Slashdot Mirror
US Government Admits It Doesn't Know If Assange Cracked Password For Manning (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The U.S. government does not have any evidence that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange succeeded in cracking a password for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, according to a newly unsealed affidavit written by an FBI agent. Last week, Assange was escorted out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and arrested for breaching bail in connection to allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. The day of Assange's arrest, the U.S. government unsealed an indictment against Assange with a hacking conspiracy charge. The Department of Justice accused WikiLeaks' founder of agreeing to help Manning crack a password that would have helped the former military analyst get into a classified computer system under a username that did not belong to her, making it harder for investigators to trace the eventual leak.
On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia unsealed the affidavit, which is dated December 21, 2017. The document contains more details on the interactions between Assange and Manning. And, most significantly, contains the admission that the U.S. government -- as of December of 2017 -- had no idea whether Assange actually cracked the password. Until now, we knew that the U.S. was aware that Assange attempted to crack a password for Manning once, but didn't know if it had more evidence of further attempts or whether it thought Assange was successful. "Investigators have not recovered a response by Manning to Assange's question, and there is no other evidence as to what Assange did, if anything, with respect to the password," FBI agent Megan Brown said in the affidavit. According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley, a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia unsealed the affidavit, which is dated December 21, 2017. The document contains more details on the interactions between Assange and Manning. And, most significantly, contains the admission that the U.S. government -- as of December of 2017 -- had no idea whether Assange actually cracked the password. Until now, we knew that the U.S. was aware that Assange attempted to crack a password for Manning once, but didn't know if it had more evidence of further attempts or whether it thought Assange was successful. "Investigators have not recovered a response by Manning to Assange's question, and there is no other evidence as to what Assange did, if anything, with respect to the password," FBI agent Megan Brown said in the affidavit. According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley, a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
Attempting hacking the nsa or us gov is still a crime.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The story I always heard was that Assange came into contact with the material way through the means of an anonymous collection process, which forms the basis of how Wikileaks is supposed to work? Or is that all BS too? All the "hacking" was done on Manning's side, which isn't hacking because his job was analyst for the military and working with cables was his job, didn't he just used his own access to steal the information in the first place?
Or have I got it all wrong here?
You really are fucking stupid aren't you. The Federal government only executes people by lethal injection. That said, the federal government itself has only executed three people since 1963.
I'm not a fan of the Donald by any means, but fucking hell, you're making yourself look as stupid as a Trumper.
Even if you think so the name is still Chelsea Manning.
Manning got re-arrested. Fucked again.
"May of" are you serious? It is "may have". How stupid do you have to be to get that wrong.
She can be punished for crimes she was not previously convicted of. She is very much in danger.
Unskinny Bobst, Bobst, Bobst, Bobst.
Turned your daddy gay, YEAH!!
The burden of protection from unwanted, non-violent interaction should be on the Government, not The People.
The NSA's protections should be so good, that they don't mind if people try to tinker with their stuff, and should instead invite it, so as to help them find their weaknesses. If the NSA exposes its infrastructure to the rest of the world, that's the fault of the NSA.
What's next? You can't take video of a federal building?
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
Julian is one of the few true journalists left. He exposed corruption at the highest levels at personal risk/danger.
Mainstream media are nothing but propagandists trolls outputting approved fluff.
We need more people like Julian - and the truth will set us free.
So is appendicitis
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
That has no effect on the legality of the name change.
for a man and do a double take
They arrested Manning because they knew they were about to arrest Assange and now they want to black mail Manning to testify against Assange just like they tried to do 10 years ago.
You think they're going to have trouble making charges stick? You're crazy.
Government, especially the justice system, is not as logical as you think. It's complicated on purpose: Any outcome is justifiable to enough people.
Speculation: He were probably more worried about being convicted of rape. His narcissistic tendencies combined with PR makes being a "martyr" for many years better than spending a year or so in prison if convicted, add the ridiculous crap about Swedish collaboration with USA plus torture plus death penalty etc. which are obvious bullshit feeding his ego.
Now while these things are true and he offered to help crack a code that would perhaps be worthy of a conspiracy charge however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction. Let's see if UK courts are reasonable.
At the time of the incident, the suspect's name was Bradley. Not sure what the legal procedure is when a suspect changes their name in the middle of a case, but I can see how it would be confusing if half of the documents had one and and half the other.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
He's a native speaker, so when he writes English, he's actually just hearing the words almost like dictation.
Well, "may of" sounds a hell of a lot like "may have" or "may've" (if you will).
A non-native speaker isn't just taking dictation; a non-native speaker must think about what he's writing, and thus there are many more checks and balances in place, which will capture such a mistake (at greater expense, of course).
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?!
It's not clear to me if Assangs actually attempted to crack the password of simply said he would in a chat.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
A dude by any name is still a dude.
Not anymore, it is neither at the moment. Genetically a man, the exterior is undetermined and its brain is a mess.
I say this as a general supporter of Wikileaks:
If the US actually has correspondence between Assange and Manning, where Assange offers to crack a password (successful or not), then it would completely destroy Wikileak's pure journalism claims and Assange is guilty of attempted espionage.
The question at hand is whether they actually have that hard evidence or if they just finally broke Manning, who was tortured for years in a solitary + lack of sleep environment, and got her to say that Assange offered to assist.
No his name is Chelsea, he legally changed it. We let people do that. We always have. Lots people have lots of reasons for wanting a different name than they were given.
I agree you can't make a woman out of man by cutting things off and pumping him full of hormones. You just get a mutilated man. I would also agree that in the vast vast vast majority of cases when no physical abnormality is present, its probably more a political decision to treat gender dysphoria thru conformation than anything based on science. Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves. So conformation surgeries are expensive, dangerous, unproductive treatments. That said he is an adult he should be allowed to make decisions about his own medical care. Its the people doing this crap to kids that I think ought you should focus your outrage at.
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him. But his name is his name. If he wants to be called Chelsea the respectful thing is to run with.
If someone demands you use pronouns that you do not believe are appropriate for them, I suggest you respond with: I will address you by your legal name then.
and do so. This is a reasonable compromise that respects everyone's rights.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Bro, you can have a lethal injection of lead.
Captcha: flowed
The law is irrelevant. We do not live in a free society. We do not live under the rule of law. We are an occupied nation ruled by gangs of thugs.
You think the federal government doesn't have cases fall apart on them all the time? Hint: they do. Do you believe that juries ALWAYS side with the prosecutors in cases? Juries can and do disagree on cases...
Despite what you may think the US government isn't a monolith of people that completely agree with the exact same thing.
Even with all of that said, Assange would be facing how much time exactly in a prison in the US? The real irony would be that Assange put himself in a prison of his own design and then only to find out, absolutely nothing happens to him. Seven years of your life wasted for not wanting to face justice.
I don't know I could care less, for all intensive purposes it means the same thing.
I'm not sure why we (rest of the world) allow US to control peoples behavior in other countries. Did anyone vote to allow this? Let's build a wall around US.
Jesus its 'for all in tents and purple sits' don't any of you know english?
They only need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Assange tried.
If and when he faces it he's screwed on this charge -- a jury is going to pay attention to all the other flaws in his character and if he opts for a bench trial a judge is going to have a government bias.
This could turn into a long world tour. Assuming this is all the US will pursue (big IF), we're looking at 3 years fighting the extradition, 5 years being tried (time served) and serving a sentence for this in the US, another 3 years fighting extradition to Sweeden, lets be nice and give another 5 years there and finally a deportation to Australia.
2035.
This is not just some normal case where quasi-working machinery of State is going through the motions.
The Dumbocrats think Assange is responsible for Hillary losing the election, and Republitards are butthurt that Assange made them look weak; there are a lot of Unamericans out for blood.
Maybe its 'the suspect formerly known as' like prince...
The judges just reinterpret the language to mean something else entirely.
They arrested Bradley Man ning. This is Chelsea Manning we are discussing here. Checkmate Fascists!
Had I not commented I would mod you up. The most well put manner I have seen this discussed in. And respectful. Thank you.
But his name is his name.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
And if we are talking about being respectful, is it right to be discussing her body in this manner? What right do you have to inspect her body or check her medical history so that you can make up your mind on which pronouns to use?
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender. Chances are you have met trans people without realizing it, and assumed a cis woman with unusual physical proportions was trans when she wasn't. You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He has had many years to consider how to retaliate against Trump if he doesn't. Invent stories (or not?) about how he cooperated with his election team. And although he may have prevented that Hillary claimed her god-given right to become president by the grace of god, the democrats could still use him in the role of the enemy of my enemy.
That's all quite reasonable sounding. The perp had not legally changed the perp's name at the time of the crime for which the perp was convicted. And I resent paying for the perp's questionable treatment while incarcerated. But you do make good arguments otherwise.
He.
Fuck you, incel.
Even if someone shows that Assange participated in a conspiracy, isn't the new standard in America that we've all agreed to not prosecute criminal conspiracies anymore?
At the time of the incident, the suspect's name was Bradley. Not sure what the legal procedure is when a suspect changes their name in the middle of a case, but I can see how it would be confusing if half of the documents had one and and half the other.
In such cases, you often find "AKA" listed in the header (or at least near the top) of subsequent documents, and all previous names, aliases, and (popular-enough) nicknames listed after that.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Because people are assigned names, not born with them. Yes, there are definitely intersex individuals but barring those people everyone else is assigned a gender based upon sex. If people want to legally change gender, that's their right just like it's their right to legally change their name. Most people are comfortable with accepting a person with a new name, often because that person has chosen to identify as that name for an extended period. Similarly, people are more likely to accept a person as an identified gender if they fit certain socially accepted behaviors and appearances. Put another way, if gender wasn't about sex, why are people going around getting sex reassignment surgeries to change their physical appearance?
