Zohran Mamdani says 'I don't think we should have billionaires'
Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee to be the next mayor of New York and a self-identified democratic socialist, said Sunday billionaires contribute to inequality.
You're viewing a single thread.
Centrists already hated him, and now he said their gods shouldn't exist.
"Centrist" is just a masquerade for Republicrats to pretend to still be on the left.
Just because the US has only 2 real options to vote for doesn't mean people can have different opinions. It isn't for nothing that in a country like The Netherlands we have like 40 parties, including centre parties.
I'm pro LGBTQ, anti-israel, against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. Pro climate policies, pro taxing the rich.
But I'm also against fossil fuel bans, against bans on firearms, pro military for defence, pro free-speech, pro strict immigration, against 'PC' culture, against trans-women in women's sports, pro merit success.
Am I left or right? ...Or centrist?
Let's take the obvious "Pro military for defense" first since that's the most insane thing to think is a contentious political issue.
There are 30% of people in the US that think aliens are real and have visited their asshole but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
What you're doing here is being manipulated by people who want you to think some of these things are Important Issues(tm)
The trans women in sports is a great example of propaganda. It was cooked up by a conservative think tank. How many people are affected by this "problem"? Maybe 200? And in most cases sports organizations themselves often have rules in place like "how long you'd have to have been on hormone therapy to qualify." That is already more or less a solved problem for most the people it actually affects. People playing sports didnt come up with the "trans people in sports issue", a think tank did.
So what you are ..is manipulated by think tanks and propaganda and in a way that causes you to oppose people who otherwise have common interests with you.
There's only two real political philosophies and they can be summed up as "fuck you, I got mine" and "we're all in this together." I will tell you right now only the "fuck you, I got mine" group has any real interest in dehumanizing people by say, having the government ban trans people from public spaces and public activities like sports.
but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
Thats just your speculation. And do you mean people oppose the US having any military at all? 90% of the countries have a standing army, and the ones that dont are mostly small island countries.
Why is that the line you draw?
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it's probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Personally I agree with you. I always vote left and am more of a "we're in in together" mindset.
Either way, thank you for you insight!
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
Probably extra contentious because it's trans discrimination on Pride weekend. And there's the fact that some research (backed by the International Olympic Committee) suggests that trans-women may perform worse than cis-women.
Even if more research comes out that shows otherwise (entirely possible considering that it's hard to get a decent sample population of elite trans athletes as there are so few), discrimination is not a solution. The simplest solution would be to get rid of gendered leagues and group athletes by measureable athletic abilities. Probably would make most people with an actual vested interest happy, with exception of those who want to keep paying women less.
Oh wow, I did not know that! For both points. It's great to see more research, I skimmed a little but I'll read it right after this comment.
I like the idea of athletes competing against one another purely to see who is best overall. But I'd be worried that could possibly be more discriminatory. Such as in bouldering there was recently a controversial issue with a short climber not being able to compete in some climbs due to certain starting holds being too far apart. So something like weight classes but that considers a lot more depending on the sport?
Thanks so much for your reply and your linked study! I'm really happy for comments like yours.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it's probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Not to surprising, since it is a standpoint that lays the foundation for oppressing and dehumanising one of the most vulnerable groups if society.
First it was just Trans people in sport, then it is trans people in bathrooms and the next step is eradicating trans peoples existence from public spaces.
Which is very sad and I'm not for that.
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women's sport, and broader still that centrist exist with non black and white opinions.
I believe we are as a society, getting better at accepting people. In my country we're decently accepting I think, although there is still the intolerant person here and there. Overall I do hope one day everyone is accepting of everyone else.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women’s sport
Which you don't seem to have researched, or you would have known about the standards already in place to keep competition fair.
I cited a study before that trans-women retain around 12% of the strength they had previously even with blockers in place. So it is still technically, not fair.
Although there may be more research that I'm reading about that someone metioned, in which case my opinion may change but the research is still somewhat inconclusive and requires more evidence.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Says the person who brought it up.
It was simpily an argument for me being centrist and therefore legitimate centrist existing.
It clearly worked in demonstrating what a centrists opinions are like and no one has so far argued I fall on one side or the other.
Sure. just bring up divisive right wing talking points. And then call yourself a centrist.
It tracks.
