A Democrat beating a Republican for MTG's seat would be like a MAGA Republican becoming Mayor of Berkeley.

This is a really interesting question. It's sobering how hard it is to find good examples of this. Former hacker Kevin Mitnick was one I saw in the tech world.

I only had him for one class at UMass, but it left an indelible mark on the way I think, I'm sure. His vanity license plate was "I KANT. I remember him telling the story of a toll-taker on turnpike noting it: "Critique of Pure Reason, right?" He was something else.

Related: after I watched the new Peaky Blinders movie last week I learned that many/most Roma in UK and Ireland prefer “Gypsy” or "Traveller" when describing themselves. (As for the movie: I'd watch those actors play Yahtzee for 2 hours happily, but the plot was not much more than that.)

It's both I think. Colorado chose the bluntest, most speech‑suppressive tool available. Jackson says that's ok because regulating what doctors say in treatment is no different from regulating procedures or prescriptions. I love her, but I think that's wrong. n

Your analogy is off. That said, I agree that the conservatives are often inconsistent. I do hope that a state passes a more symmetrical law that passes muster: a licensed provider may not provide therapy to a minor that has as its predetermined goal a specific sexual orientation or gender identity.

Excerpt from their concurrence: "Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things. As Ms. Chiles readily acknowledges, the First Amendment would apply in the identical way. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25–26; see also id., at 37–38 (United States as amicus curiae agreeing). Once again, because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward."

From Kagan and Sotomayor's concurrence: "Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s." I think conversion therapy is wrong, but this ruling also protects against Mississippi outlawing gender-affirming counseling.

Honestly, I kind of liked it (the preemption). I wonder if it would work in other contexts. "This week's episode of The Pitt had me in tears. (For the record, I know some people feel the show is cringe/overrated and the assembled actors intentionally manipulated into crying about a fictional baby."

I might have been projecting, but I read in some sadness about the whole thing. The throuple's reaction really amplified readers’ worst interpretations and confirmed concerns about power dynamics, fairly or not. At first I thought: oh, who wouldn't want the Internet losing it's mind over your book.

Yeah, that's a pretty high bar.

She literally wrote a book and made a video about her sex life.

To be fair, Lindy West of yore was didactic in the extreme. Since the get-go her arguments about sexism, bias against overweight people, harassment, media ethics, or power have been pretty clearly calling out what she she thinks is right and wrong. No ambiguity or complexity in her moral framing.

I'm not trying to tone police. I have a bias against broad brush pronouncements. But I know we sometimes need generalizations to talk about social patterns at all. It just feels like flattening diversity sometimes. I'm on your side. There has to be a way for young people to get the info they need.

Have to agree with folks: you really roasted him. Every time RFK and the MAHA folks make a pronouncement, you know it's just straight up baloney.

That's like 85% of humans. Yipes, if true. I'm straight, but then, it isn't my anti social media law. At any rate, I'm hopeful but not exactly optimistic on this. Good analysis from a website I've never visited before trying to find out where things stand as of today. (I couldn't see the OP).

The GOP wants to cut healthcare so they can provide $200 billion to fund Trump's war with Iran. [Post text] "We're beating plowshares into swords, people. All glory to the aimless war and none to fund the care of the Americans who will be maimed while fighting in it."

We're beating plowshares into swords, people.

All glory to the aimless war and none to fund the care of the Americans who will be maimed while fighting in it.

The Disgusting Reason a Staten Island Creek Turned Bright Green

Half-way through a story in today’s NYT: “The extent of the contamination is still murky, but one matter is clear: Sewage is infiltrating at least one stream and one lake….” Slipped that one past the editor. Writers need to have fun where they can.

Financial Times Associate Editor Edward Luce captured a moment that speaks volumes about the credibility crisis surrounding President Trump's Iran announcements.
================

WTAF??

The problem with terms like "race science" isn't that the techniques of the time were methodologicalally wrong or used for evil. The problem is that the vast majority of modern readers are not conversant in the history of science. They see the word "science" as a shorthand for tested/validated.

so your answer is no then?

screenshot showing first post is blocked and then...@mataliandy: It's not "race science" it's "unfounded racist scientific-sounding claims promoted by racists." I hate that eugenics is being described as a "science," even by journalists who are against it. WTF? ‪Rua M. Williams‬ ‪@fractalecho.bsky.social‬: It was and is a science. Science can be done for terror. That doesn't make it not science. It doesn't help to try and paint it as "not science" because then we can fool ourselves into regarding certain things as safe and cozy real science when they're still doing harm.

I don't have access to the post that kicked this off. I was engaged after that. So, I am not representing anything about the OP. You seemed to be arguing against my analogy with your own. Rather than have this meta-discussion, why not engage with what I was saying? Race science is pseudoscience.

It’s reductive to claim that’s all I said and ignore the nuances I explained. See how helpful that is? We have 299 characters here. Is “race science” science? No. It is pseudoscience using the language and aesthetics of science to justify racism. It is still happening. Fight it.

Too funny. That’s why I said I wasn’t sure what you were advocating. Is it reductive to say “race science was and is science?” Seems to leave out a lot of nuance and might be considered…oh well, nevermind.

I'm not familiar with TEK, but I don't doubt it! I guess I still don't understand what folks are advocating for here. "Race science" would not pass a current eighth grade science fair test for bias. Judges look for: clear variables, controlled conditions, repeated trials, logical data collection.

I think we've gone about as far as we can go at this point. I'm not sure what you're advocating, but equating current research on infectious disease & virology, epidemiology, and mental health--the areas hardest hit in the NIH cuts--with race science is not going to help anyone. Good luck to you.

It is quite telling that since the horrific story of Cesar Chavez re: sexual abuse broke earlier this week and calls to change the names of schools and other public spaces named in his honor, not one conservative voice has stepped forward to object that this would be tantamount to erasing history.

Amidst the pandemic, confidence in the scientific community becomes increasingly polarized - AP-NORC There is growing polarization in confidence in science, with Democrats (64%) more confident than Republicans (34%). This 30-point gap is up from 9 points in 2018.

Agreed. But right now real science is under attack. Actual scientists doing important work have to shut down their labs due to lack of funding. Challenging outmoded views of scientific objectivity is not a primary concern for me today. apnorc.org/projects/ami...

I don't think anyone thoughtful believes that. Just ask Robert Oppenheimer or the computer scientists researching how training data encodes bias. Do some people think the scientific method removes all bias? I know a lot of fourth graders and a few silly adults who think that.

We're special. ;-) I'm resistant to granting a pseudoscientific area of "research" that intended to justify inequality, segregation, colonialism, slavery, and genocide with the the favorable glow of actual science now. There are "race scientists" still among us, alas. Not so alchemists (I hope).