Btw, all the above also holds for other things. For example, if you don't recognize a divorce then there's nothing stopping you from referring to two as spouses and calling either bigamists if they remarry. For the most part, people will just avoid such people because they don't want to be harassed by their opinions. This holds true for other things--communists and anarchists often don't hang out with each other if either is particularly vocal. That's just how society works. Everyone gets to have their own opinion and express themself* in a way that may be rude, intentionally or not, to others. That includes the degree at which one will address another person by a certain pronoun or name.
What right do you have to use "her"? Because she said it's okay. So, no pronouns unless you get special permission? Seriously, people choose a pronoun to use based on either how a person seems to identify or how they appear. If you guess wrong, usually you apologize. If you have an ax to grind and know a person's medical history, you can choose to be disrespectful. Of course there's also plenty of assholes who will demand you say "she" or "he" arbitrarily just to be shitty to you and claim the victim. Sadly, I think there are way more such assholes than transgender people.
No shit your eyes aren't reliable instruments. I don't presume people are trans, nor really should I given your little rant about "medical history". Sure as fuck I have a right to treat people in a way that is disrespectful. That doesn't inherently dehumanize** them. I'm not particularly respectful to people who try to manipulate you into feeling like you're being disrespectful to them because you don't address them in certain ways or act in certain ways towards them just because they say so. You're entirely right I nor others have a right to force people to act certain ways, which is precisely why I loathe such behavior. If I think a person genuinely wants to be treated as female and acts that way--ie she doesn't just arbitrary claim the gender and switch back--, then I'll chose to call her and treat her as female. I don't care what her sex organs are because I'll probably never date her, so it doesn't matter to me.
* A great example, btw, of choosing to use a word because I think himself is sexist, herself is worse because it overcompensates, and so I'd rather use a made up word even though it's not accepted as standard English.
** If you want to take
China can ask for all the extradition it likes, nobody is obligated to honor them, however. Assange hasn't even been extradited out of the UK and people are acting like his death warrant has already been signed.
Lets face it, in the grand scheme of things, Assange is a stupid yappy dog that likes to piss all over other people's houses(like the embassy he overstayed his welcome in). He's just easy to make an example out of.
So, apparently, Manning should have changed name to "Bradley Manning (not guilty of all charges)". Then the reporters would always write it that way, since that's the rule.
who?
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
Let me say up front that I just go ahead and use people's chosen pronouns so long as they are male, female, or neither, because it costs me nothing. (I don't use the made-up ones, like sie or hir, though, because I'd actually have to think about that, and then it makes me think about the whole ridiculous situation. I use its.) But it's perfectly logical not to see someone who has had gender conversion surgery as actually being that other gender. They aren't, necessarily. They've just had their bits swapped. The only [hypothetical] time in which I'm inclined on a scientific basis to call someone by the pronouns of the gender they've swapped to is when their sex was indeterminate at birth, they were assigned a gender, and they actually turned out to have more of the characteristics of the other gender.
The whole argument is just sad anyway. Not stupid, but sad. It's sad because who gives a flying fuck? If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is? Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups. The language assumes that we will always know the gender of the addressed object, which is plainly false, and also gender-biased.
The only times it matters what someone's gender is: when police are trying to ID someone, when you're trying to fuck someone, or when someone is trying to qualify for gender-specific sports. In the first case, there are only four legitimate genders: male, female, both, and none. In the second case, it doesn't matter what they have as long as you like it, and if you're having sex for procreative purposes, if your parts + their parts = baby. In the latter sense, it's up to the regulators. Gender-specific sports leagues should write a gender definition. And they should have the right to apply their definition so long as they're not getting any public funding. What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender.
Yes, that's why we need non-plural, non-gendered forms of address. So we can stop referring to people by their apparent gender. It would solve a number of conversational problems which existed before gender reassignment surgery.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But his name is his name.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
Because one's legal name is one's legal name. However, you cannot legally (to my knowledge) declare a different gender, because (AFAIK) the government most likely has no authority to do so. The whole pronoun thing is just pretending.
As for the rest? Really? It's more often than not *very* easy to tell when it's just a dude or a chick who had surgery to look like the opposite.
grokparsefailure motherfucker.
Attempted hacking is totally hacking yo, but attempted conspiracy to commit treason against the USA and obstruction of justice are petty crimes not worthy of the government's time.
Just ask Trump, Don Jr and Jared!
I'm paraphrasing here, but your mention of respect reminded me of a quote.
Some people use "respect" to mean treat like a person, and some people use "respect" to mean treat like an authority. And some people say "if you won't treat me with respect then I won't treat you with respect", and what they mean is "if you won't treat me like an authority then I won't treat you like a person", and they think they are being fair but they aren't.
Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves.
Maybe because people such as yourself refuse to accept or refer to them as their new and preferred gender? The external stimuli hasn't really changed, so why would you assume the emotional response to that stimuli would? If people started treating trans people as their preferred gender, I bet you those "statics" (sic) would show something much different. It doesn't affect you at all, so if someone who may have been born male prefers to be referred to by female pronouns and expresses/presents themselves as a female, just do it. The world is crappy enough for everyone already, no need to make it even worse for someone.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning,"
Even if he just said: Try 1234, hahaha.
Why was that a crime? Hillary illegally kept classified emails on her private server, then illegally destroyed the subpoenaed records after that server had already been compromised. Trump jokingly asked the Russians to provide copies of the emails that they already had to U.S. officials. It boggles the mind that Hillary supporters still try to re-frame this as a Trump problem.
kewl story bra.
however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction.
Where was the US Gov't server they attempted to hack?
In a very publicized case the US Govt is charging a couple dozen Russians (sorry, RUSSIANS! ) that never set foot on US soil with charges surrounding attempts to influence The US election in 2016, so I think someone that specifically targeted a US govt server falls within the IS's jurisdiction.
Let's see if UK courts are reasonable.
Meaning if they agree with your layman's interpretation of jurisdiction and extradition they are "reasonable"? If that's the definition of reasonable then I'm hoping they are "unreasonable"!
Ken
Because people are assigned names, not born with them. Yes, there are definitely intersex individuals but barring those people everyone else is assigned a gender based upon sex.
Human history is full of societies who have recognized additional genders outside of a simple male/female dichotomy. Some such as eunuchs were created (usually at a young age), other from birth.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
In the same way that having $Different_From_Mine skin colour is a physical illness.
Why was that a crime? Hillary illegally kept classified emails on her private server, then illegally destroyed the subpoenaed records after that server had already been compromised. Trump jokingly asked the Russians to provide copies of the emails that they already had to U.S. officials. It boggles the mind that Hillary supporters still try to re-frame this as a Trump problem.
If the server was compromised where are the emails? DNC was attacked and leaked, Podesta's personal mail was attacked and leaked, where is Hillary's?
This is less being up against "prosecutors" and more "the federal government".
The Law is designed to be weaponized as necessary, superfluously equipped then your "three felonies a day" are selectively enforced, since yours were surely victimless, trivial ones. Yet technically illegal.
If you're up against another commoner, there's no monolith to fear. If you're up against an eight-figure legal team, expect them to surgically box your precious jury. If you're up against a determined actor who owns the very board game you're playing, expect Calvinball.
>face "justice"
Took you long enough. I don't care where Assange ends up, but even if he murderraped puppy orphans I wouldn't be announcing my loyalty to our cancerous justice trainwreck. Fortunately, being too uninfluential to do anything about it means I can probably live my days without being directly burned by it.
As long as he didn't aid/abet and just published what he was given passively then he's protected by longstanding case law around journalism.
If he crossed that line at any point then he's done for. This is one of the reasons you go to school for Journalism. A big part of your education is law. You have to know exactly what you can and can't publish.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them.
MAGA
"Where Horrywood!" "I'm Hollis Wood... Don'tcha understand plain english?"
> ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?!
Your forgot the last part of the line: "CIGARETTES! SMOKIE SMOKIE!"
But still, a nice rememberance of Sam Kinison, thanks for the memories.
AC
That damn dirty pirate gonna take all the booty!
Seriously, who cares? The story is about Assange and the US government, not freaking Bradley/Chelsea Manning and which word/pronoun/whatever to use. Go fight your identity war somewhere else.
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him.
You've tried very hard to sound reasonable, but you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable: Call them whatever they want to be called and be done with it. You don't have to agree with their claimed gender perceptions, but why do you even care? Call them what they want to be called, and expect them to reciprocate by calling you what you want to be called.
I will grant that I have a hard time with people who consider themselves non-binary and therefore want to be called by the "they/their" pronouns. Not because I actually care, but because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part. But "she/hers" requires no more effort on my part than "he/his", so why in the world would I make a fuss about it?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Now while these things are true and he offered to help crack a code that would perhaps be worthy of a conspiracy charge however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction
That's not how jurisdiction works. Your physical location at the time of the crime does not matter. The physical location of the crime itself does.
On the same basis that would mean its fine for China to extradite US journalists for conspiracy as well.
Legally, there's nothing stopping China from making that extradition request. There's also nothing requiring the US to comply with that extradition request.
There are reasons for extradition hearings, and one is to give one country an option to say "No".
The Federal government only executes people by lethal injection.
That is only if a judge makes the call.
It is far more common that prisoners are killed by rough handling by guards.
its probably more a political decision to treat gender dysphoria thru conformation than anything based on science.
And there's where you're wrong.
fMRI studies have demonstrated differences between "male" and "female" brains. Transgendered people in these studies were between the two.
Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves
And in reality, the suicide rate plummets after treatment. Full SRS is generally not required and not always advisable anyway, since it's pretty risky (and utterly ineffective in transgender men).
You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them.
I agree wholeheartedly. Tell it to the transgender crowd. Since when did I become a "cis" male? Did anybody ask me?