And what about my left wing opinions? Would the right wing accept me or would they be as friendly as you lot are?
Would the right wing accept me or would they be as friendly as you lot are?
You're asking us to accept bigoted opinions and threatening to go to the right like you weren't there already.
I'm pro LGBTQ
against trans-women
Right
In women's sport, I just don't think it's fair to women to compete against trans-women* who are stronger than them. I only beleive that out of fairness, but I think people have every right to do what they want with their bodies and be accepted for who they are.
Where another person's rights begin, another's ends type of thing.
** EDIT: Clarifycation of 'trans-women' at the astrick, was just 'women' before
You're right, it's completely unfair for women to compete against women who are stronger than them. For the weightlifting they should test every woman's strength, and only the weakest woman competes. That's fair.
That is not what I am saying. You're trying to make an enemy out of me when I am not, it's almost a strawmans argument you just made.
https://womeninsport.org/transgender-inclusion-womens-sport/
After 12 months: In studies which recorded the retained muscle mass/strength, there was an average of 25% residual advantage for transgender women at 12 months treatment compared with reference a group of females. After 12 months of testosterone suppression, transgender women remained 48% stronger, with 35% larger quadriceps mass compared with the control population of females. After more than two years of follow-up on testosterone suppression recent research citing retrospective data from military personnel in the US has shown that transgender women retain an advantage in running speed, at a residual of some 12% faster than the known normative values for females.
What is your opinion on this, truely? This organisation literally supports trans-women being in sport but has to admit that they are uniquely stronger and faster than born-women. It's an unfortunate reality but I personally believe that we can support transgender women without disenfranchising born-women. I'm just being pragmatic about it.
And for clarifycation, I don't think there should be classes in chess.
There are a number of other genes linked to athletic outcomes that are way more influential than "12% above average". Steroid usage is rampant in top teir sports for instance and people with like genetic kidney conditions that overproduce some hormones have a far greater advantage.
The people doing the sports should be making the rules about sports, not a bunch of armchair theorists with calipers. Most the guys who have A LOT OF OPINIONS on how to gatekeep womens sports don't actually watch any women's sports.
https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-016-2462-3
The greatest researched gene for sprint times measures just less than a percent of influence at 0.92%
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2984550
The second greatest contributing gene related to strength and fast twitch responses ACE I/D, has so far inconclusive results.
I'd be interested in hearing if there are more genes I'm unaware about.
Yeah, stereroid usage is not fair across the board, which is why before competition in every sport it is already tested for. Although it does slip under the radar. Likewise in some sports trans-women are tested before competing such as in soccer, and there are quite a few that, unfortunately, has banned them from playing entirely.
I am only for fairness, not for exclusion. The ideal world in my opinion, would be fair to everybody.
Trans women were allowed to compete in the Olympics in 2004. That's 21 years ago. Six olympics.
The Paris Olympics had 11,040 athletes. The Athens Olympics had 10,600. Let's average those for 10,800 and say 64,8000 athletes competed in the Summer Olympics since trans women were allowed.
Only one transgender athlete has ever won an Olympic medal. Their name is Quinn, they're a soccer player from Canada. And they were born female. They won two medals.
So the percentage of trans people in the general population is 1%, the percentage of Olympic athletes who are trans and won a medal is 0.0015%, and the percentage of Olympic athletes who were born male and won a medal in the women's league is 0.0000%.
What you should be understanding from these figures is that trans women will never dominate sporting events of any kind. We suck at sports because we're all big nerds. Any trans person who is good at sports is a freak.
That's apples to oranges. There's almost no elite trans athletes. Elite athlete times are very close vs somewhat average people playing lower level sports where you can get a large enough sample size of trans athletes to make statistics.
You're not for fairness, you're for "fairness but only when trans people are involved"
If somebody was like "oh we should have a separate league for people with breathing disorders" you wouldn't spend 1/1000 of the time on that question even though asthma affects a far larger percentage of the population and it is associated with what, 20% lower athletic outcomes?
That is not what I am saying.
No, it is what you said. It's just not what you mean. It's not my fault the two are separate. It's your responsibility to speak clearly if you don't want the silly things you say to be mocked.
Could you quote me and break down your understanding of what I said?
I don't necessarily feel mocked, are you trying to mock me?
