|
So is Florida going to be doing DNA testing on anyone who Gator Country Barney Fife doesn't think looks either masculine or feminine enough for their Driver's License? My understanding is that most if not all of identifying documents already let you change your gender.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
From my 4 decades living in Florida (and I don't even always wake up screaming!), Desantis has absolutely no concept of good or bad or legally defensible policy. Even for a politician, he's hermetically sealed into a state of seeing everything as "political expedient" or "not politically expedient". Conservatives lose on every LGBT except for a subset of T, which is primarily the allowance of MTF athletes to shatter women's sports. It's literally the only place they have or will ever have traction, and oh boy will they never stop driving it home. Desantis will never stop doing anything he can to expand that T foothold because it's the only one that isn't politically murderous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
B B posted:There was a pretty extreme shift in vote totals. There were about 540,000 votes in the 2020 primary, and with 84% of the vote in there are only about 121,000 votes. Looks like there might be a huge enthusiasm problem, since Biden's only going to draw about 1/4th of the 2020 voters out to the polls. Pretty ominous. Comparing turnout numbers in a contested primary with a big field of candidates where the Democrats were challengers to an incumbent Trump with an essentially uncontested primary where Biden is the incumbent president is comical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Comparing turnout numbers in a contested primary with a big field of candidates where the Democrats were challengers to an incumbent Trump with an essentially uncontested primary where Biden is the incumbent president is comical. As is calling the results a "historic victory," which is what the Democrats are doing: https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1754151660295696526
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
B B posted:As is calling the results a "historic victory," which is what the Democrats are doing: So you agree that your post was comical then? Sure, historic victory is silly hyperbole, but a party/team is going to hype its results and I find this much more understandable than your comparing 2020 Dem primary turnout to this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:So you agree that your post was comical then? It wasn't made in jest, no, but if my post was perceived as comical, I thought that tweet was even more comical. He beat Orb Lady and What's-His-Name. My post was also made in the context of a conversation where someone further upthread was comparing the primary results from 2024 to results from the 2012 primary (that the poster had actually misread, mind you) and making claims about how this surely shows that Biden is going to defeat Trump. Is there a reason you chose to say my post was comical but skip over that one? B B fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Feb 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:So is Florida going to be doing DNA testing on anyone who Gator Country Barney Fife doesn't think looks either masculine or feminine enough for their Driver's License? My understanding is that most if not all of identifying documents already let you change your gender. Realistically here's what I think will happen, based off of exactly what was written on that notice in the tweet: 1. All applications to change the gender stated on the licenses will now cease to be processed. 2. All applications for new licenses (from people just getting their first one) are gonna be checked against the supporting document they provided as part of the application, and at the end of the day the genders should match. 3. They will start to review driver licenses they reissued in the past x years where the only change is the gender field. The memo states that gender, for their purposes, is defined a biological sex, and that it is fraud to misrepresent your gender on your driver's license. 4. They will start to review the applications from step 1 that they stopped processing and also flag those for fraud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
I think the main reason the Democratic Party is hyping up the SC primaries is less because of how many or few votes Biden received but more that they're trying to sell the whole "rearranging the primary schedule to give groups that are Iowans or New Hampshirites more of a voice" as a good thing and not just something to piss off a couple of states and confuse people. I do not know enough about the nuts and bolts to say whether or not that primary revamp is meaningful or important, but pushing that narrative is less bafflingly silly, and the Democrats tweet of this being "a historic victory for Black and rural voters who have too often been sidelined." probably has a lot more to do with the primary placement and not who was on the ballot under what circumstances, considering it mentioned black and rural voters in South Carolina and not Biden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
B B posted:As is calling the results a "historic victory," which is what the Democrats are doing: Congrats on completely not understanding the topic at hand. Your claim in itself is mis-informed, but the text doesn't even read what you say it does, even if we ignore all context. This is a historic victory for the _types of voters_ who generally have not gotten a say when pasty white dudes get to vote first in a primary, setting the national momentum for their candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Congrats on completely not understanding the topic at hand. Yeah my understanding is that tweet isn't talking about Biden's victory at all, it's hailing the symbolic victory for the first (sanctioned, ignoring that nh didn't listen) primary being in SC for the first time. It's still a little goofy imo given the futility when the party already has a president incumbent and the fact that NH went ahead and did theirs first anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Does anybody here have a pulse on AI, bots, deepfakes, and troll forms being used for this round of elections? I can see plenty of results about it already but I wonder if anybody has gotten the overall flavor of it. I see a more headlines about China doing it than Russia this time. In 2014, Prig and Prince had the biggest sockpuppet armies, they collaborated on messaging, and the form of attack was novel, a sort of zero day. Prig has been defenestrated, and every nation state, corporation and political party now runs sockpuppet operations - with a wide variety of competing interests. Also, the population is much savvier to the method now. Still dangerous, for sure. There's definitely still horseshoe attacks coming from the right, disguised as leftists, designed to erode support for the ruling party and incumbent. Who are absolutely flawed from a leftist perspective. E - more concerning to me is the catfish shoe-on-head game. Lots of old men caught by thirst traps, prompted to share their "dirtiest fantasy" in dms, then blackmail demands. Very, very common rn, though few discuss it. Maybe its just black hats extorting money, but i imafine there are nation states doing this too. And not just targeting politically relevant victims; seems to be broader focus than that. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Feb 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
