5 ms·

I think it is fair to say that through the nomination process, whoever is voted to run as the Republican nominee for president is considered to be the best repr

I think it is fair to say that through the nomination process, whoever is voted to run as the Republican nominee for president is considered to be the best representative for the party. Looking at the president-elect and all of the leaders of the party, saying they have "fringe beliefs in some cases" is severely downplaying it.

Philorandroid 2y ago
That's a naive way to see it. People vote _against_ the other candidate, against what they fear is worse. And, if the theory that the frontrunner is the best representation of the party holds true, it speaks quite poorly for the Democrats appointing Harris despite Biden winning the vote of his party, no? And, again, tu quoque; even if the GOP was exhaustively comprised of reality-evading lunatics, voters and all, it wouldn't excuse stooping to their level -- the DNC's _explicit_ support of racial identitarianism, benevolent racism, and biological denialism run in direct opposition to this supposed moral high ground they tacitly hold.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  > it speaks quite poorly for the Democrats appointing Harris despite Biden winning the vote of his party, no? Yes it does. I agree fully. > the DNC's _explicit_ support of racial identitarianism, benevolent racism, and biological denialism run in direct opposition to this supposed moral high ground they tacitly hold. I don't think benevolent racism means what you think it means and no one is denying biology. Trans people aren't even denying biology. I would suggest you actually speak to a few trans people in real life.
  - bongoman42 2y ago
    umm.. Scientific American said that differences in athletic ability of men and women are not based in Biology.
    - BadHumans 2y ago
      I am definitely not the person to write a dissertation in support of trans people but the logic being used as I understand it is that male and female are not the same as man and woman. Whether I or anyone else agree with that is up in the air.
      - oldnetguy 2y ago
        Man by definition is an adult human male and woman by definition is an adult human female. So there is that.
        defrost 2y ago
        Just sticking with actual science here; how do you define "adult human male", how do you define "adult human female" .. and what do you label humans that don't meet either of your definitions? I'm assuming you have a checklist of physical characteristics and genetic attributes in mind, sticking purely with that which can be measured, tested and observed and steering clear of fuzzy concepts.
        oldnetguy 2y ago
        Males are females are biological sex labels. It's how our bodies develop so we can reproduce. Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmental sex disorders we are all either male or female. If you lookup biological adult, it's just someone who has completeled their reproductive development. So Boy, Girl, Man and Woman are also sex labels. Also we now know more about how sex is more then just genitalia. This is why we have Sex and a Biological Variable https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2016215 https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2016215 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323885348000547#:~:text=The%20sex%20chromosomes%20are%20not,all%20cells%20have%20a%20sex https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97803...!
        defrost 2y ago
        > Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmental sex disorders we are all either male or female. That's not what the actual developmental science says though. The strong all humans are either male OR female by { unprovided definition } is simply incorrect. > If you lookup biological adult, it's just someone who has completeled their reproductive development. Sure. Some are born and develop into biological adult males. Others are born and develop into biological adult females. And others yet again are born and grow into adults who are neither one nor the other. Look it up .. start with "intersex". See your own first link, for example, it's really sloppy, and yet: Although all cells have a sex, designated by the presence and dosage of X or Y chromosomes, which in most cases will be XX (female) or XY (male), * all cells will have a sex (okay ...) * most will be XX (female) OR XY (male) (... okay) * ... crickets ... Nothing said about those cells that are neither male nor female. All that aside, you have dodged the question. What definition do you have for male, for female, and what do you designate the remainder? Are you even aware that people are born who are neither male nor female by any of the generally accepted physical and genetic attributes?
School-Cotton 2y ago
> I think it is fair to say that through the nomination process, whoever is voted to run as the Republican nominee for president is considered to be the best representative for the party. It is not fair to say that at all. The primary system is highly undemocratic, and what’s more, the people who participate in it aren’t statistically representative of Republican voters as a whole.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  Even if you are voting against someone, the person who you voting for is the person you find the most palatable of the options presented. I also don't think you can look at the de-facto leader of the party and say "in some cases" as if the president isn't a big case.

