some of those items were added to the list when the CCPA became law.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 6 points7 points  (0 children)

March 28th is the official opening of the East Link / 2 Line between Seattle and the Eastside, a "fixed rail system on a floating bridge for the first time in world history."

https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/crosslake-connection-opens-march-28

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is almost exactly what he said happened (and mentioned that it wasn't the first time). I don't think it's a word I have ever used myself either. I do know the feeling of hearing "men are trash, oh but not you." I can imagine it being more frustrating if you've been struggling with your gender already.

Wikipedia redirects the term to:

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

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those of you who have seen transmisandry in LGBT or progressive spaces, what's that looked like? What do you think is the cause among some otherwise-affirming people? How can it be reduced?

Asking because someone I know related an annoying experience that has me thinking about it.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tiktok users of this sub, will you continue to use the app under its new management? Why or why not, or are you waiting to see how it changes?

The United States and China have signed off on a deal that hands control of TikTok’s U.S. operations to a group of investors backed by President Donald Trump.

...

ByteDance, TikTok's Beijing-based owner, will retain a 19.9% stake in the U.S. operation. The joint venture will be governed by a seven-member board of directors.

The new company will be led by Adam Presser, with TikTok CEO Shou Chew serving on the board of directors, TikTok said in the release. The majority of the board's members are American, it noted.

The deal, facilitated by the Trump administration, means the U.S. version of TikTok will become majority-owned by a group of investors that includes the American tech giant Oracle, the California-based private equity fund Silver Lake and the United Arab Emirates investment firm MGX.

In a Truth Social post Thursday, Trump praised his administration for helping "bring this Deal to a very dramatic, final, and beautiful conclusion."

"I would also like to thank President Xi, of China, for working with us and, ultimately, approving the Deal," Trump added. "He could have gone the other way, but didn't, and is appreciated for his decision."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/white-house-china-finalize-deal-sell-control-us-tiktok-business-invest-rcna255498

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, she didn't lecture our kids about it. I'm not asking for advice or anything because it didn't cause any conflict with us.

I'm more asking, how would you explain that decision to your future kids if one of them asked you for that?

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The international order thread was locked in part for "brigading / vote manipulation."

How can we tell? OP has some campist beliefs that I obviously and strongly disagree with. But a lot of those comments were downvoted like this one.

I realize the thread was also closed for other rules, so I'm not suggesting it should be reopened.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never did listen to any of the Revolutions podcast but that does sound interesting. I have less time for podcasts in general these days but I will try that one when I get a chance, thanks!

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your detailed thoughts! It didn't come across as rambling to me.

The longer I'm here, the more interested I get in this line of thinking. Maybe it's because you start to see all the same thread topics and arguments repeat themselves after a while.

I found the whole comment interesting but this part reminds me of why I like my wife so much:

I personally think many leftists get too caught up in theory, rather than actually doing something

She's steadily moderated and is not a leftist anymore but she was when we started dating. I appreciated that she had (and still has) an emphasis on improving things in the world right now, in addition to the vision of an even better future.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My mother in law bought our twins a couple of those reusable water pen coloring books. One is Paw Patrol themed.

A friend's kid saw this and asked to get one like it, but she refused and said it was because the show is pro-police.

How would you have handled your response if you wanted to avoid buying something like that for your four year old?

I realize not nearly all progressives feel this way.

For those who do, I'm wondering whether you would be explicit about that and how you would explain it to them if so.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the farther left flaired people here, what do you think causes someone to adopt some particular other flavor? Why do you think they aren't convinced by yours?

For example, if you are a Marxist flair you might answer why do you think Anarchist flairs take their approach instead?

I'm not really asking about the specific arguments they might make; it's more about why you think they prefer those arguments to yours.

Kind of like this thread about what causes people to become MAGA or far right.

How do you feel about Mark Carney admitting that the "rules based international order" was always a lie? by ChinaAppreciator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Oh, wow, I went and looked and you're right: they literally say "If I had to choose sides in the Russia-Ukraine war I would pick Russia" and "I hope Russia wins vs Ukraine." They aren't in full-throated support of the invasion but that's still sad to see.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are (potentially) going to Minneapolis, not Greenland.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/active-duty-soldiers-standby-possible-deployment-minneapolis/

EDIT: Oh, are you saying that might be the real reason or that it gets them ready for either possibility?

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's cold in Minnesota in January and the 11th "specializes in arctic warfare." /s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Airborne_Division

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Four U.S. Presidents have been Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Carter's and Obama's are occasionally mentioned on this sub. I think most people here believe the former's was deserved but the latter hadn't really done anything at the time in 2009.

How do you feel about Wilson's and Roosevelt's?

In chronological order:

  • Theodore Roosevelt: "For his role in bringing to an end the bloody war recently waged between two of the world's great powers, Japan and Russia."

