7:56 Last Week's Poll. 14:19 Danny (they/them) | Caller wants some advice on how to know your own gender identity. 24:55 Natalie (she/her) | Caller wants to talk about AGP and the people who claim it is a real thing. 47:10 This Week's Poll. 52:39 Scott (he/him) | Caller says he is torn on his vote because he feels like he can't vote for either person. 1:35:53 Maureen (she/her) | Caller who called the Sunday Show the other day calls in again to learn about trans stuff. [I love Maureen's calls
Scott, here's the thing. One of those two people are going to be elected. And Trump is going to cause a metric ton of harm, vs Kamala who, at worst, is going to be status quo instead of escalating (which Trump has said he'd support), and she's shown disdain for the war. So it should still be an easy choice. I am not a fan of either, but Kamala is demonstrably the least harmful choice of the only actual choices that we have.
Arden's dad's reaction to her gentle suggestion reminded me of how a friend AND her family came for me on FB because I told a her I was disappointed in her for posting disinformation about Biden (pre-2020 election). Like woah talk about extreme reactions to minor comments, but sure WE are the snowflakes
Regarding Natalie's topic, specifically the Samantha part - I also think she's thinking of a particular cohort of CD's too. AGP can very accurately describe a medicalised version of what is effectively those folks for whom a bedroom fetish exists. And there's this clear, simple explanation that draws a strong, strong line between trans people and that particular community - When we're living our day to day life, when we're really not in the mood for anything sexual, when there isn't a single drop of sexuality in the tank.. we're still what we say we are. We're not a man who does all this work to get off, and then goes back to being a man. We wake up, still trans. We are deathly ill, still trans. The very core of our experience isn't sexual. Can we resultantly find more enjoyable sexuality when our parts match our idea? sure - But it's not the root of our sexual desire. I'm willing to concede that AGP exists, such that there are people who would describe their experience as that, but it's so so important to realise that the venn diagram between that and transgender identity is very, very far from a circle. AGP does not exist in the context of an explanation for trans identity. It just does not work like that.
The genocide in Gaza is obviously horrible. Kamala is not opposing the genocide. Lets grant those points. So many leftists want to conclude 'Ethically I can't support Kamala this election'. But this doesn't follow. The only way to get there is to add a premise: I can't ethically support a person unless they are completely (or mostly) in line with my political/ethical perspective. That last premise is obviously false. For one thing, (largely) the people of Gaza almost certainly don't completely (or mostly) align with the leftist political/ethical perspective. Yet I think it is obviously important to support and advocate for them.
She is opposing it, just not effectively. You can concede that she's being shitty about being direct with it without lying and acting like she's actually in favor.
I mean it's also kinda... simple. Ok, kamala isn't opposing the genocide. So whichever gets in, and realistically, only Harris or Trump get in.. They're not going to oppose the genocide. As callous as it might be that pretty much makes the genocide a moot issue in this election, and not a reason to not vote for one of them. Instead, people should be focusing on what *will* be affected by their vote. In column A of 'realistically possible president' you've got a fascist-admiring, bigoted, convicted felon who has promised a lot of terrible things for a lot of people in addition to some very worrying comments about democracy no longer being needed if they win... and in column B, the one who says they won't do a lot of those things. Who wants to improve other things. So surely... for most decent people, the choice would be between either B or not voting, right? (for the purposes of this, 3rd party is practically not voting.) Well if you don't vote, and someone votes A, is that really ok with you? are you fine with getting everything you didn't want from A, because at least you didn't vote for A? Or would you be better off putting that vote towards tipping the scales away from A? even if you don't see eye-to-eye with B on every issue, surely if it's between B and candidate you definitely don't want.. you should vote B? It helps noone to not vote on the righteous grounds of "both candidates refuse to oppose the genocide." Because not voting, and realistically, voting third party, will not stop Trump or Harris from becoming president. So are people going to choose the move that helps noone, or the move that helps *some*? because let's face it, if Trump wins, a lot of people will be hurt, and voting against him is preventing that hurt. You can't save everyone, but you could save some. Isn't that at least worth some consideration?
7:56 Last Week's Poll.
14:19 Danny (they/them) | Caller wants some advice on how to know your own gender identity.
24:55 Natalie (she/her) | Caller wants to talk about AGP and the people who claim it is a real thing.
47:10 This Week's Poll.
52:39 Scott (he/him) | Caller says he is torn on his vote because he feels like he can't vote for either person.
