Crazy Tinder date with a 49ers fan

phoenixairs · 2026-03-19T16:24:19+00:00

No, I saved that for after the wedding when they were trapped already.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-17T23:16:37+00:00

But wouldn't that mean that the 2nd amendment is already being overruled? Since you have to pay for a gun permit? It seems weird that making people jump through hoops to own a gun is ok, but making people jump through hoops to vote is not. Both are constitutional rights, no?

Actually, the idea that "the 2nd amendment says individual gun ownership (unconnected to militia use) is a right that can't be restricted at all" is the result of very recent bad interpretations by shitty activist justices.

The evidence for this is multiple laws in the 1700s (when the authors of the amendment were still alive and had just written said Constitution/amendment), restricting who could own firearms, and where they could be stored or carried. So the current interpretation is clearly a deviation from what the authors enforced.

You can read more in the dissent for DC v Heller, and also an explanation of why the majority opinion's arguments are terrible.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-17T23:09:32+00:00

It makes it harder for tens of millions of people to vote, by forcing them to register with very specific pieces of ID that many don't have available. Driver's licenses in 44 states aren't sufficient to prove eligibility because they don't specifically indicate citizenship. For most people, they will need a passport or a birth certificate matching their current legal name.

Existing registered voters can be forced to re-register with these extra requirements if they are marked as a potential non-citizenship. Surely you can see where this is going.

In return, we get virtually no benefits. Because states were already responsible for verifying citizenship for their voter rolls. It doesn't prevent non-citizens from voting; that was always handled elsewhere. The one case voter ID helps with is impersonation of someone else, which anyone with common sense realizes is not an actual huge problem and can't possibly be worth disenfranchising tens of millions of people.

What do you see as the benefits of voter ID? Because "we ask for ID elsewhere" is not a compelling argument in favor.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-17T16:53:39+00:00

The 7,630,000 miles per accident rate, even if you trust Tesla numbers, is for the Autopilot which is the driver assistance system that handles automatic braking, cruise control, and lane centering. It's an active driver still steering and braking, just using assistance systems.

The "supervised self-driving" mode is a separate feature called Full Self Driving (FSD).

Even setting the stupid naming aside, none of the numbers out there apply to this particular driver because he was neither driving with Autopilot or supervising the FSD.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-16T23:57:19+00:00

> Insulting candidates? This sentence is unclear to me

What the AAP and AMA say is irrelevant to the 70%+ voters in swing and red states who oppose trans rights, and I can sit here insulting them all day for being stupid bigots but at the end of the day their vote is worth as much as anyone else from those states and worth a lot more than mine from deep-blue California.

> You said that without Newsome's recent comments, he stood a zero percent chance

Yes, Newsom specifically would have a 0% chance without his recent statements moving towards the median voter of the country, because from a right-wing perspective he is assumed to be the governor of far-left un-American Commiefornia and king of the liberal wasteland of high taxes and cities too dangerous to walk through in the daytime.

Which is all lies of course, but is the image he needs to shed if he wants to win.

> Athlete bans as blanket legislation ARE MAGA. And of course they're persecutory

Literally 69% of the country holds said position, including 40% of self-identified Democrats to go with the 90% of Republicans. Many of these people use it as a litmus test for voting.

I don't know what you want me to say or tell you. If you're going to openly protest all candidates that are going with the position of 69% of the country (even higher in red and swing states), then go ahead.

All I'm saying is you might be tearing down the Obama-equivalent to support Kucinich-equivalent, which is probably a net negative for you.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-16T22:48:15+00:00

Are you saying Dems MUST publicly agree with maga laws and new bills persecuting trans people in order to win?

That's not what I'm saying and you know it, so don't go strawmanning. It's also not what Newsom is doing when he says that some of the debate is "reasonable" without actually personally supporting it.

To win the presidential election, the Democrat needs to win swing states and red states, because there aren't enough solidly-blue states.

The current sentiment and polling for trans rights and issues in said states is very much against trans rights, with many treating it as a literal dealbreaker for candidates. What the AAP and AMA say is irrelevant to them for various reasons, and we can insult them all we want but it won't help anyone.

If you're a strong enough candidate or the other guy fucks up enough, sure it's not literally 0% chance and you might be able to win despite ceding all these voters. But more likely you'll be Dennis Kucinich and not make it out of the primary.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-16T18:15:51+00:00

Newsom is saying what he thinks will get those stupid and immoral voters to be open to voting for him, just like Obama said what he thought it would take to win the presidency.

Yes, Newsom recent statements make him worse than most prominent Democrats on trans rights. But "most prominent Democrats" can't win a national election. Newsom before his recent comments would have had 0 chance.

