He’s had Blaire White on.
The parent post is someone who doesn’t listen to Rogan, and a perfect example of someone that casts Rogan as a transphobe because he dares to not tow 100% of the views that they want him to.
This type of philosophical fascism is what is ruining our world today.
And how is it related to the question at all? I am not interested in discussing if Fallon Fox is a good person, good sport or good representative of trans people. I'm discussing Joe Rogan calling her a man being indicative of transphobia on the JRE. Just like OJ Simpson being convicted would not justify calling him the slur with N.
For a competitor who has grown up with the (extreme in the case of contact sports) benefit of male hormones to compete with someone without that benefit is something new, at least in this era. It makes injuries more likely ... to the competitor with the female hormone profile.
A lot of us feel that it isn't fair. Whatever the explanation, it appears to be a man beating up a woman. Because biologically it is. Sanctioned or not, consensual or not, that's not my preferred entertainment.
I would be in favor of sporting bodies deciding these things on a discipline-by-discipline basis, but at this point christian conservative think tanks (like the ADF) became involved and it has all just turned into such a shitshow that I don't trust anyone in these bodies to be impartial anymore either.
If you're interested in a nuanced discussion, may I recommend Mia Mulder[1]? I promise, it's not a straight up arguing for one side exclusively video essay.
Spoiler: It's complicated, in no way straight forward, and if you descend into the ugly guts of it you'll learn that sports were never fair to begin with, and that we'd need better bracketing systems even if trans people didn't exist to have any semblance of "individual effort" determining outcomes in sports.
I feel that I have direct relevent expertise ... having wrestled many boys and girls my age growing up. There was at least one girl who could and did kick my ass. But there were lots of boys I couldn't beat.
It doesn't take a biologist to make this unsubtle observation. Boys in general are considerably advantaged over girls in any kind of brawl. An environment that doesn't allow a person to learn this growing up is too safe.
It is very hard to maintain "excess" muscle on feminizing HRT (the body has different muscle to fat target ratios depending on hormones), and impossible to (re)build it. Someone would have to work disproportionately hard on maintaining most of their "male advantage" a year in. I'm not an athlete, but every trans person you ask will tell you that the difference in strength is quite significant. Even if I can just tell from being unable to open jars.
That aside, I really recommend you invest time into that essay. It's an interesting tale about why we have segregated sports to begin with (believe it or not, women doing sports is a relatively recent thing) and how trans people really aren't the biggest interference to the unfairness of it all.
She might be trans, but she really is on one ideological line with Shrier und Soh. I'm not sure if White would call for all transition to be banned when opportunistic (as some members of the GOP do now), whereas I have doubts about Shrier and Soh being honest about finding transition acceptable in principle, but that's really the only difference.
Or are we not talking about the same person?
LOL.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tulsi_gabbard/41253...
She might not be as far left as you would prefer, but there is no doubt she is on the left side of the US political spectrum. (And please don't bother wasting our time with that tired old trope about the Democrats being equivalent to center-right party in European politics. We're not in Europe.)
Without even loosely-defined characterizations of what a political ideology is and where it falls on our (albeit very imperfect) scale, terms like "leftism" are doomed to a future of being weaponized by their opponents, who themselves shift right and decry moderates as "radicals".
All of that aside, I'd still like to hear your rationalization for her recent appearance as the host of a far-right talk show where she, among other things, referred to the sitting attorney general's investigation of a former President's alleged crimes as one having "all hallmarks of a dictatorship". Is hosting Tucker's program an endorsement of every position he's ever espoused? Surely not. But I'd say it's a level of support akin to giving a speech at a political candidate's rally...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FT_22...
This is dumb misconception, too. It is absolutely false. If anything, Europe (even if you focus solely on Western Europe -- if not, "slightly" would be "extremely") is slightly more conservative than America, especially socially. That may seem false if you look from certain angles, like social welfare, but those are red herrings (e.g., social welfare's a lot easier to expand when taxes are already very high, when your poverty levels are already way lower, etc.).
It's hard to point to a voting record as evidence of one being a leftist or not, when actual leftist policies are not typically put up for a vote in America. Her ideological score puts her in line with Tim Ryan, who is currently running for Senate in right-leaning Ohio, and is competitive because of the very fact he isn't a leftist. Despite what you may hear, not all Democrats are socialists. Far from it.