1:35:53 Maureen (she/her) | Caller who called the Sunday Show the other day calls in again to learn about trans stuff. [I love Maureen's calls
Thank you again! Also happy Argentinian Pride! 🏳️🌈🎉
I'm hoping that you country turns it around, and that mine doesn't make a hard turn that way. 😅
I missed this in real time. queueing it up for tomorrow mornings watches. love to you both
Oops I was asleep, so watching the VOD now
Sad I was late to the live but silver line-ing (pun intended) I have something to listen to while I finish work
Scott, here's the thing.
One of those two people are going to be elected. And Trump is going to cause a metric ton of harm, vs Kamala who, at worst, is going to be status quo instead of escalating (which Trump has said he'd support), and she's shown disdain for the war. So it should still be an easy choice.
I am not a fan of either, but Kamala is demonstrably the least harmful choice of the only actual choices that we have.
I hear you and agree but this point doesn't convince people who are not consequentialist (and or utilitarian) in their ethics.
I'm here to wish both of these hosts of this show a very Happy Halloween!
🎃 🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃
Arden's dad's reaction to her gentle suggestion reminded me of how a friend AND her family came for me on FB because I told a her I was disappointed in her for posting disinformation about Biden (pre-2020 election). Like woah talk about extreme reactions to minor comments, but sure WE are the snowflakes
Regarding Natalie's topic, specifically the Samantha part - I also think she's thinking of a particular cohort of CD's too. AGP can very accurately describe a medicalised version of what is effectively those folks for whom a bedroom fetish exists. And there's this clear, simple explanation that draws a strong, strong line between trans people and that particular community - When we're living our day to day life, when we're really not in the mood for anything sexual, when there isn't a single drop of sexuality in the tank.. we're still what we say we are. We're not a man who does all this work to get off, and then goes back to being a man. We wake up, still trans. We are deathly ill, still trans. The very core of our experience isn't sexual. Can we resultantly find more enjoyable sexuality when our parts match our idea? sure - But it's not the root of our sexual desire. I'm willing to concede that AGP exists, such that there are people who would describe their experience as that, but it's so so important to realise that the venn diagram between that and transgender identity is very, very far from a circle. AGP does not exist in the context of an explanation for trans identity. It just does not work like that.
I live in a red state considered a lock for trump, and im still voting kamala. Vote. Ffs vote
The genocide in Gaza is obviously horrible. Kamala is not opposing the genocide. Lets grant those points. So many leftists want to conclude 'Ethically I can't support Kamala this election'. But this doesn't follow. The only way to get there is to add a premise: I can't ethically support a person unless they are completely (or mostly) in line with my political/ethical perspective. That last premise is obviously false. For one thing, (largely) the people of Gaza almost certainly don't completely (or mostly) align with the leftist political/ethical perspective. Yet I think it is obviously important to support and advocate for them.
She is opposing it, just not effectively. You can concede that she's being shitty about being direct with it without lying and acting like she's actually in favor.
I mean it's also kinda... simple. Ok, kamala isn't opposing the genocide. So whichever gets in, and realistically, only Harris or Trump get in.. They're not going to oppose the genocide. As callous as it might be that pretty much makes the genocide a moot issue in this election, and not a reason to not vote for one of them. Instead, people should be focusing on what *will* be affected by their vote. In column A of 'realistically possible president' you've got a fascist-admiring, bigoted, convicted felon who has promised a lot of terrible things for a lot of people in addition to some very worrying comments about democracy no longer being needed if they win... and in column B, the one who says they won't do a lot of those things. Who wants to improve other things. So surely... for most decent people, the choice would be between either B or not voting, right? (for the purposes of this, 3rd party is practically not voting.) Well if you don't vote, and someone votes A, is that really ok with you? are you fine with getting everything you didn't want from A, because at least you didn't vote for A? Or would you be better off putting that vote towards tipping the scales away from A? even if you don't see eye-to-eye with B on every issue, surely if it's between B and candidate you definitely don't want.. you should vote B?
It helps noone to not vote on the righteous grounds of "both candidates refuse to oppose the genocide." Because not voting, and realistically, voting third party, will not stop Trump or Harris from becoming president. So are people going to choose the move that helps noone, or the move that helps *some*? because let's face it, if Trump wins, a lot of people will be hurt, and voting against him is preventing that hurt. You can't save everyone, but you could save some. Isn't that at least worth some consideration?