Philorandroid 2y ago

That's a naive way to see it. People vote _against_ the other candidate, against what they fear is worse. And, if the theory that the frontrunner is the best representation of the party holds true, it speaks quite poorly for the Democrats appointing Harris despite Biden winning the vote of his party, no? And, again, tu quoque; even if the GOP was exhaustively comprised of reality-evading lunatics, voters and all, it wouldn't excuse stooping to their level -- the DNC's _explicit_ support of racial identitarianism, benevolent racism, and biological denialism run in direct opposition to this supposed moral high ground they tacitly hold.

BadHumans 2y ago
> it speaks quite poorly for the Democrats appointing Harris despite Biden winning the vote of his party, no? Yes it does. I agree fully. > the DNC's _explicit_ support of racial identitarianism, benevolent racism, and biological denialism run in direct opposition to this supposed moral high ground they tacitly hold. I don't think benevolent racism means what you think it means and no one is denying biology. Trans people aren't even denying biology. I would suggest you actually speak to a few trans people in real life.
- bongoman42 2y ago
  umm.. Scientific American said that differences in athletic ability of men and women are not based in Biology.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    I am definitely not the person to write a dissertation in support of trans people but the logic being used as I understand it is that male and female are not the same as man and woman. Whether I or anyone else agree with that is up in the air.
    - oldnetguy 2y ago
      Man by definition is an adult human male and woman by definition is an adult human female. So there is that.
      - defrost 2y ago
        Just sticking with actual science here; how do you define "adult human male", how do you define "adult human female" .. and what do you label humans that don't meet either of your definitions? I'm assuming you have a checklist of physical characteristics and genetic attributes in mind, sticking purely with that which can be measured, tested and observed and steering clear of fuzzy concepts.
        oldnetguy 2y ago
        Males are females are biological sex labels. It's how our bodies develop so we can reproduce. Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmental sex disorders we are all either male or female. If you lookup biological adult, it's just someone who has completeled their reproductive development. So Boy, Girl, Man and Woman are also sex labels. Also we now know more about how sex is more then just genitalia. This is why we have Sex and a Biological Variable https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2016215 https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2016215 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323885348000547#:~:text=The%20sex%20chromosomes%20are%20not,all%20cells%20have%20a%20sex https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97803...!
        defrost 2y ago
        > Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmental sex disorders we are all either male or female. That's not what the actual developmental science says though. The strong all humans are either male OR female by { unprovided definition } is simply incorrect. > If you lookup biological adult, it's just someone who has completeled their reproductive development. Sure. Some are born and develop into biological adult males. Others are born and develop into biological adult females. And others yet again are born and grow into adults who are neither one nor the other. Look it up .. start with "intersex". See your own first link, for example, it's really sloppy, and yet: Although all cells have a sex, designated by the presence and dosage of X or Y chromosomes, which in most cases will be XX (female) or XY (male), * all cells will have a sex (okay ...) * most will be XX (female) OR XY (male) (... okay) * ... crickets ... Nothing said about those cells that are neither male nor female. All that aside, you have dodged the question. What definition do you have for male, for female, and what do you designate the remainder? Are you even aware that people are born who are neither male nor female by any of the generally accepted physical and genetic attributes?

School-Cotton 2y ago

> I think it is fair to say that through the nomination process, whoever is voted to run as the Republican nominee for president is considered to be the best representative for the party. It is not fair to say that at all. The primary system is highly undemocratic, and what’s more, the people who participate in it aren’t statistically representative of Republican voters as a whole.

BadHumans 2y ago
Even if you are voting against someone, the person who you voting for is the person you find the most palatable of the options presented. I also don't think you can look at the de-facto leader of the party and say "in some cases" as if the president isn't a big case.