B B posted:It wasn't made in jest, no, but if my post was perceived as comical, I thought that tweet was even more comical. He beat Orb Lady and What's-His-Name. Where in that post did zoux claim that “this surely shows that Biden is going to defeat Trump”?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
They're calling it historic because New Hampshire has been the first primary since 1920
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:This is a historic victory for the _types of voters_ who generally have not gotten a say when pasty white dudes get to vote first in a primary, setting the national momentum for their candidate. Thank the gods the Dems are finally listening to what the rural voters have to say, they're so underrepresented in the American system. Surely the rural folk of South Carolina, Heart of the Confederacy, are not also pasty white dudes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Thank the gods the Dems are finally listening to what the rural voters have to say, they're so underrepresented in the American system. Surely the rural folk of South Carolina, Heart of the Confederacy, are not also pasty white dudes. They’re about 50-60% black if you’re talking dem primary voters, actually. It’s ok to say you don’t like SC first bc they betrayed Bernie to centrist voltron (he still would’ve lost) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
As long as Centrist Voltron keeps stacking up union wins give me more Centrist Voltron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Thank the gods the Dems are finally listening to what the rural voters have to say, they're so underrepresented in the American system. Surely the rural folk of South Carolina, Heart of the Confederacy, are not also pasty white dudes. Yes, yes, they indeed are not pasty white dudes like the Democratic primary voters of New Hampshire and Iowa. . Your offhand sarcastic comment was more accurate than the point you were trying to convey. Of course, even that is still wrong, because SC is also less rural than either of those states. So it's just less wrong than the argument you were advancing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Yes, yes, they indeed are not pasty white dudes like the Democratic primary voters of New Hampshire and Iowa. . Your offhand sarcastic comment was more accurate than the point you were trying to convey. The Dems' tweet specifically says it's a victory for rural voters and claims they've been sidelined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The Dems' tweet specifically says it's a victory for rural voters and claims they've been sidelined. For Black and rural voters. Two demographics with a lot of overlap in South Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
If SC voters have been sidelined because they've always went third instead of second, then *gestures to 47 other states*
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:If SC voters have been sidelined because they've always went third instead of second, then *gestures to 47 other states* It's a criticism of how all the first primaries were held in strongly white states, which arguably boosts candidates favorable to whites and caused viable minority-favored candidates to drop out prematurely
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
Wouldn't it make more sense to hold early primaries in diverse states that are also actually in play?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
Maybe I’m nuts but the hype for SC seems to obviously be a bid to shore up African American support while also silencing a lot of the noise about Biden being a weak candidate with a heavy thirst for a challenger. Which all seems like normal campaign stuff. It’s also literally the first actually primary so it’s just the train getting rolling on this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Wouldn't it make more sense to hold early primaries in diverse states that are also actually in play? What are you trying to do, win an election? But yeah, if we were smart our primaries would come closer to mimicking the general election but each state has an incentive to get a loud early say instead, so here we are. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I know you're probed, but this is worth pointing out to others as how the motte-and-bailey works. When a powerful and satisfying (but vulnerable) argument is successfully attacked, fall back to an easily defended (but modest and non-controverial) argument and pretend that it supports the initial claim or refutes the attack rather than being something separate. Just as a quick aside, I appreciate you bringing this up. The motte-and-bailey thing is something I have come across, but never knew there was a term for it, now I know. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 21:09
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Just as a quick aside, I appreciate you bringing this up. The motte-and-bailey thing is something I have come across, but never knew there was a term for it, now I know. Thanks! A couple other useful resources to identify this garbage: The Alt-Right Playbook is a video essay that describes common conservative rhetorics; in practice it's describing the traits of more overt bad faith argument, which can be applied from any ideological direction, with a focus on conservative examples. Its explanations tend to be good/insightful, but bear in mind it's sometimes reinventing preexisting concepts. I have an effortpost summarizing Hirschman's reactionary rhetorics, which can be used to sabotage discussion of a policy topic using arguments that are dressed up as coming from either the progressive or reactionary standpoint. These arguments in particular serve as a playbook for ruining discussion of a proposed reform or change. There are a ton of different lists of fallacious or bad faith argumentative forms floating around online; the informal fallacy list on wikipedia has quick summaries of some of the highlights, and the rationalwiki page on logical fallacies has much more detail and explanations, and links to more lists. Note, however, that just searching for fallacious arguments is rarely useful in itself (and it's rarely