I would purposely have hacked email servers, especially for the state dept. I'd use obscure things for serious work but a lot of the stuff you know the big government spy agencies know already would be just fine on there. Just so long as they do not know you know they are listening. Nobody ever seems to even remotely suggest that it may have been intentional (it's just normal email after all, WTF? who'd trust normal email??!) and naturally a fuss has to be made about your ignorance while dirty politicians will milk the situation knowing you can not admit your true motives/policies.
Who really thinks that nobody has briefed officials about how bad email is? for decades now?
On some level they know better. nobody in their right mind is moving nuclear launch codes around with secured email servers.
I remember when the state dept's email server was hacked as well... like that is so safe.... Oh and remember other officials used private email servers too and likely still do. That dull movie "dick" did remind people that the bush people were using private email servers on purpose only touching on it; but it was far worse back then and they also knew better. It also was quite useful in hiding actual crimes back then as well.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
and people are acting like his death warrant has already been signed.
There are good reasons to worry. First, the extradition request comes after years of denial that US is interested in prosecuting Assange.
The substance of the request is ridiculous.
Expulsion of Assange from Equador came after significant pressure on the new president from the US.
It is obviously a serious effort to punish Assange so that the next whistleblower who wants to expose US war crimes is very frightened.
If that is the case then a chick with any name is still a chick.
I guess that means that you can take a lot of dick without being gay.
Obama let Chelsea Manning off so he/she has nothing to lose or gain to help any one.
With trump it may of been death by firing squad
Actually she does. Since she would be a witness and not a defendent shew can be compelled to testify concerning events, although she could plead the fifth in regards to specific criminal activities she may have engaged in. Since she was not pardoned she may be able to invoke the fifth more readily; since a pardon would have prevented further prosecution for wjhat she did, depending on its scope.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
But did people declare their gender by self-identification, or by reality? Can I be a eunuch with a penis?
may of been
Learn to speak English ffs.
Why was that a crime?
From the summary:
According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful."
It also doesn't matter the contents of what was accessed.
This is the part where you say that Trump wasn't offering to help. No, but he was soliciting the activity. And when the fruits of that activity were offered to Trump Jr. he accepted it.
Nope, no sig
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy"
So I guess telling the Russians they should attempt to guess the password for Hillarys email server and hack her emails and then share them, might count?
Manning was a guy at the time and STILL is a guy. Take it up your collective arssses
Stop being a sissy. We have not need non-gendered forms of address for centuries, and unfortunately, your ancestors survived without that.
It's 'hey zeus' not 'Jesus'... Don't any of you know Spanish?
They've just had their bits swapped.
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life. Imagine if you, as a man, decided to dress in women's clothing, shave your legs, put on make-up, get a feminine hair-cut, speak with a feminine voice, and ask that people use female pronouns, for the rest of your life. Imagine you were quite successful and people treated you just like any other woman. How much difference would it make in most of your daily interactions if you hadn't also had the surgeries?
Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people?
You refuse you to use new pronouns like ze and hir, but ask why we don't have a genderless way to refer to people. Unfortunately we are where we are, gender does matter to most people, English isn't going to change overnight.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting article about this, where he suggests "person", "per" and "pers". Not sure any of it will catch on, but he is also very clear that if someone asks him to use particular pronouns he will, regardless of what they are.
The only times it matters what someone's gender is: when police are trying to ID someone, when you're trying to fuck someone, or when someone is trying to qualify for gender-specific sports.
None of those examples work I'm afraid. The police don't really care what gender someone is, only what they look like and what their fingerprints and DNA are.
When it comes to procreation it's far more complex than just gender, and many normative male/female couples struggle.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter, in others gender is really just a bad way of creating divisions, little different to different weight categories in sports like boxing. In the best sports such things are unnecessary, e.g. there is no weight division in Grand Sumo and 100kg guys can and do beat 200kg guys at the very top level. Maybe it's time to re-think these things.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm having a hard time thinking of cases when "legal gender" comes up for non-government employees, and using pronouns to talk about someone in their presence is also strange. Someone complaining about these issues is looking to be offended, not a victim, like a drill instructor screaming at recruit who forgot to call him "Sir"...oh wait, I think "Sir" can be offensive to non-commissioned officers? Luckily as a civilian I don't have to care since I am no sergeant's or tranny's bitch.
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life.
That doesn't require surgery.
You refuse you to use new pronouns like ze and hir, but ask why we don't have a genderless way to refer to people.
Because they are stupid. Hir should only refer to people who are both genders, not people of indeterminate gender, because the word itself implies both male and female. Ze sounds like someone is doing a bad French accent. Sie has the same problem as Hir.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting article about this, where he suggests "person", "per" and "pers".
That at least makes some kind of sense. Maybe I'll try those out.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter,
What? Name one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Trump asked for it to be done, and then it was done, it could be conspiracy to access a computer without authorization. If Trump heard that Russia had already done it and was thus not actually involved in the process, then it's not.
Doesn't matter if Clinton was utterly incompetent when it comes to IT security. The access was still unauthorized.
Trump jokingly asked the Russians to provide copies of the emails that they already had to U.S. officials.
Nope. Clinton only turned over emails that she felt were "work related". There were additional emails she did not turn over to the government.
The government gained those emails as part of the investigation into unauthorized access to the email server (since they had the server), but that was after Trump's comments.
He couldn't commission a crime that had already been committed. He was only asking that the emails, that had already been copied from the server, be released. Unless the Russian knew (no just guessed) in advance that Trump was going to ask them to release the emails (assuming they are the ones who had them), his after the fact request can't be commission of a crime.
All Trump was doing (like any good politican) is make the event (illicit server being hacked) more memorable so it would continue to hang over his opponent's head for the rest of the campaign. There is no crime in that. I wish that more people had long enough memories, then she wouldn't have even been a candidate.
So this article's comment section has devolved into this again I see...
The problem with all these gender, race, what-have-you issues is that they divide us. They turn us against eachother because we can't agree on petty things that don't *actually* matter.
People of power are getting themselves off more and more with all this Us vs Them bullshit. Can we just stop and talk about the *hard problems humanity faces*?
Speculation: you're a huge fan of Bari Weiss. You know, the NYT reporter who called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' without being able to define or even spell the word.
Because the Swedes handing people over to the Americans to be tortured? Yeah, that actually happened. Sweden going to great lengths to get someone extradited to Sweden where they are promptly interrogated (for weeks in solitary confinement with no outside contact or even a lawyer) for an alleged crime in another country. Another country they were deported to, which mean that was the plan the entire time - that also happened. The UK police spending millions of pounds on a mere bail jumping case while pressuring Sweden not to drop charges against Assange - yes, that also happened.
Finally, Assange has long offered to return to Sweden voluntarily if the country promised they wouldn't hand Assange over to the United States. A promise that could easily be made, given the fact that Sweden is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids extraditing prisoners to regimes that practice torture. Regimes like the United States.
So, in summary, Assange was just proven to be right all this time, and his haters should eat shit for throwing journalists under the bus to support criminal leaders and politicians.
No, thinking you're a woman when you're a man is more akin to thinking you're a wildebeest when you're a human.
You are right to the extent that she did something wrong, But that fact does't change the parent statement that so did he, asking the Russians to hack her.
Nah. It's a lot simpler than that.
If she says she's female, call her female. Like you said, it costs you nothing.
And if a person tells you they want to be called sie, hir, or whatever, do that, too. If it hurts your brain to think about it, just treat it as part of a unique identifier for that person; now it requires no more effort than learning a name.
For all the other special cases you cite--procreation, police ID, playing sports, etc--you speak in the hypothetical tone about all of them. It doesn't sound like these are any of your business. Are you a cop? Running a gym for women-only? Trying to decide who you want to fuck (and let's hope you've gotten past the most important question--consent--is the person involved agreeable to fucking you?) No? None of those?
Then just accept the fact that society changes and you will have to expend some effort to keep up. Stop making up bogus justifications not to recognize another person's dignity.
JESUS CHRIST. Not he/she it is a HE. HE WAS BORN A DUDE.
I can dress a pig as a cow doesnt change the fact it is a pig!
What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
The majority of your post is insightful, educated, sensitive, and accurate. This part - I've recently learned - isn't accurate though you're trying to be fair.
Disclosure: my source is last week's Jim Jefferies Show. Though the show is comedic in nature and leans towards Trump-bashing, Jim does tend to present interesting and informed arguments. And this is a case where I absolutely was wrong until educated. The argument was presented in an informative manner, convincing enough to change my mind.
Turns out that gender reassignment (surgery and hormone therapy) does a number on a body. As in, born-male athletes who go through gender reassignment end up physically able to perform in the general range of born-female athletes. As in, they lose their "male edge". Similarly, born-female athletes who go through gender reassignment tend to end up in the general range of born-male athletes. Obviously individual bodies vary, just as they do in birth-gendered competitors, but the interesting - and absolutely not obvious - thing is that the consequences of gender reassignment are so vast that the overall athletic performance capacity usually changes to the post-reassignment gender.
Point is that after reassignment treatment is completed, an athlete should be competing with their post-treatment gender.
"Oh no... he found the
fMRI studies have demonstrated differences between "male" and "female" brains.
Unfortunately most "transgenders" have females brains and can't understand this, and undercut their own claims of being born different by joining feminists in denouncing men for their "privilege" of having higher (or even lower) ability at something compared to women
The rest of the sentence was "I won't crack it since that's illegal" so the government deleted it and left it as is so the jury will assume the worst.
They weren't interested due to the fact that he was holed up in the Embassy of Ecuador. Also in the past 7 years there's been a whole lot of turnover at the Department of Justice. Given that Ecuador doesn't have any interest in the guy anymore...
The people saying they weren't interested before quite likely aren't the same prosecutors who ARE interesting in the case.