Also you didn't respond to the study still?
I just don’t think it’s fair to women to compete against women who are stronger than them
Right, so that second "women" should have been "trans-women" for clarifycation. I'll edit that.
Did you misinterpret that on purpose?
I'm pro LGBTQ
against trans-women in women's sports
No, you're not pro lgbtq. You're a TERF at best
against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. (...) pro taxing the rich
pro merit success
??? Do you understand what any of those words mean? "Pro merit success" directly contradicts each of the social policies you claim to support.
Pro climate policies
I'm also against fossil fuel bans
You're either lying about one of these or you somehow think we can stop climate change without stopping the most significant cause of climate change?
Does the complete lack of internal consistency in your worldview not bother you at all? You have no defined political leaning, you have a bunch of emotionally driven contradictory political opinions that you clearly have little to no understanding of.
Given that description, I'd guess you probably call yourself a centrist and vote conservative.
Dead wrong, I've always voted left. And yes, I do consider myself a centrist, that's exactly why I commented because I think the 'you're either with us or against us' mentality is doing more damage than it helps.
I'm only against trans-women competing against women because they would have a competitive advantage. I'm even for athletes using hormones, stereroids and drugs in sport (in seperate divisions perhaps) and then the rules on who is in who's class can really be thought out properly, but currently most trans-women have a clear advantage based on current sport (and biological) evidence. I don't think it's fair competition is all. I know some pretty cool trans people and one of them even admits to similar feelings of it being unfair.
I'm pro social policies because I think everyone deserves a roof over their head, food, water and basic amenities. But I'm also pro merit purely to reward people to achieve more and be better. Some people will never be as capable as others are but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a basic living standard. Something like UBI would be a perfect solution to my understanding. I'm not American but when Bernie Sanders was a candidate I was rooting for him.
Pro climate because we need to fix it and fast, we do way to much damage to the environment. Against outright bans on fossil fuels because we simply are not there yet. My country is unfortunately nowhere near renewable and our outback has hardly any electricity, we need fuels to do anything out there. Trucks, trains and ships sometimes can't work without it. Not to mention that lithium although amazing is causing more greenhouse gases mining and refining it than what electric cars are offsetting. Electric cars literally aren't doing anything because the batteries die before they make up for their production. Carbon batteries are coming but mass production is difficult to scale. Cargo ships emit around a quater of all green house gasses and I personally think thats where we could really cut down on it by either fitting cargo ships with nuclear reactors which some military vessels have or just reducing consumerism. Currently most CO2 emissions is from electricity of which in most countries (such as mine) residential makes up only about 10%. The onous is not so much on the individual person but on companies and business, we need more incentives/punishments for corporations to be more considerate.
Almost no issue is black or white. I do have defined political beliefs, I think most people oversimplify or don't research topics before forming an opinion. And there there are people like the one I originally commented to who have turned politics and world issues into binary division, where instead of educating they attack and insult.
What is emotionally driven here?
And what do I have little understanding of?
You’re in the wrong place to present nuanced opinion in long form. I love the independence of Lemmy from the large corporations (likely astroturfing aside), but this place swings the Overton window back to the left so hard it breaks without any acceptance of different nuanced ideas. It’s as though the life you’ve lived and the subtleties that governed it are irrelevant.
Of course this develops the mindset that trying to engage is mostly pointless, which I’ve adopted, because ultimately these are all just words on a screen with no real connection to the person behind them either way. You can’t sway them and they don’t respect your attention to minutiae.
Yeah I'm really starting to notice this exactly. It's sad to think that you either disengage or get unwarranted abuse hurlded towards you from every direction.
Maybe just getting off the internet entirely is the better option.
I liked your reference of the Overton window though haha
Gonna be honest, I'm not reading that slop. You open by telling me that I'm dead wrong, then immediately confirming that my guess as to your political leaning was half correct, which sets a very clear tone that you're here to mudwrestle on the internet rather than engage in a discussion. If you want to try again I'll talk to you, but I'm not interested in trading novels high on insults and low on reading comprehension with you.
Of all the things in your comment, getting right the "you probably call yourself a centrist" is the least significant part. You're wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.
Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.
Because guess what. You can't fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.
As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There's lots of shades of grey.
And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.
I assumed being centrist was already clear.