In present internet discourse, 5-percentile radical leftist opinions are peddled as if they represent any significant group of people in this nation. Anyone who does not agree with their often non-scientific ideological framework is labelled as right-wing-fascist irrespective of ground realities surrounding the person or the topic.
What we're witnessing here is a takeover of the American left by a very particular strain of political activism. Like all activists, they too care more about ascendency in the power struggle and aesthetic markers of cultural victory, instead of practical solutions for improving the lives of the population they represent.
> We're not in Europe
If Europe had anywhere near the racial/cultural/religious diversity of the US, then they'd be on their way to a swift turn to the right. Orban is the canary, and the rise of the right in Germany/France/Italy is exactly representative of that phenomenon. Social safety nets do not make for left-liberal ideology. Most of these socialist-paragons demand incredible conformity (scandinavia) and have restrictive abortion laws [2] among other traditionally right-wing traits.
[1] https://preview.redd.it/iwnju4entbw81.jpg?width=1024&auto=we...
You fucken serious right now?
Europeans love to use ethnic subgroups of white as markers for diversity, but the distinctions are much smaller. Culture and religion(or the manner of its rejection) on the other hand seem to be greatly homogenous in European nations.
Each European nation seems to have a secondary ethnic group of ex-colonial immigrants (France : West Africa, England : North (erstwhile) India, Germany : Turks (not colonial)); but they too seem to be othered within their identity as a nation.
The US actually tries a 2 directional cultural exchange with its immigrant groups. The friction and vitriol that you see, has to do with a genuine attempt at mutual integration. It starts with surface level differences like having access to every cuisine to having celebrities of every ethnicity. But, it also goes deeper. America almost has 'I made this [1]' approach towards appropriating cultural products that start elsewhere. To an extent, the reason Americans get so loud about losing their culture, is because American culture is so weakly defined & fluid. On the other hand, you might not see Germans or French people abusing 'immigrants' because unless you fully integrate, you will always be othered. The very rigidity of the culture, makes it 'feel' like a welcoming place to outsiders.
Americans love to self-flagellate, but the country has done better than any other country at developing at identity that isn't racial, religious or cultural in nature. That's not to say that the conditions are great here. But integration and cultural exchange are hard problems, and not-too-bad is about as good as it gets.
[1] https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/079/173/ed2...
That aside, it's very funny to accuse the left of shifting the overton window after a republican president that pardoned his co-conspirators, called for insurrection and then took top secret documents home - a crime he himself increased the penalty for. So much for law and order.
Yes, but that implies a certain 'conflict theory' approach to cultural development.
It is an 'all is fair in love and war' framework, which fully enfranchises the obstructionist policies of Mitch McConnell and the executive overreach of DeSantis which involves banning of CRT in schools. If opinions ossify at adulthood, then the only 2 plans of action are brainwash during schooling or disenfranchise your opponents using every slimy trick in the book.
Never convince, never compromise and certainly never rely on a representative democracy to achieve the closest outcome to consensus. I for one, refuse to espouse this theory.
> republican president
I'm not American or white and I dislike Trump, but the 2016 and 2020 elections solidified my opinion of the internet left being a unrepresentative sample of the left-leaning populace in the US. Democrat voters resoundingly rejected Warren/Sanders in 2020 despite the left's best efforts to convince you otherwise. The absolute media onslaught faced by him was unprecedented, and excellent evidence driven organizations were falling over each other to take 'Not-Trump' stances on every policy he ever suggested.
I used to trust NPR, NYT, ACLU & Scientific organizations a lot more until the 2016 election. Now I have to go read the very papers/stats/documents these organizations source from, with conclusions that often contrast the headlines of these very articles.
That's not just a random bar I set, it's been pretty heavily requested - but everyone knows it wouldn't happen because of prior criticism.
Even Tim Pool invites people to the left of the liberal democratic baseline (that I'd call center-right at best, but I'm also used to a more european notion of left and right) occasionally. Why not the JRE?
The Bernie interview was great, but it was a tactical campaign move. He wasn't going to be too contrarian with Joe when the audience is Joe's.
Notably, the one other exception is Joe calling bullshit on Ben Shapiro's claims.
The show has never invited anyone in favor of affirmative trans healthcare, for instance. But they did invite Debra Soh and Abigail Shier almost purely because they were against it.
But because the JRE pretends it's a free speech zone where no opinion is unheard, it creates a very biased view of public opinion in viewers. A division into "the woke mob" of ideologues and the "intellectual dark web" of people that are supposedly free of ideology. The show is massively contributing to what it says it hates.