A lack of prosecutors interest in a case doesn't make the crime go away. Of course the time for a prosecutor to bring a case to court isn't limitless either for most crimes.
That'll be up for a court in the UK to decide if the extradition request is ridiculous or not.
Isn't part of the point of prosecuting crimes to deter others from committing the same crimes?
I think this case comes down to what counts as a whistleblower. Chelsea Manning was found not to be a whisleblower, but guilty of espionage. If anything I'd say Manning was guilty of being a useful tool for Assange. If Assange was a Russian FSB agent(for example, not implying anything about Russian involvment here), we'd call him a spymaster, not a whisteblower. There wasn't even any directed goal towards what was dumped by Manning other than, WHISTEBLOWING!
That's what makes this case so much different than Ed Snowden's case. Snowden used restraint in what he disclosed, had clear goals as to what was to be disclosed and why. Also, Snowden was smart enough to get the hell out of Dodge.
Maybe he wasn't worried about jail time but his life. Very influential people "joked" about "droning" him. Maybe he is paranoid but part of his information release was explicitly about the US droning non combatant civilians and lying about it.
How about snooker? Or chess? Or darts? Or eSports?
My wider point was that maybe we should ditch the gender categories, and come up with other ones to match athletes of similar skill/ability levels? That's the point isn't it, to create a competitive field?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Being obsessed with things that have nothing to do with you is a mental illness.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
Legal name is an arbitrary thing that's assigned at birth, but can be changed through proper channels. Gender is not and is tied to the chromosomes. If I bleached my hair, could or would I call myself a natural blonde?
You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people...
So you agree w/ OP? You and Manning have no right to force your different, and seemingly arbitrary, definition of gender on anyone else?
That's the point. He didn't ask them to hack her. It was quite clear that he was referring to them already having her emails. What could they have hacked? Her server had already been wiped and out-of-commission when he made that comment.
"Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?"
I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't matter. Every god damn time this story comes up we have to argue this. Just ignore the post as it detracts from the real story. Let them say "not a girl, Bob Manning, hell even dolphin Manning" and just don't reply. Bam! Now there is only 1 stupid comment that you can rate -1 for off topic.
because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part.
We suffer from the fact that the creators of English failed to create the proper super/subclass object types to contain a singular instance of either gender. But this is Slashdot, which is largely populated by software geeks. By now an effort should be underway to create a new language which properly handles this construct.
But odds are that language would give white space syntactic meaning. Which is sort of like my wife staring at me, expecting me to understand the message.
Have gnu, will travel.
You have really, really funny ideas about how much folks at the US Attorneys Office make: https://www.justice.gov/usao/career-center/salary-information/administratively-determined-pay-plan-charts. There are IT geeks making more than USAO lawyers. You don't become a prosecutor for the pay, you do it for padding the resume, or you actually have a genuine interest in seeing justice being served.
As a private individual its not impossible at all to come up with a far better qualified legal team than what the comes out of the US Attorneys office. Especially for a high profile case like Julian Assange's. You'll have lawyers climbing all over themselves to represent you pro-bono.
For certain the legal system in the US is not faultless. Never remotely claimed it was. However its not the rubber stamp legal system that you seem to think it is either. I generally like to believe that judges do exercise independence from the the executive branch. There is a reason why the US Supreme Court is appointed for life, so its not vulnerable to the whims of the current executive and legislator.
Is it perfect, not at all. If our legal system was perfect, we wouldn't need judges or juries.
Personally, I hope he ends up back on the street, to be the windbag he's entitled to be, after he's had his day in court.
Is it not just as bad to force people to accept Chelsea as a woman, it is would be to force her to accept herself as a man? You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them (see what I did there).
Eyes are certainly not perfectly reliable for measuring gender. Actually, no scientific measurement is perfectly accurate. It doesn't help all definitions of gender are arbitrary.
Discussing physiology certainly is pertinent to discussing gender IMHO. I doubt Darkox forced Chelsea onto an examination table, or hacked medical records. If you are implying he should not use the data available to him, your argument is as backwards as the position you argue against. How is darkox disrespectful? Is it disrespectful to consider something mutilation? God this is why I usually consider your arguments conceited. Is it respectful to discuss the respectfulness of his discussion???
Darkox discusses compromise. Using a legal name when parties disagree on pronouns, forcing neither party. How is compromise, to avoid forcing ideology on either party something to argue against?
Does that answer your question "Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?"
Please don't be bigoted in your quest against bigotry. Please use arguments that hold water.
Which influential people do you refer to? Are any of them in the chain of command to order such an attack?
Sometimes a dark joke is just that, a joke.
Assange offered to help Manning in his computer intrusions. Thus the conspiracy charge. He then tried to crack a password, which is another, separate charge.
A person who planned to steal a car with another person, and then tried to steal that car, is a criminal even if the prosecutor can not prove the theft was successful.
This whole story is bad journalism by Vice to muddy the waters and make the public think the US Government's case is baseless. Remember Vice is another political flavor of Brietbart.
since the proper security response is to accept the fact that all his credentials are public domain and act accordingly.
;)
Just my 2 cents
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter,
What? Name one.
Bowling, curling, snooker, frisbee, equestrian sports in general (both jockeys and horses).
Delusion.
Clinton had her server wiped with bleach bit. The US government never saw most of the emails, because they were willfully overwritten in a successful attempt to destroy tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. This is right in the public investigation documents that have been released, free for all to read.
Imagine how much of a dry-heaving fit you would throw if Trump, when his records were demanded by a legal warrant, gave only what he felt like and had an IT guy destroyed the rest. Then the Department of Justice, who is filled with friends of Trump, gave an immunity deal to the IT guy in exchange for exactly nothing, and then dropped the case against Trump despite finding 110 counts of criminal behavior because, "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case."
Justice does not change based on who the suspect is.
Appendicitis is only a mental illness if you have your head rammed so far up your own ass...
Being "gay" is very much a white thing. I don't want to fuck some girly lady man who's too concerned about their handbag. I like men who are men, someone I can go hunting with, gut a deer and then fuck in the woods like rabbits when we're done.
That's very interesting. I treat all people as people. It's not a matter of respect per se but a matter of realism: it's generally delusional to act as if people aren't all generally the same*. There is, instead, potentially a respect for humans as a whole as being different than other animals deserving of more consideration. I would definitely admit that I do this: I eat meat, generally don't have a problem per se with the raising of animals for the benefit of humans, and I would readily kill insects if they are being a pest to me. By the same token, I generally regard the sanctity of life based upon general understand of pain, mutiplicity (I'm more inclined to kill an insect over a mammal, bird, or reptile), etc, but invariably I place my own survival over other life--even being a fruitarian would involve at some level killing life (microbes) to survive.
When I think of respect, I don't necessarily think of authority per se of a person. Yes, that's a possible manifestation, but often it's merely looking at someone with a certain level of consideration of their ability, actions, or other properties of their character. It's something that definitely can be won or lost over time and most treating people with respect is often of the more subtle body language and general consideration of their time. Simultaneously, being behold to another is generally a bad thing and self-respect is necessary to function. To that end, I almost always treat myself as the central authority in my life and other authority figures I see as people who have either earned or been ordained into a position for which I may have interactions with within specific scope for which they define things and my recourse of disagreement with them and whatever group they represent is often limited to disassociation--presuming that's possible.
So, when someone calls themself female and acts female and wants to be treated as female, which honestly means very little except the use of certain pronouns or other parts of speech and perhaps some possible consideration of how society treats said gender, I have little reason to not be accommodating. If a trans woman, though, were to talk about how oppressed she is as a woman having only come to identify as a woman recently, uh, no, that'd make me lose a good deal of respect for her. I certainly don't grant others to be authority of a narrative of how I think of them or talk of them; I make those choices that just very often fit their narrative because I have no reason to deviate from it, but they can readily create a backlash that changes that situation.
If people want to be an authority on how others think of them, they'd have better luck hiring a good publicist than trying to order people on what to think, how to act, or in what to believe.
* One group that could qualify as separate are the mentally challenged or otherwise handicapped, but then that's not about not recognize them as people but about recognize and reasonably accommodating their handicap as applicable. This of course has to be carefully prevented from turning into unintentional isolation, unintentional over-attention, and of course to avoid inappropriate pity.
Assange was worried about being extradited to Sweden, because Sweden is apparently more willing to extradite to the US. Since the US is making its request to Britain, not Sweden, it might have gone with more innocuous charges than it would have otherwise.
There's little reason to believe that the US would limit themselves to only those charges once he was in US hands. I think there's a rule against this, but the US is often willing to flaunt those rules.
Which is why some societies recognize multiple sexes/genders and have words to describe them. I see nothing wrong with that. I'm not even arguing that some societies might let people switch sex/gender or that American society shouldn't allow for that. The simple fact is, that's just not the case today. If people want to push for those sorts of changes, they should expect resistance. For my part, my only real complaint is people who want to add yet more pronouns to the language and dictate what others should call them. If gender isn't that important, which I believe, then we should be working to get rid of gender pronouns, not be working to add more.
Yea, the former is also a large part of why people tend to have a bad tasty in their mouth about the whole transgender thing. Eunuchs were males strip of their gender almost always by force. So, any respectable transgender operation should be done at adulthood. However, adulthood is substantially late in life and enshrining more genders at adulthood is at best complicated and at worst difficult. There's a reason desegregation of schools was pushed so hard: the best way for people to understand that other people are like them is to have personal experience on a regular basis. Meanwhile, most transgenderism is often hidden either out of fear or shame--the latter of which is often forced because of fear.
Obviously, the situation is complicated by how relatively uncommon transgenderism is and just how much people will likely never accept transgender people as equivalent to their stated gender--it probably doesn't help we can't make someone biologically their stated gender in a reproductive sense. This latter part isn't important except to the extent that people are driven by their sex drives and will hence be less attracted to some people knowing them to be infertile. This speaks nothing of the fact that the above is definitely a warped mindset--although, I tend to believe it applies to all parties whether they state it or not--since virtually no one involved has any rational reason to care about such things. We're emotional creatures, though. That's how it all started, I think.