persuasive to just point out fallacies). Note also that ultimately, claims cannot necessarily cannot be complete unto themselves in formal logic terms. From a general terminology perspective, Toulmin's argument framework is a good introductory point- although it tends to drive people into warrant-spotting in a way that's not necessarily productive to discussion. We used to have several threads on this sort of thing. They've all been sabotaged over time by one means or another. Somebody fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Feb 5, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Wouldn't it make more sense to hold early primaries in diverse states that are also actually in play? Yeah, it'd probably make more sense to have the primary in, say, Georgia instead of South Carolina. Then again, Georgia's population is twice as much as SC, which would make it tougher for insurgent/non-mainstream candidates to raise enough money to compete. Ideally, you'd probably want a selection of relatively small, purplish states, across different regions of the country. New Hampshire and Nevada are good choices for the Northeast and West, Wisconsin could replace Iowa for the Midwest, and for the South... well, that's a tough one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Thank the gods the Dems are finally listening to what the rural voters have to say, they're so underrepresented in the American system. Surely the rural folk of South Carolina, Heart of the Confederacy, are not also pasty white dudes. Around 20% of the population of the US is rural, it seems like they're an important demographic to reach out to, a lot of Democratic policies are seen to be traditionally focused on the cities and urban areas, regardless of how true it is or how you feel like it should be, shouldn't the government be trying to help everyone equally? Maybe less rural voters would be so supportive of the GOP if they got more attention? koolkal posted:Wouldn't it make more sense to hold early primaries in diverse states that are also actually in play? The problem here is this means no attention, or effort being paid to such places, which doesn't seem very fair to the people who live there. The fact is a lot of oppression occurs in the southern states and being like, "You're on your own" isn't reassuring at all to anyone there depending on the Federal government for whatever minimal protections remains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Wouldn't it make more sense to hold early primaries in diverse states that are also actually in play? Yeah, like Nevada, or Michigan! ...which is why they're next. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Primaries being juggled depending on how "in play" they are could also confuse people. When would you announce the primary schedule? Because you can't, say, bump up a state because the polls are close without a poo poo-ton of work being done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:So is Florida going to be doing DNA testing on anyone who Gator Country Barney Fife doesn't think looks either masculine or feminine enough for their Driver's License? My understanding is that most if not all of identifying documents already let you change your gender. This is highly dependent on state, both as to what you're allowed to change and how difficult it is to change it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Primaries being juggled depending on how "in play" they are could also confuse people. When would you announce the primary schedule? Because you can't, say, bump up a state because the polls are close without a poo poo-ton of work being done. I think you could come up with a pretty easy plan where you take the most tightly co tested states from the previous presidential election and they get to be the first primary states. That way you’re setting it 3.5 years in advance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
The Dem primary schedule may change again in 2028. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-vote-to-change-order-of-2024-presidential-primary PBS posted:The revamped calendar could be largely meaningless for 2024 because Biden is expected to run for a second term without a major primary challenge. Also, the DNC has already pledged to revisit the voting calendar before the 2028 presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 01:16
|
|
|
if they're planning to revisit the schedule again this is probably a really good year to attend your local/state dem conventions, tbh aside from all the stuff state parties do, that's (generally) how dnc members get elected
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:if they're planning to revisit the schedule again this is probably a really good year to attend your local/state dem conventions, tbh Do you just roll up or what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The problem here is this means no attention, or effort being paid to such places, which doesn't seem very fair to the people who live there. This is true, but I don't think your conclusion is correct. The electoral college isn't fair, in the sense that every voting-eligible American has an equal amount of decision power. Some voters are much, much more likely to cast a deciding vote than others. So it makes obvious tactical sense that the primary process should prioritize picking a candidate that they like, who energizes them. It obviously conflicts with a rhetorical dedication to "recognizing every American equally" etc - in that case they should just do all the primaries on the same day - but when there's as much on the line as in a Presidential election, any well-organized political party should make reasonable compromises to gain and keep power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:33
|
|
|
I thought it was always the plan to use a different sequence each time? They don’t want anyone to be First In The Nation permanently and forever (other than New Hampshire, until they change their state laws)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
Maybe one day we can get a legit secure online voting system and just do em all the same day or have a random generated sequence. That would require both funding and laws passed so instead we will watch most of the voting power go towards empty acreage, honestly probably as at least some of the founding father wanted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:50
|
|
|
not really seeing why online ballots would be a requirement for same day voting
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
World Famous W posted:not really seeing why online ballots would be a requirement for same day voting It's not a requirement per se but it makes voting easier which is the other half of getting people's voices heard. Getting off work to vote is incredibly hard for poorer people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:55
|
|