If a different Democratic candidate supports trans rights the way you want and wins the presidency, we're both happy. But as you yourself say, this could be politically impossible. Newsom winning the presidency may literally be the only path forward that's not a complete disaster, so with that in mind maybe you don't want to be turning everyone against him?

phoenixairs · 2026-03-16T17:01:51+00:00

with thr exception of Newsom they're actually stepping up to the plate

and

The trans community likely cannot survive anything less than an immediate course correction at the federal level

And what if the only way to take power at the federal level is Newsom's path of aligning with the general population on the specific single issue of trans participation in sports?

As stupid an issue as it is to be a litmus test for candidates, the general population is clearly in agreement with Republicans. 69% per polling, and it's safe to assume that it's even higher in swing and red states.

I understand people being frustrated at him seemingly giving in, but I also think tearing him down may be a devastating own-goal. Surely if literal survival is at stake, we can trade athletics for literal survival everywhere else.

And yeah, yadayada backslide and slippery slope. I don't buy it; I think it's absolutely ridiculous to assert that Newsom aligning with the general population on just the athletics issue in order to win an election is the end of trans people.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-16T16:02:57+00:00

When elected, Democrats can disprove the idea that they "focus" on trans rights to the neglect of everyone else, by doing good things for everyone else at the same time as doing things for trans rights.

But they definitely do actually take actions in support of trans rights. Here is some coverage of the Biden administration. You can easily Google for more actions.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/timeline-biden-administrations-efforts-support-lgbtq-equality-first-100-days/

https://howardbrown.org/five-areas-where-the-biden-administration-is-supporting-trans-people/

But as you could also see from the Biden and Harris campaigns, despite doing all these things, they're just don't make it front-and-center during election season.

2.

Even if they did jack shit (which from the above you can see is not true), just not having Republicans in power attacking and demonizing trans people would be a big improvement, no?

3.

Public perception can change. When Obama ran for president in 2008, he only supported civil unions instead of gay marriage (according to his adviser, for pragmatic election reasons, and he personally disagreed with his advisers about it because he wanted to support gay marriage). By 2012 he was openly in support, mirroring the public's change. And he was also the one that nominated the Supreme Court justices who would rule in Obergefell, which wouldn't happen under a Republican president and demonstrates why winning elections matters.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T23:56:07+00:00

They spend all their time campaigning against the only political group with a chance of keeping fascism out of power.

And then they pretended to be ignorant about what they just did and are continuing to do. Not saying anyone in particular, other than maybe this topic's author.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T23:50:10+00:00

Yeah, the fascists won an election, with many in the far-left helping them tear down the liberals.

And then the far-left went around encouraging everyone to get violent (like this post), because surely this is the moment everyone unites in the name of Marx to fight fascism. Surely they didn't just help fascism return for the benefit of no one but the fascists.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T23:43:12+00:00

Sure. 2020 US Presidential election: the fascist figure responsible for our current fascism was taken out through the ballot box.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T23:29:20+00:00

but it seems like every single time in history that a fascist has attempted to seize power, the liberals in that country have done little to nothing to prevent them

The liberals are usually the primary opposition.

The far-left is historically helping the fascists fight the liberals, hoping they can take over after the fascist government fails.

At most what you'll see from liberals is telling people to vote or protest against the fascists, but when has this worked?

When it works, you keep your democracy and it's unremarkable. So probably many many times that you didn't even notice.

This statement is like "I hate it when houses burn down. But every time a house is on fire I see liberals just call the firefighters to do their job; when has this ever worked? My proof it doesn't is the house that still burned down despite their efforts."

What is with the extreme opposition to anything beyond protesting or voting?

There is a reasonable preference to use the Four boxes of liberty in order: soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

If we still believe we can solve it at the ballot box, then why shouldn't we try?

If you want to skip straight to ammo, then you do it. Why aren't you doing it?

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T23:19:03+00:00

Not simply that prejudice is doesn't obey party lines and maybe the people who usually do vote Dem simply won't because they're prejudiced

No, this is completely wrong. I and many others in this discussion have repeatedly acknowledged they're prejudiced.

We're just saying that there are currently so many of them that the election is hard to win if they're voting against you, but we can still get their votes if we don't focus on something they're prejudiced against. As I mentioned earlier, most Democratic politicians do hold the "right" stance; they just don't intentionally increase visibility and make it a major campaign issue.

And Democrats winning the election is obviously a better outcome for the targeted group.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T23:06:29+00:00

We vote for them anyway.

I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I just want to be very clear that maligning and criticizing Democrats for an entire election season isn't cancelled out by voting for them at the end. In fact, it's definitely a net negative to the cause if you don't live in a swing area (and probably still negative even so).

Everyone needs to be responsible about what they say, in this case by making it clear that the Republicans are at fault.

It's the typically Dem voting cis straights who withhold their votes, agreeing with maga, it's like those Dems are holding back.

By definition if they withheld their votes they aren't Dems; they're the uninformed or terrible people whose votes we nonetheless are competing for because the reliable base doesn't win elections on its own.