There's a growing body of evidence that the brain and gut bacteria system are linked, so it's quite possible that appendicitis is actually a mental illness.
if I decide I see you as the opposite gender you identify on can I call you that?
Also gender is more fluid than folks realize, see here. Basically, Gender seems more binary than it is because doctors have been identifying intersex babies and using drugs and surgery to "fix" them.
As for higher incidences of self harm, well, I know some trans people. They've been shit on their hole lives and transitioning didn't make that better, it just made them feel more comfortable in their own skin. Imagine being a guy and everyone looks at you funny because you show up to work wearing pants. That's what their lives are like. That doesn't go away when they transition. If anything it gets worse ("Back! Back! Dude looks like a lady!"). So yeah, they're gonna have issues....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The other AC is making statements about various facets of the legal system, and you're choosing the dumbest interpretation of his points in order to "win" the arguments.
s/she/he
What about Bradley Manning? The man who leaked government information a few years ago. Nobody's talking about him. I smell a conspiracy.
So you are one of those "native English speakers" too? So write English in the form of speaking language? And now you say that "correct grammar" is "dictation"? I see. So you are one of those who either are stupid or have low-to-none education because you couldn't get it through your head while learning English in school even though it is your own language. ;)
Attempting to crack it, even claiming to be attempting to crack it is actions in furtherance of the conspiracy.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The physical location of making the offer? That was inside the embassy, apparently.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Usually" is a ridiculous benchmark for top level sport. There's nothing in it related to "usual" performance.
Ezekiel 23:20
hillary clinton for one
LOL!!!!!
That's definitely an oversimplification. If a large adult male undergoes HRT and has male hormone producing glands removed, he might lose muscle mass, but he'll retain his male skeleton and physical size for at least decades. You can never quite be sure that a mtf trans didn't benefit from being male when they win in a female competition. You just can't. There will always be a seed of doubt. And this also goes for ftm in different ways. The only solution is to have trans-specific sports just like you have male and female specific sports.
I'm missing the basis of the funny mod, even after digging back into the thread. It may be because I'm confused whether you mean "not guilty of any crime" versus "not guilty of all of the crimes in the set of accusations". Which is it? Or some other meaning? Or is it irrelevant to the joke, whatever that is?
(However I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I didn't know the spaniards were vikings!
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
Sure, just have someone cut off your testicles.
Human history is full of societies who have recognized additional genders outside of a simple male/female dichotomy.
That's a good one!
It's closer to thinking you're an amputee when you're not. Then you go and damage yourself in order to get your limb amputated so your physical body matches the mental image you hold of yourself.
Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Whenever someone drags Hillary or REAL President Obama into a defense of Trump, you know (1) They are trying to change the subject because their own position is untenable, and (2) They are trapped in a paradox of attributing superpowers and supervillainy to someone who, if the attributions were correct, would have long since used those superpowers to dispose of the moronic puppet that is Trump
(I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter, in others gender is really just a bad way of creating divisions, little different to different weight categories in sports like boxing. In the best sports such things are unnecessary
>>Goes to Google
>>Spends 10 seconds looking up male vs female records
>> Realizes women would basically hold no world records if there was no male/female division in sports
Lazy source
Of the 13 comments currently moderated as insightful, I think yours [fourtythirteen's] is probably the highest concentration. I feel like your underlying analysis is probably similar to mine as of several days ago, and you led me to a new thought:
Why doesn't Assange use a Trumpish defense? Either "I was only joking when I suggested Manning commit a crime" or "I was just telling Manning what some other people say about how to hack passwords".
My real objective is to find comments offering a better analysis than my comment on a related poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap opinion (too weak to be regarded as a judgment), but so far...
In short summary form, I concluded that Assange is a bad journalist, stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments....
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is?
For many people you have set the bar unreasonably high anyway. A mouth is a mouth, and an ass is an ass :)
That's good activism, publicly recorded in printed media for all posterity.
Even 25 years from now the State will still look like the fucking rejects they are over all of this, and Manning and everyone else will still be viewed by actual human beings as the heroes they are.
But unless you rise up off your lazy ass and start shutting down the State, you'll still be too controlled by it to be able to say that anywhere in public. This is why your stress levels are so high, you're controlled by the State, the State is unnatural to human beings, thus you end up dying early because of it.
Youtube search: Larken Rose, Keith Knight, Mark Passio
I see what you did there...
Here's some videos that help give both you and them the freedom of thought needed to actually respect each others pronouns...
Youtube search: Larken Rose, Keith Knight, Mark Passio
Chelsea's hot, and people's words commenting against leaks and publishers and for the State, are not.
Same thing he dies in a bomb explosion the coroner would categorize him as a male victim.
Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups.
We do have a genderless way to refer to people. It's 'it'. Most people forget that it doesn't require that the subject be a lifeless object and consequently have a sour taste in their mouth for using it.
Point is that after reassignment treatment is completed, an athlete should be competing with their post-treatment gender.
As a male who has used steroids and then stopped, I can say that some of the effects of a prolonged cycle of steroids are basically permanent. Women who go on enough steroids also experience permanent physiological changes, such as deepening of voice and clitoral enlargement. Furthermore, trans-women who have competed in women's sports have in many cases thrashed the competition. Born men have basically been on multiply higher doses of testosterone all their lives up until the point of reassignment. All of this lead me to believe that post-reassignment trans-women are typically not on a level playing field with born-women.
You might want to work on that.
Forfeiting half the battle against Vikings is a dangerous move.
If you don't mind sounding like a stoner/surfer, we West Coasters have been using "dude" as a non-gendered pronoun. Men are "dude", women are "dude", your pet is "dude", your car can be "dude". The possibilities are endless, Duderino.
Dude looks like a lady.
Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Yes, but the only way to counter the big lie is to point it out every time it's repeated. It sucks, but it's a game of attrition and persistence.
Nope, no sig
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
They, their, them work naturally for groups of people, but they are awkward for individuals. We don't seem to have an established genderless way to refer to *individuals* - or genderless singular pronouns.
I was referring to Hillary Clinton however I wanted to abstain from using her specific name for a reason. Her name invokes a political "my side versus your side" argument. My point is that there are very influential people on both sides that want him to be made an example. Not an example that the general masses will pick up on like a tank flying the US flag shooting him. But one that anyone in the know would pick up on like a suicide by shot to the back of the head or a robbery where nothing was taken. If you think for a second groups like CIA, Mossad, MI6, or KGB don't do this type of stuff your ignorant and I know he had to have pissed at least one of them off.
Nah, just declare "he" and "she" both gender neutral and interchangeable and be done with it.
JESUS CHRIST. Not he/she it is a HE. HE WAS BORN A DUDE. I can dress a pig as a cow doesnt change the fact it is a pig!
Funny how most folks who have an issue with the LBGTQ set try to bring god into the argument.
Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
I wish it were so easy, but I think the timing is against you (and me). The worst liars are just playing games with the timing. Of course the truth will ultimately come out, but they don't care as long as they cashed in their chips (or equities) before the lie collapsed. Another phrasing is "He who dies with the most toys wins", though I beg to differ.
I think a better approach involves discrediting the liars in advance. I don't want to go into all the details of MEPR (Mutlidimensional Earned Public Reputation) again (at least not just now or maybe if you're that interested), but the short summary is that "identities" that lie should be recognized as liars and ignored. (Using one easily understood dimension as an example.) There are too many liars exploiting the "good will" we politely accord to strangers, so I think strangers should be offset on the low side. That would make them relatively less visible until they earn positive reputation, whereas acting in negative ways (for example by lying) would render them less and less visible.
Another way to think of it is from the time perspective, as in mine (and yours) is limited. Therefore I want to use the time to see more posts from good people and fewer comments from people who don't deserve my time.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
so's ur mom.
Heh...he hit a nerve. You ok, gay APK? Only a fruitcake would rant like you.
You spend a lot of time fantasising about fucking wilderbeest?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Then why is in jail dumbfkuc?
> At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries
Using the word "should" is a condescension. The GP does not know better than anyone else and it would be more honest for them to say "I think", because that's all it is. One person's opinion.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
If he is extradited, the convention is that those are the only charges the extraditing country can charge him with. Otherwise, all the additional charges need to be considered by the country he is extradited from.
Three points. Trump's behavior, as described, is:
1). Soft on crime;
2). It could be criminal conspiracy. Two actors, aware of each other, working towards a common goal. They never have to communicate directly, nor even indirectly. They just have to further each other's goals in the criminal enterprise;
3). Trump's opposition is doing to Trump, exactly what you said "any good politician" does. Which is to make Trump's behavior "more memorable so it would continue to hang over his [...] head...".
you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable
The neckbeard thrives on the cognitive dissonance of the host. If they attempt too much reason they'll be flooded with adrenaline and cortisol and they'll start lashing out randomly.
That is also why removal is so dangerous.
Nobody called them Vikings anymore after they converted to "hey zeus."
Don't you know any History of Western Civilization?
doesnt make it moral.
Same here - i dont give a single fuck that the usa has laws on books to hide their illegal activities.
If you can throw the book at a non-usa civilian for breaking the law, then the USA bureaucrats should be held to same, if not higher standard.
For example, this thing called FOIA exists for a reason Mrs. Hillary Clinton.
It is illegal to spy on american people (or was). It is also illegal (and still is) to lie to Congress Mr. Clapper.
When you perpetrate a war crime Mr Gates you should be rotting away in a prison.
And this is but a few of what I believe are clear crimes perpetrated by those within the USA government.