Mudwrestle? I'm here to make a point, that not everything is back and white, left or right. But if you don't want to discuss, fine by me. I didn't insult you once so your insult is quite hypocritical and immature infact.
It sort of looks like you're broadly supportive of progressive causes, but don't support progressives in the actual "battles" that are being "fought". The clearest example is you being "Pro climate policies", but "against fossil fuel bans". Basically, you want things to get better, but you don't want things to be done to make them better. You want peace and quiet more than you progress, and you're willing to cede basically all current issues to regressives in order get it. Of course, if regressives win, they'll just want something else. And you'll cede that to them too.
In summary: you're pathetic.
Why is everyone so sharp with words here?
Should we stop pumping oil right this very minute? Do you think the world will be ready by 2050 to effectivly ban the sale of fossil fuel? We are yet to globally REDUCE carbon emissions, we've only decelerated so far and by a tiny amount. We are no where near ready to make the change. Unless you are willing to cause a massacre by shutting off the oil wells?
I want things to be better, you're right. And we all play a part in improving it. Right now I actually work in solar power infanstructure, is that pathetic? I vote against fossil fuels, and I am happy my country is cutting off gas and forcing people to be more electric.
I have helped contribute to some of these other issues I have metioned also and donate and invest in the future.
If you can draw a conclusion on a person so quickly and determine them to be pathetic, then what are you doing that makes you so special? Because, unfortunately, there is only so much a single person can do.
I'm judging you based on what you wrote about your position, which is all I do know about you, as well as what you chose to broadcast about yourself. And you paint yourself as a pathetic coward. You're absolutely pathetic, even without comparing you to anybody else.
Should we stop pumping oil right this very minute? Do you think the world will be ready by 2050 to effectivly ban the sale of fossil fuel? We are yet to globally REDUCE carbon emissions, we’ve only decelerated so far and by a tiny amount. We are no where near ready to make the change. Unless you are willing to cause a massacre by shutting off the oil wells?
And a big reason why we, as a species, have not made any progress on that front, is because of cowardice. Decisions are being made by people who stand to profit from fossil fuels, or are too scared of the economic consequences of combating fossil fuel dependency. Even though the transition itself would help mitigate those consequences, e.g. new jobs created for green energy development would offset jobs loss due to the necessary structural change.
I want things to be better, you’re right. And we all play a part in improving it. Right now I actually work in solar power infanstructure, is that pathetic? I vote against fossil fuels, and I am happy my country is cutting off gas and forcing people to be more electric.
Individual action, while laudable, will not help without systemic change, which you are too scared to advocate for.
So wait, what things make me a pathetic coward? Could you make a list?
And if it is only relating to fossil fuels, I'd wager 99.99% of the population doesn't want fossil fuels to be banned without replacements or serious societal change. Does that make 99.99% of people also pathetic cowards?
Then who goes first? Do we all agree at once to stop using? Or will militaries be exempted because you and I both know that no government is sabotaging their own power.
How would country's that export oil react do you think? Certain economies almost entirely depend on it, do they just cease to exist at once?
Would there be exceptions for agriculture or would some communities have to starve to death?
What about exemptions for building the replacing technology, or should we cease to use power at all and ration what remains?
There is more complexity to the issue you deem so simple to fix. If you had complete control of the world, how would you go about eliminating fossil fuels without being guillotined by 8 billion people?
Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.
Contradiction isn't nuance
There is no contradiction.
Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn't make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.
You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.
You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.
T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.
Wow that's revealing more than you probably wanted.
What is it revealing that I supposedly didn't want?
Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.
Basically because it's impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.
Like I said elsewhere, you're competing with the internet for the most contrarian take. You revealed that trans athletes is not an issue you support because they are such a small group of the whole. But when you feel insecure or challenged about your "hot take" you do the contrarian line of "it's impossible for 100% of the people on the group to agree" as if this is a matter of opinion and not facts. As long as it is rooted in opinions, you are free to claim the most contrarian take possible.
First of all, that's not my opinion. I'm defending the other guy. Since he's getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.
Second point, "not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group" is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don't need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.
Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country "chairland" where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called "tabletown". Person A says: "tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!" And person B says: "No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix". Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can't a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?
And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. "Trans women should compete in women leagues" is not a fact, doesn't matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.