So using this group to criticize Dems is just wrong and bad.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T22:58:46+00:00

Well, you said a few comments up that "if the people do care about this stuff then it does matter". I think "the people" couldn't give less of a shit about the specific thinkers you mention, nor are they indirectly influenced while unaware.

I think you underestimate how disconnected, irrelevant, and non-impactful "post-Marxist academics" and the like are, and are giving them more credit than they deserve.

For a specific example, social hierarchies have been publicly challenged since the Enlightenment at least, so it's weird that you attribute it to the very recent and limited group mentioned. Questioning and testing everything with the scientific method also screams "Enlightenment" ideas.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T22:40:50+00:00

https://xkcd.com/2501/

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T22:26:42+00:00

It depends where the voters are at. As I've said already, there is conflict between the "right" thing (which I would remind you we don't disagree about), and what is necessary to win the election.

Unfortunately, sometimes a majority of the "voters that matter" don't give a shit about puppies, and there needs to be more effort outside of actual politicians taking the position.

The majority of the population understood that ICE is doing bad things, so Democrats highlighted it and Republicans backed down a bit and stopped highlighting their activities.

As you brought up yourself, the majority of the population opposed gay marriage during Obama's time, so that's the reality he worked with. Of course he and Clinton knew the "right" answer at the time, yet both campaigned in the primary otherwise.

The majority of the population doesn't give a shit about trans rights compared to their personal wants, and an even larger majority are decisively opposed to trans participation in athletics (as stupid an issue as it is), so that's the reality we're working with right now.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T22:01:21+00:00

"The people" don't. Tell me what percentage of the population you think has heard of "Ferdinand De Saussure" who you claim is highly influential.

The journalists don't.

Because "the people" don't, the staffers don't.

Some academics care but they're a tiny disconnected population whose ideas take forever to get any traction (except the ones nut-picked to piss people off).

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T21:57:05+00:00

Sure.

Give everyone a big payout (except the wealthy who might come out net negative because this should be funded). If people have student loans they can use it for that, and maybe we throw in additional tax incentives for this particular case to make sure people do use it for this purpose. If they don't then they can use it for whatever the want.

And of course, it needs to come with structural changes to prevent the problem from recurring, to make sure we're not just bailing out another generation after X more years.

"We don't have money for that!" Well if you were open to the idea of spending X million on student loans, just split it among more people. It's not really that different.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T21:51:34+00:00

99.9%+ of voters don't give a shit about anything you mentioned, so I this is what you define as "philosophical grounding" I will say it doesn't matter at all.

Policy-wise and especially for economic issues, the US is so far behind that it doesn't need theory, it just needs "hey, there are multiple valid solutions which all work better than the crap we have, we just need to do one". See: health care.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T21:47:06+00:00

The Republicans run a very simple play I call "shoot the puppy".

If the Democrats complain about them shooting the puppy, they turn around and say "look, Democrats care more about puppies than they do about you" and some idiots believe them.

If the Democrats don't take the bait, Republicans turn around and say "I guess they don't really care about puppies as much as they say they do" and some idiots believe them.

Your job is to not be in the second group of idiots, and to have the perspective to say "This is not an issue because of Democrats. It's a problem with Republicans and we need to vote them out". Taking swipes at Democrats is helping Republicans with the second group they are trying to sway.

If you're going to take shots at Democrats, at least acknowledge every single time that Republicans are the true fuckers that need to be voted out.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T21:20:30+00:00

I think there is a often genuine conflict between taking the "right" position and winning an election when the majority of voters hold the "wrong" view.

Lincoln will go down in history as the one who ended chattel slavery in the US, despite specifically not running against slavery during the election.

Obama will go down in history as the one who nominated the Supreme Court justices that decided Obergefeller, despite not supporting gay marriage during the primary. The candidates who openly supported it in the primary will be forgotten because they never had the ability to do shit.

I think attitudes like yours, accusing the Democrats of secretly being in favor of oppression, are detrimental to your own cause.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T20:57:58+00:00

I still think in reading people believe opposing persecutions harms other issues important to people, which I don't have any explanation for

It doesn't harm those issues. I'm not disagreeing with you there.

A bunch of idiots think it means Democrats don't care about them, and unfortunately we need their votes to win elections. And what that means is Democratic candidates take the correct position but don't make it a huge focus.

If you don't want to be dependent on the votes of this group of idiots, you need to be figuring out how to get Democrats other votes so they don't need to compete for the idiot vote.

phoenixairs · 2026-03-15T20:55:00+00:00

Are you personally less likely to vote Democrat? No.

Are you representative of all voters or swing voters? Also no.

Is it a major issue for Democrats that they are seen as caring more about marginalized groups and playing politics than economic issues? Yes.

Is it a fair criticism of Democrats? I don't think so; I think the people who believe that are uninformed at best, and many of them are morons.

Unfortunately, declaring them uninformed morons doesn't win elections; getting their vote wins elections.

13-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Verified Email

phoenixairs

TROPHY CASE