Not one of these ass clowns was ever even charged. The political class protects their own. Anyone else - and that means you - are fucked if you ever take a stand. So take notice american public - the Political Class is sending an explicit message that if you speak out or expose them, they will fuck you into next year and beyond.
Until we have equal protection under the law, I will stand with the little guy - and this case, its Mr. Assange.
The whole series of charges stinks like fresh political dog-shit to distract, while innocent lives are destroyed.
If even a quarter of us spineless tech dweeb arm chair quarterbacks had 1/10th the balls of Assange, Manning or Snowden maybe the USA would be a different place.
Instead we continue to lose the republic, and it seems the pace it slips away is increasing.
I assume you can provide sources for your claim of plummeting suicide rates after treatment?
This is the first I've heard of this BS. The records Manning passed onto wikileaks were gotten off the SIPRNet and copied onto a music DVD. Manning was in touch with a number of journalists such as Adrian Lamo regarding US malfese in the region. It was Adrian Lamo that turned Manning in. ref ref
https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
People forget about the Generic 'He', see some example in the article above for sentences using 'he' clearly denoting women. Many alternatives in English, none incorrect: he, he/she, he or she, he and she alternating, they. Can also use 'it' for babies, kids, and animals, though sometimes frowned upon these days.
Many new alternatives for new terms for gender inspecific/transgendered/etc., still fighting for acceptance and long term use.
Or are they pulling all this out of their arse just to get him over there?
I just laid out eighteen ways till Sunday how Assange was right and his haters have no idea wtf they're talking about. With citations. Which means you're like those Russiagate dead enders who would still be insisting Trump was a Putin Puppet if Trump had ICMB's in the air on their way to Moscow.
For the sake of our species, please don't breed.
Yes, because foreign intelligence would have ignored Clinton's servers if not for Trump's encouragement. I guess it's a good thing the servers were already exposed and offline because Judicial Watch wanted to know why there was no emails for the secretary of state available for their FOIA requests. Unless the Russians have time travel?
But the suggestion that Russians take the top secret and SAP classified information they would find from the unsecured server, and provide that to the news media, is the real felony. After all, Comey proved Clinton did nothing wrong with her 'extreme carelessness', because who needs a SCIF when you have Platte River to watch over your exchange server?
But where I'm confused, is that Trump Jr. supposedly receives this information as a quid pro quo bribe in exchange for getting rid of the Magnitsky Act once Trump is elected. Yet for some reason Mueller announces 'no further indictments'. You'd think evidence of receiving stolen top secret information would be easy to find, especially considering the Trump Tower was under surveillance by the FBI at the time.
So was Mueller secretly working to protect Trump also?
Yes, but the only way to counter the big lie is to point it out every time it's repeated. It sucks, but it's a game of attrition and persistence.
Tell me about it.
Which science?
The science that recognises multiple chromosomal variants that exist in nature?
The science that recognises that brains differ by gender?
The science that recognises people can be born with one or more sets of genitalia?
Or the science that you've just made up, mislabelled 'science' and are trying to use to justify basic bigotry?
Eunuch isn't a gender. Similarly castrato isn't a gender.
Cutting someone's testicles off doesn't stop them being a man. Eunuchs are men with no balls.
Women can't compete on level terms with men in any of those sports. There is occasionally a single woman capable of entering top-tier tournaments, but when it comes to outliers Damore was right.
My wider point was that maybe we should ditch the gender categories, and come up with other ones to match athletes of similar skill/ability levels?
We already have those. Take football, you can play in the Premier League and Champions League, or you can play on a Sunday on a muddy bog by the pub.
Women's football excludes men so that women don't all end up playing on a muddy bog by the pub, because if they tried playing against men that's the level they'd find themselves.
There are very few men only sports. Most sports have 'women only' and 'everybody can play'.
That's the point isn't it, to create a competitive field?
Fuck no. The point is to let women actually win something.
Remove 'women only' sports and women will start bitching like hell that they keep losing to men and it's unfair and it's damaging girls to make them compete with men.
It is in fact a joyful topic to raise with feminists.
I'm not familiar with bowling or curling but snooker and frisbee both heavily favour men.
I'm not sure why snooker so much but good luck finding a woman competing in the World Championship when it starts at the weekend.
Someone complaining about these issues is looking to be offended, not a victim
Indeed, but why are they so offended that woman born in a man's body is now able to live as her rightful gender?
I don't understand their need to shout about this.
Hmm, no. Most transgender people get on with their lives.
Don't mistake the noisy transtrenders on the internet for genuine transgender people.
Sorry, that reference is lost on me. Something I should know about?
I know the history back to 1987. But most of the olden shit is too weird for me, so I just pretend it doesn't exist. This way I can view life the way I want and All of the old people something something. fuck I lost it. I was on a roll and, well. I just can't think by today's standards enough to even come up with a joke.
Well, you're just being pedantic. Because really you should ALWAYS 'try' to be respectful. Sure, it doesn't always end up working that way. But you should at least give it a whole hearted effort. Part of the problems we have today stems around people not respecting others. And it disgusts me honestly. But to each their own.
âoeChelseaâ Manning is a traitor.
If someone demands you use pronouns that you do not believe are appropriate for them, I suggest you respond with: I will address you by your legal name then.
and do so. This is a reasonable compromise that respects everyone's rights.
"Vlaming’s attorney, Shawn Voyles, says his client offered to use the student’s name and to avoid feminine pronouns, but Voyles says the school was unwilling to accept the compromise."
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/teacher-fired-refusing-use-transgender-student-s-pronouns-n946006
Good written diarrhea AC.
Brains differ by gender ? I thought we were all the same ? Except of course when skin deep differences make us all diverse ?
Gonna kick you bitch ass apk, Syracuse? So what, I gotta fly to upstate New York and drive to the fucking ghetto?
That doesn't make sense and is full of dozens of precedented edge cases.
If you send an email to someone at "saudimail" insulting Mohammed your crime has just occurred on Saudi controlled servers; Should you be shipped to Saudi Arabia for your punishment of breaking Sharia law?
Assange was not in/on US soil when the crime occurred.
What if you post a message online to a company that has servers located worldwide, are you saying because it's online the jurisdiction for the crime should be wherever the servers ("the crime") happens along the way? It is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany. Are you saying if you deny it on social media and it hits a German server along the way, your crime is under Germany's jurisdiction even though you were not physically present in Germany? We should ship you there for your prison sentence?
I think Assange is a piece of shit and I don't like the guy. But I also don't agree that any country should be able to extradite people for "crimes" committed online without that person ever having even visited that country. When other countries get more power than the US, are you saying we should just start shipping people over to the Middle East and China to face justice for "crimes / things they said wrongly" online despite never having even been to those countries? The USA is not the world police.
Your fucking delusional. Let me repeat this. If you are born a male you stay male forever. If you're born female you are female forever. Anything else is an abnormality it only happens in .00000001 cases. You can't change your DNA. You can't change your skelatal structure. My God we are heading into another Dark Age. God help humanity.
So equal standards apply to US politicians then?
Btw, the gender discuss are russian trolls.
'low-to-none education'
lol
Sums up both of you.
A eunuch is still a male, but the the role they play in society is not the typical masculine role. It's not a new sex, but it is a new gender.
I'm so sick of the idiots posting all this 9-11 truther bovine excrement that I generally tune it out. Somehow over all the years I actually succeeded in tuning out this one sliver of foolishness and was unaware of any cut beam insanity. Your post peaked my interest a bit and I followed the link to a site I was not aware of that had the de-gunking [intentional word distortion] done quite nicely.
I stopped trying to straighten these jackasses out years ago when I realized they fell into three basic categories:
[1] Evil rat bastards who know full-well that 9-11 really happened as generally accepted but who simply take a sicko sense of pleasure from getting in peoples' faces and boldly denying reality. These people are psychos who just get a kick from provoking people and there's no benefit in trying to convince them of the truth since they already know the truth but pretend not to as a manipulative act.
[2] Actual idiots who see a big airliner and mentally think of it as a massive metal machine, who see anything going over a hundred miles per hour as "really fast" but lack the ability to appreciate the effects of any speed over that of a fast car, and who do not understand potential energy and its role in progressive collapse nor the difference between plasticity and "melting". When these people see no big plane parts at the crash sites, they cannot understand and are easily convinced there was no airliner. Went they see the towers fall and think it looks like a controlled demolition, they fail to grasp that actually a controlled demolition looks that was because it is a progressive collapse. When they are told a fire did not get hot enough to melt steel, they assume the steel must therefore have had its full strength and rigidity. These people could eventually be persuaded --- if you want to give them a highschool education and then a four year college degree in physics or mechanical engineering first, and it's simply not worth the time and effort.
[3] Paranoid people who find the world a mysterious place and who, rather than finding out what's really happened prefer to take the quick route by assuming a conspiracy. If you try to convince these people that 9-11 (or the moon landing, or theJFK assassination, or...whatever) was not a conspiracy involving the Queen, the Freemasons, the Bilderburgs, space aliens, and an elderly Hitler living on a moonbase, you will simply be assumed to be "in on it".
I simply do not engage these idiots anymore. My hat's off to you for having the energy (and possibly the youthful innocent optimism) to think you can have a positive impact on loons. Good luck with it. Personally, I got quite a kick out if it when Buzz Aldrin finally had his fill of the insanity and punched a [moonlanding] "truther"...
Have you ever heard of people born intersex? Their genitalia literally look like both sexes combined. Often it is because of the hormones of the mother, but it can also be intrinsic/genetic. Why is it such a unbelievable stretch to imagine people born with brains that give them a predisposition to expressing their gender in a way that doesn't exactly match their genitalia? Or really, who cares why they have a predisposition? Why can't you just leave them the fuck alone and mind your own business?