You are free to have any opinion you want, I don't believe in thought crimes. I don't know why you place such importance on "contrarian". Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?
Nah, this is just a contrarian contest.
Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don't understand your comment.
Thank you for understanding!
You sound like a bog standard social conservative.
Please name the trans women athletes who have won Olympic medals during the many years they've been allowed to compete. They have a clear advantage, right, so it should be easy to find.
I'll wait.
Sports decide themselves, of which world rowing and boxing have blanket bans. Athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket are bans if the transition was after puberty. Triathlon, tennis and archery requires testosterone testing. And all other sporting bodies are on a case by case basis.
That's why we don't see them because the Olympics themselves have said:
high-level organised sporting competitions - relies on a level playing field, where no athlete has an unfair and disproportionate advantage over the rest.
I'm tired of replying to everyone, please put more effort into your argument
Please stop gobbling right wing propaganda and make a sensible argument yourself, and then we can have a discussion. "centrist".
You won't though. So don't waste people's time.
I didn't, I cited the literal Olympics. I have cited medical studies, and I have defended my position where everyone then returns to insults and statements like this.
Unless you have evidence that what I said was incorrect, you are infact wrong. One, only ONE person has cited one study that is inconclusive and I congratulated them because at least they showed there is some conflicting research but you haven't even bothered to try.
If you are going to throw your opinion around, at least back it up with weight. Cite studies, link articles, or form a proper argument, because if I can refute your claim before I've even had my morning coffee than you still have room to make a half decent point.
You never bothered to look into it. You decided that since trans people are banned now, they must always have been banned. They were allowed to play for a long time before the ban, in fact, and none of the scare mongering was true. There was no trans domination.
You don't really care though. That you care about the issue at all is evidence you've fallen for the conservative campaign against trans people, because it's an entirely invented issue. You listened to what the conservative pundits said, maybe you even read one of the Heritage Foundation's studies. But you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and I've been having this argument with fucking "centrists" like you for over a decade who think we're a fine scapegoat for your socially acceptable bigotry.
You aren't a centrist. There is no center when one side wants the elimination of the other, and that's the ultimate end goal here. You think you're having a dandy little political discussion, but this is just a stepping stone on the campaign to convince the public that trans women are men and therefore trans people are sick, and need to be removed from society. When you run around and parrot their talking points on a subject you know little about its not a fun debate, it's plain bigotry and its not fucking welcome.
Yeah rules tend to be updated when new information is presented. Stereroids were also not banned once upon a time, because hardly any information about their use in sport existed, and when new information was presented it was promptly banned.
You may not care enough to present evidence to me, but how do you expect to sway the Olympics? Your rant is not going to change the Olympics policies so if you want to make the world a better place for you and your peers, find and cite evidence, maybe fund new studies to find convincing evidence to present to the Olympics and the greater world.
You cannot expect to change opinions when you have no evidence to back up what you claim. And you will also not convince people by throwing labels and insults around, you'll only make the very people against you dig their heels in, which is the last thing you want. I don't care what you call me, I care about evidence and so far you have failed to convince as a result.
Not everything is black and white, I'm against unfair competition as is the Olympics. That does not mean I'm against trans people, there is a substantial difference.
That's basically the Lib-Right/"Libertarianism"
Edit: Actually I don't think that's Libertarian. Its like mix of Libertarian and Auth-Right values
pro LGBT
against trans-women in women's sports
You sound like an Idiot to me.
Not very helpful, why is that?
Because lemmy isn't reddit and as a result has little patience for anti-trans bigotry.
You're a liar, that's what you are. Can't even properly set up the troll.
Huh!? This isn't a troll, I'm an example of a centrist. The term 'centrist' exists for a reason, and plenty of people such as myself think this way although I will admit, I have met very few unfortunately.
What makes me seem like a liar?
The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason
Yeah, it gives conservatives something to call themselves on dating sites.
"I only voted for trump for some of his policies, I'm actually in the center and not a conservative so please fuck me please please please please please"
So what else is new? I had an imaginary friend when I was little, I got over that. So can others.
no way. Kinda cool, and no judgement at all, tell us about the imaginary friend?
I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that centrists worship and obey billionaires.
Correct, my apologies.
It's a lot harder when it's part of their very identity.