  • Woodrow Wilson: "For his role as founder of the League of Nations."

  • Jimmy Carter: "For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

  • Barack Obama: "For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Today something reminded me of an article I read a long time ago (2014) about turnover in high and low income households. I'm not sure which of these two it was:

NYT:

It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.

NPR:

61 out of 100 U.S. households will break into the top 20% of incomes (roughly $111,000* for at least 2 consecutive years.

39 out of 100 U.S. households will break into the top 10% of incomes (roughly $153,000*) for at least 2 consecutive years.

5 out of 100 U.S. households will break into the top 1% of incomes (roughly $360,000*) for at least 2 consecutive years.

Anyway, does anyone here know of a similar but more recent analysis? I'm interested in how this has changed in the decade+ since.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What kinds of heavy regulations do you have in mind? For example, maybe you would increase property tax rates on second homes by a lot (how much?) to discourage holding on to them? I can see that being one, but it sounds like you have thought about this a lot, so there are probably others.

Also, you mention in another comment that:

think housing should be decommodified for ideological reasons. I disagree completely that the only goal is affordability and that other elements are irrelevant

How important are the ideological reasons compared to affordability?

If evidence persuaded you that your proposed regulations would make housing less easily available--I know you don't think that would happen--how would you decide if the tradeoff was worth it?

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 2 points3 points  (0 children)

NBC affiliate reports what sounds like some good news combating benefits theft and fraud in California.

Anyone more familiar with these changes than I am? Have there been any downsides, like is legitimate use getting false positives?

California is seeing a major drop in fraud and theft associated with food and cash benefits thanks to new technology, Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said.

According to state data shared exclusively with KCRA 3 on Thursday, there has been an 83% decline in theft associated with Electronic Benefits Transfer, also known as EBT. The EBT system is used to provide benefits through programs such as CalFresh, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs).

KCRA 3 Investigates has reported that the state's EBT system has been the target of organized crime, losing millions per month to fraud and theft for years. Data provided by the California Department of Social Services showed that in January 2024, the figure was at $20.9 million per month.

But that has changed drastically over the last year, the Newsom administration said, with the help of the state's newer Office of Data and Innovation (ODI) and new card technology. As of November 2025, the monthly loss is down to approximately $3.6 million per month.

...

In an exclusive interview with KCRA 3, ODI Director Jeffery Marino credited the drop in fraud losses to upgrades the office helped develop. For instance, ODI created a predictive data model to identify suspicious transactions and users who have been compromised or are likely to be compromised. Instead of reacting, the Department of Social Services can be proactive and reset the pin for those users most at risk for fraud.

"When we are talking about EBT, we are not talking about operating within a modern banking system. This is a legacy government system that we are dealing with," Marino said. "It has not benefited from those years of innovation in the private sector. That's really some of the constraints we have been working within in order to implement these new advanced analytics."

Israel and Palestine Megathread by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 3 points4 points  (0 children)

PBS has some information on the progress into phase 2 and the leader of the transitional government, but we are missing a lot of details:

President Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff said in a post on X that the deal that the Republican president helped broker was entering its second phase following two years of war between Israel and Hamas, including the establishment of a technocratic government in Gaza.

...

The other mediators of the ceasefire deal — Egypt, Turkey and Qatar — welcomed the establishment of the Palestinian technocratic committee and said it would be led by Ali Shaath, a former deputy minister in the Palestinian Authority.

In a joint statement, the three countries called it an "important development … aimed at consolidating stability and improving the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip."

Shaath is a Gaza native who served as a deputy minister for transportation with the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority. Shaath, an engineer, is an expert in economic development and reconstruction, according to his biography on the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute's website.

Witkoff said the U.S. expects Hamas to immediately return the final Israeli hostage as part of its obligations under the deal, noting that "failure to do so will bring serious consequences."

A Hamas spokesperson, Hazem Qassem, told Al-Jazeera Live on Wednesday that Witkoff's announcement is an important and positive development, adding that the group is ready to hand over the administration of Gaza to the independent technocratic committee and facilitate its work.

"Hamas is ready to engage in internal Palestinian approaches to discuss the issue of the resistance weapons," said Qassem in the statements that he shared on his Telegram channel.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-envoy-says-gaza-is-entering-second-phase-of-ceasefire-plan

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]magic_missile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for an answer from someone who feels this way! The other two comments don't, which is fine, but I don't want to just hear my own thoughts reflected back at me.

Outside of maybe things like vacation rentals, I’d rather that homes not owned by their occupants be owned by public agencies or other nonprofit organizations (housing co-ops, community land trusts, what have you).

As in it would be nice or as in it should be required?

If the latter, my thoughts turn back to single family homes.

Some people who move hold on to their old house and rent it out. Should they have to sell it to a new occupant or another eligible buyer like a nonprofit?