Bradley Manning was the name of the MALE scumbag who violated his oath and, while in uniform and therefore subject to the UCMJ, committed treason. He should have been given a firing squad, but Obama coddled him and allowed him to pretend to be a girl and change his name. AFTER the event, Bradley announced that he was becoming femail and changing his name. The rest of us do not have to submit to allowing history to be re-written. This is also why I refuse to support Democrats tearing down statues of all their old racist heroes and erasing their over a century long history of evil racism - History is important.
Our sicko anti-science modern society is currently playing an Emperor's New Clothes game where all the citizens are expected to gaze upon the nekkid emperor and proclaim the majesty of his amazing wardrobe, or in this case clap like trained seals and pretend that Manning has transformed, like some giant butterfly in a coccoon, into a woman - but sane people stick with science and note that Bradley's DNA is still MALE and no amount of surgical mangling and chemical abuse can change that. Legally, Manning can change his name to Chelsey. Manning has no right whatsoever to require the entire society to join in one giant mental illness game and in unison pretend that HE is now a SHE. Anybody not in government or at a liberal arts school and with at least the IQ of a chipmunk knows that a HE is not a SHE no matter how many other people insist on joining the group delusion. As the child in the old story points out, it only takes ONE honest person to point at the fallacy, and the illusion is broken.
An actor can spend time studying how women behave, then dress and live as a woman for a time in preparation for a role (perhaps to play a woman, or a transvestite, or a transexual, etc) but none of that makes him a woman.
Ever hear of the movie "Victor Victoria"? Julie Andrews dressed and acted as a man. NOBODY now claims Julie Andrews IS a man.
All the pretend stuff in the world does not change a persons sex (or gender, which is a term only applied to humans relatively recently). Even hosmones and surgery cannot do it. In the aftermath of a major disaster in which human remains must be identified by DNA testing, any "trans man" or "trans woman" will be proven BY SCIENCE to be the sex he/she was born as, and there is NO SCIENCE THAT WILL IDENTIFY THE REMAINS OF A ZE, ZSE, ZER, ZORG, ZEVO, or any other full-of-ZIFF mental case.
This is the planet Earth, where humans are available in two flavors: Male and Female. Any hungry space aliens who desire them with other decorations may find something to delight the palette, but it will still be MALE or FEMALE, albeit perhaps with frosting and sprinkles and a huge pile of nuts.
It requires me to embrace a lie. It requires that I surrender my honesty and participate in a dishonorable deceit, and one that I further believe is damaging not only to the society and culture but even directly to Mr Manning himself. Participating in this nonesense would require me to destroy a part of myself and become disfunctional too.
I no more consent to participating in HIS delusion and helping him in his self destruction than I would agree to participate in the destruction of an unfortunate young woman who, despite being dangerously thin, insists that she is fat and refuses to eat. I would never cheerfully agree with such a disturbed young lady and encourage her to embrace her illusion of fatness and starve herself into the grave. It would be mys duty as a civilized human being to tell her that her perception of herself is in disagreement with reality and to help her come to grips with reality if she asked for the help.
No civilized human being encourages another human being to remain or become futher mentally ill. Certainly one cannot participate in such a thing and keep any sense of honesty or honor.
There's no such thing as "cis male" or "cis female"; there's just male and female. In this modern era of leftists pushing their Orwellian Newspeak where they insist that using what they think of as a "wrong" pronoun for one of the 50+ genders they imagine exist is some sort of hate crime, they have come up with new wrong pronouns and insist on applying them to normal people and demand that normal people apply them to themselves as well.
Delusional people are never happy until they force everybody else to enter their fantasy worlds.
Orwell's 1984: The right read it as a cautionary tale, the left read it as an inspirational one.
Q: Why did Trump's audience at that rally laugh so loudly? Shouldn't they have been mystified by what he was saying?
A: It was already well known by that time that (1) she had a private server on which she was doing government work and through which classified data was passed, (2) the server had been hacked, (30 The server was being legaly sought by congress and the courts, (4) she had wiped the server and pysically destroyed the devices she had used to communicate with it. Everybody at that rally knew that the server was no longer available but that Putin probably had Hillary's work product (therefore no further damage could be done) and that the only way the American people might get their property (Hillary's work product) back was by getting it from Putin.
The ONLY way Trump could have been calling on Putin to hack Hillary's server/e-mail is if Putin has a Time Machine!
Q: How do we know Putin does not have a Time Machine?
A: This one's really easy - Putin (a former KGB guy) has said that he thinks the fall of the Soviet Union is the greatest calamity in history. If Putin had a Time Machine, he'd have used it already to stop the worst error in history (from his point of view) and the West would now be under the thumb of a triumphant Soviet Union in which, perhaps, Ronal Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were never even born - we would not be having this dialog because the internet would never have been created by DARPA.
QED
The alleged attempt to crack a password was to protect the identity of their source. Manning already had access. This is even admitted in the affidavit (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.384245/gov.uscourts.vaed.384245.2.0_1.pdf)
7. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log onto the computers
under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more
difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures. While it remains
unknown whether Manning and Assange were successful in cracking the password, a follow-up
message from Assange to Manning on March 10, 2010, reflects that Assange was actively trying
to crack the password pursuant to their agreement.
Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves.
Maybe because people such as yourself refuse to accept or refer to them as their new and preferred gender?
aka "Its someone elses fault im not happy - it has nothing to do with me".
This is stupid, and detrimental to the people youre trying to defend/help. The issue for these people is not a physical one, its a mental one. No amount of physical alterations will fix problems that arent rooted in physical appearance, and thats why they continue to feel bad after the procedures. If you really want to help these people, you have to be adult about it and realise that the reason theyre not happy is a mental one. They might not be happy to hear that they cant get their "surgery magic bullet fix" and they certainly wont like hearing that the real solution is years of therapy, but that is the only realistic route here.
If you truly want to help these people, stop trying to make them feel better for the moment and start telling them the harsh and painful truth.
As in, they lose their "male edge".
Yeah, tell that to Hannah Mouncey, who's still taller, heavier, stronger and has more testosterone in their body than any of their opponents.
They may not have an edge over the male team, but they absolutely trounce the womens' team.
Kiss goodbye to womens sport featuring any born-female competitors in the near future if you keep the current inclusion rules. There will just be mens sport and male-to-female transgender sport.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/99434993/professor-of-physiology-says-trans-athlete-has-advantage-in-speed-and-power
if you don't have any evidence you just manufacture them. Seriously, how hard is that with all the computer exploits available and unlimited funding?
I mean look, here in logs it clearly says that guy accessed this and wrote this and that in chat.
I've been told that there is no difference between male and female brains hence there's no way that women could possibly prefer non-STEM fields for biological reasons.
If simply the offer is enough to be considered part of a conspiracy and if they insist that it isn't necessary for an action to be successful, then trumps' two "defences" for collusion and corruption are fucked, and so is he.
Everybody is an asshole sometimes. But a lot of people have taken that right to an extreme.
You whine about being encouraged to help someone live a lie but you happily post an entire screed of lies. There is no mental illness except in your idiotically non-sapient insistence on an unrealistic binary determination of gender. Testosterone is generally considered an indicator, another poster whined about how a trans competing now as a woman still has a lot more testosterone than they would have as a woman, except that there are women with high levels and men with low levels of it.
You want to be coddled in the lie you were told when young, and to promote people encouraging you to retain your mentally ill delusion, you hilariously demand that correcting your delusion is enforcing a continuing delusion on others who YOU incorrectly assume are mentally ill...
Mods: please read this in greater detail before writing it off as a troll. The subject line and some of the story I'm going to be about relay may sound a bit ridiculous, but it's dead serious. My screeds may be lengthy but I have a pretty good track recorded here (I'm not certain I've ever been modded troll, except for insufficient praise of Elon Musk.)
______________________
Hmm... well, I guess it's story time. If this all sounds overly detailed and prurient, well, I can't really make my point without it. This is a really important point I'm going to try to make with very far-reaching ramifications (including but not limited to the Linux kernel. I wish I were joking).
A few years back I spent the night with a female to male transsexual. Post-hormone, pre op. She had only been on testosterone for something like 6 months, but she could pass as a guy rather well. (She actually had a job that brought her in contact with state politicians and she joked about how she should start a relationship with one of them for blackmail purposes.)
I admittedly had been going through a drought for the past few months, but really more than anything else I was curious about my own desires and psychology on the matter. I've always been attracted to a pretty wide variety of women, but not men. I could never imagine myself with a pre-op male-to-female transsexual and probably not a post-op, either. (I wonder if I'm not the opposite from most guys in this regard, as the "chicks with dicks" genre seems way more popular.... there's weirdly large number of guys who like to go on and on about how female genitals aren't actually attractive to them.)
Anyway, female to male didn't seem like an instant turnoff for me. Well, depends on how "male" the male was. She still had her breasts and everything else, but I was conflicted. But curiousity won out. In the end, it turned out it was only the hair that bothered me. The voice and mannerisms didn't bother me at all; it just registered as a tomboy-ish female. Her clit was still a clit to me, even though it was slightly bigger than my thumb (I'm not joking, even by FTM standards she was big. I think she said that as a teenager she had some suspicions she was actually intersex to some degree.) She still struck me in every way as female except for the hair. She had shaved her beard for me, that was very sweet of her, but she didn't go for a full body wax. That part did feel a bit male. Why is maleness sexually repulsive to so many guys, I wondered. But then things moved along and she felt and and smelled and responded in a familiarly feminine way, and I relaxed.
So why am I saying "she" right now? Well, if she were here and she asked me to, I'd say "he", sure. That's no big deal. Just as a favor from one human being to another.
But if I do find myself telling this story again at some point in my life and I'm rattling off all the sordid little details. at no point will I be hearing myself say "his vagina" . Because I didn't have my fingers in his vagina. I had my fingers in her vagina. Am I a participant in this story at all? If someone asks me if I've ever had sex with a man... am I allowed to say no?
Some people do seem to want to tell me that she's the only one who has the right to perceive and define the femininity and masculinity of herself in that moment. Well, to the degree that these abstract or "constructed" concepts are real (and yes, of course I'd agree that there is an abstract and subjective part to gender beyond biological sex), I would say no one person owns them. These things don't flow in one direction. It's not something that is dictated; it is something that is felt, something that resonates. And while you can force yourself to overlook one thing or another (like I managed to overlook her body hair, which again in that moment was the only thing about her that struck me as male), you can't change your innate perception any more than you can wake up one day decide that you're going to see that the sky
Yes, because foreign intelligence would have ignored Clinton's servers if not for Trump's encouragement.
That's not required for it to be conspiracy.
But where I'm confused, is that Trump Jr. supposedly receives this information as a quid pro quo bribe in exchange for getting rid of the Magnitsky Act once Trump is elected.
Quid pro quo isn't the standard for conspiracy.
You'd think evidence of receiving stolen top secret information would be easy to find, especially considering the Trump Tower was under surveillance by the FBI at the time.
Conspiracy doesn't require that it was successful.
Nope, no sig
The physical location of the computer system he was offering to help breach.
If you send an email to someone at "saudimail" insulting Mohammed your crime has just occurred on Saudi controlled servers; Should you be shipped to Saudi Arabia for your punishment of breaking Sharia law?
Extradition isn't an automatic thing. Just because you broke Saudi law does not mean you must be sent to Saudi Arabia.
Assange was not in/on US soil when the crime occurred.
Doesn't matter. The computer system he offered to help breach was. (Assuming the government actually has the evidence to back this up)
Let's say I hack into your bank from another country and steal all your money. You'd probably like me to be charged with a crime. Under your theory of jurisdiction, I can't. My country has no standing to prosecute - the bank's computer wasn't in it, and my illegal access was gained in your country. You claim I can't be extradited because I wasn't on your country's soil.
What if you post a message online to a company that has servers located worldwide, are you saying because it's online the jurisdiction for the crime should be wherever the servers ("the crime") happens along the way?
That's generally how it works, but laws are applied by people, not mindless automatons.
It is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany. Are you saying if you deny it on social media and it hits a German server along the way, your crime is under Germany's jurisdiction even though you were not physically present in Germany?
"Along the way" probably isn't going to be sufficient for jurisdiction. If the server was hosted in Germany, you could be charged in Germany. Whether or not you would be extradited to Germany is a different matter. Because extradition isn't an automatic thing.
But I also don't agree that any country should be able to extradite people for "crimes" committed online without that person ever having even visited that country.
Great, I'll be along shortly to empty your bank account.
Your google broken?
Also, you didn't quite get around to asking the parent poster for his sources that treatment for gender dysphoria is ineffective.
Brains are complicated, yo.
There's no apparent different in higher-level functioning. Like preference for non-STEM fields. There are detectable differences in fMRI tests.
If a different area of someone's brain "lights up" when figuring out what 2+2 is, that doesn't mean they are better or worse at getting the answer.
Because it doesn't fucking happen.
Clinton had her server wiped with bleach bit
One server was. Turns out it didn't hold the only copy of the data.
Here, lemme help you read up on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Specifically:
An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.
How'd the FBI find those emails if the server was wiped? Golly, it's almost like
Datto, Inc., which provided data backup service for Clinton's email, agreed to give the FBI the hardware that stored the backups
Oh yeah...backups are a thing.
and then dropped the case against Trump despite finding 110 counts of criminal behavior
Storing a classified email in an unapproved server is actually not a crime in-and-of itself. You'd face "administrative punishment", which typically would mean suspension or removal of your security clearance.
To be a crime, you'd have to prove something like espionage, and there's no evidence that Clinton deliberately sent classified information to a foreign nation. Which takes espionage off the table.
If Clinton was part of the military, you could charge her since the UCMJ treats mishandling classified information as a crime. But Clinton was a civilian and civilian laws are remarkably lax given the subject matter.
OTOH, ordering the IRS to not follow the law and hide your tax returns from Congress is a crime.
Let me guess: speech that is broadcasted to the entire nation, if not the world, also falls within your broad definition of conspiracy that is so vague and generalized as to be nearly meaningless.
Something to consider, abject of any reason or rationality in applying such a legal definition is what gave meaning to the phrase "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". This tactic is immoral, it is perverse, and it serves a purpose that is the very opposite of justice. It ruined the life of Aaron Swartz and others like him. "Because Trump" is not an excuse, and I hope that you never find yourself on the receiving end of a life-altering legal inquisition.
On second thought, Russia, if you're listening...
I'm always an asshole. But I do it respectfully..
If you think hes a wonam go have sex with him/her.
It's just the mangled body of a male.
Just like if we found a male dog dead with his dick ruined, we'd say its a dead dog with a mangled cock.
not a "Female" dog
One problem... if they transition after their teens there is already a history of hormone led structure that has happened.
A man with a 6' skeletal frame that starts taking hormones will still be a 6' man taking hormones.
Totally not fair for many sports where your bone structure counts. (basically everything.)
It usually changes but a sloppy male athlete who has the transition penalty can still unfairly dominate most normal women. That is the sucky part.
You weren't educated you were sadly hoodwinked by persons that care more about their agenda and "lawyering" the truth to reshape it to their narrative.
If you read actual papers and not meta-studies on the subject, it is truly interesting. Really makes you feel for all these people with gender dysphoria though.
Unfortunately science has proven your emotionally driven opinion completely wrong. It's a good thing we have scientific data in droves to cut through the emotional whining and crying from the right about what other people do with their own bodies! At the very least, we now have DarkOx's written admission that he is a bigot, so we can treat him as such from now on.
I love to see children post laughably incorrect information. How many women have beat you at something you thought you were good at? My experience (and the experiences of everyone I've known) have shown that any man who feels this way about women has been demasculated by them and they’re still bitter about it. So did you get your ass kicked by a woman? Did a woman beat you at Fortnite kiddo?
It is a good one, as it's easily proven true. The only people that don't know this historical fact are children or revisionists.
Which is absolutely ridiculous if that help actually didn't happen. But then again, the US has been kidnapping people for all sort of things, so... I guess imperialism is still alive and kicking!
Ezekiel 23:20
Well except for the FACT that the male advantages during development don't all go away. You weren't educated. You were programed. Bruce Jenner could still defeat any women in his age class at the sports he practiced because bones, ligaments, tendons and even muscle just don't go away. Muscle tone may change and bone density may change but hip/leg relationships STAY THE SAME. Do you even know what target tissue is? Once target tissue has experienced development it is FOREVER determined. Also no matter what hormonal treatment is applied after development, only some things can be changed. THOSE THINGS ARE PRIMARILY SUPERFICIAL. A woman who is changed into a man may get some voice deepening and even an Adam's apple, but she/he will NEVER get the same skeletal structure as a man...EVER. And a man/woman's will NEVER change to what a woman has. THERE IS NO MAGIC. Martina Navratilova was skewered by the woke and hyper crowd for SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
That's just plain bad mental health. I mean YOU and what YOU are saying is bad mental health. People who suicide or attempt suicide are often engaging in social manipulation. The ABSOLUTE LAST THING WE SHOULD DO is grant wishes based upon the willingness to suicide because it just reinforces the behavior. Not to mention that people who attempt suicide have poor mental health and we really shouldn't form societal structure based on the perceptions of mentally ill people.
Of course we should not be mean spirited. But your assertion that people who question new vocabulary edicts are somehow responsible for unhappy people hurting themselves is complete ass.
Nope. It DOES NOT MATTER whether the hacking occurred. It does not matter WHEN the hacking occurred. Just because a crime is committed once does not mean it can't be committed again. Trump openly violated the law Assange is accused of.
Free as in speech, beer, or Kevin?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome alone is higher than that.
1. There was no lie in my post. You claimed there was, but then never pointed to one.
2. "gender" used to only be applied to WORDS in languages like German. Living creatures were categorized by sex. The artificial application of the word gender to human beings is a political act. You claim it is idiotic to insist on a "binary determination of gender" - but that's a load of crap. Humans come in two sexes: male and female. There are a tiny number of humans born every year with various birth defects, like ambiguous genitalia, hermaphrotitism, etc but these are all classed as biological abnormalities, they are not other sexes/genders.
3. I have no desire to be coddled, I simply insist on living in the real world, rather than in a gender studies class in a college. The people who want to be coddled are the disfunctional who refuse to face reality and instead demand that everybody else join them in la la land.
It's probably hard going through life confused about reality, but your confusion does not make normal functional people delusional. The people who are delusional are easily identified with a simple scientific test: take off your clothes and stand before a full length mirror, and see if you were born with a penis or a vagina. If you have a penis, you're a male. If you have a vagina, you're a female. If you think you have neigher or both, see a doctor for either a physical problem or a mental problem.
This is shifting my understanding of "conspiracy". I'm not second-guessing whether there was a conspiracy here, but a single interaction seems like weak proof if so. Does this translate into other areas where a single act entwines you in the whole undertaking?
... especially considering the Trump Tower was under surveillance by the FBI at the time.
Fantastic example of the "big lie" being perpetuated. We now know that Trump Tower was never surveilled by the FBI (anymore than Trump's tiwtter is anyway). There were no phone taps, just faulty equipment at the tower. But reality challenged people will continue to push this narrative because it helps to paint Trump as a victim, regardless of how obviously untrue it is.
Which is absolutely ridiculous if that help actually didn't happen.
The crime is agreeing to help. So it doesn't matter if the help actually happened or not.
If I agree to help you rob a bank, I've committed a crime. Even if I don't show up on robbery day.
Except for that whole pesky business with Carter Page and the FISA court. "just faulty equipment" Hahahaha!