[flagged]

Sigh. That old line. Look man, I don't know if it was a crack or a serious comment (this being the internet) but I'll assume it was a comment in good faith.

Journalism and academia tend to attract people with more of a liberal bent. I'm not even accusing them all of being partisan hacks, but as y'all like to say, subconscious biases influence us.

This is like me saying "economic productivity has a well-known right-wing bias" or something goofy like that.

▲

slg 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

>This is like me saying "economic productivity has a well-known right-wing bias" or something goofy like that.

It's funny that the counterexample you chose does more to support OP's point than your own. From Wikipedia[1]

>Since World War II, according to many economic metrics including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth, and corporate profits, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administrations of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.[1][2] Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.[3] Of these, the most statistically significant differences are in real GDP growth, unemployment rate change, stock market annual return, and job creation rate.[4][5]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

▲

kortilla 3 days ago | parent [-]

The President has very little to do with the economy apart from things that are acutely destructive like tariffs.

▲

slg 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yet another funny comment to find in a thread about one of the current president's economic initiatives. I guess everyone here is wasting their time considering this will have very little economic impact.

	▲	kortilla a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, “economic initiatives” are generally bullshit.

▲

tomlockwood 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an incredibly funny thing to say in the face of Murdoch.

▲

landl0rd 3 days ago | parent [-]

I said tend to. There are also liberals who have made a lot of money in business. A tendency doesn't mean 100%.

▲

DonHopkins 2 days ago | parent [-]

You said tend to, but blatantly ignored the biggest example. You're not arguing in good faith. You're just pushing your faith based reality ignoring ideology.

▲

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent [-]

Wrong. The fact that there are some right-wing news outlets doesn’t mean a statement about tendencies “ignores” them.

▲

DonHopkins 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The fact that you ignore the fact that they have the biggest audience -- obviously including you -- and they systematically lie to them and lose enormous lawsuits for lying and defend themselves by claiming they're only entertainment, shows you're not arguing (or rather parroting their propaganda) in good faith, and neither are they.

▲

landl0rd a day ago | parent [-]

Wrong. Fox news, which is the part that platforms political hackery, has an audience of 2.7 million. Fox, which runs more shows and such, is the largest with an audience of 6.8 million. NBC is larger than Fox news with an audience of 4 million.

This is also a dumb point regardless. The relevant metric is the total size across a political alignment, not the size of each one's largest constituent member. Also who under 50 watches cable TV? Not a useful measurement.

	▲	DonHopkins 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If not Fox News, then where do you get your homophobic bigotry that makes you love to call people slurs on Hacker News, the bible? The same book that condones slavery? If you choose not to believe the pro slavery parts of the bible, then why do you choose to be a homophobic bigot, and spout that hateful nonsense in public on Hacker News, calling millions of people you know nothing about "degenerate", when you are the one who gets your bigoted beliefs from a pro-slavery work of fiction? You are not only in denial about Project 2025, but also evolution, and the origin and age of the Earth and other planets and stars, and even the idea that slavery is wrong, if you actually believe what your bible says, which you're supposed to. You, as a believer, should be policing and reforming your own religion instead of defending and evangelizing it and leaving it to us to clean up the damage to society done by your religion. How about petitioning the Pope to amend the 10 Commandments to include a prohibition against slavery? Did you ever think of that, or wonder why there wasn't already one? Because your bible says slavery is A-OK, and I don't appreciate this framing of slavery as permissible by your bible, or you calling gays "degenerate" on Hacker News. How about you do something about that, since you're the one who believes it? Or are you cool with slavery and you are cool with homophobia, since the same bible condones it in so many ways, and you appreciate that framing? Oh but apparently it's much more important to prevent people from worshiping other gods, so that certainly deserved its own Commandment, to justify all those wars and inquisitions you fought against other religions. There are many more slaves today than ever before in history. What are you doing about adding another commandment against Slavery to your Holier Than Thou Bible, when you're not so busy defending Christianity and attacking homosexuality online? What is modern slavery? https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/ >You might think that slavery is a thing of the past. But right now, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide. >It’s a problem that affects every country on earth – including yours. Has it ever occurred to you that a religion whose bible supports slavery is morally bankrupt and definitely not the word of God, and so are you for not either changing it or renouncing that religion? It's all made up and rewritten by people anyway, and even if you believe in God, it's not like he couldn't add an anti-slavery commandment to the bible tomorrow if he wanted to. https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/pg2pyp/an_extensiv... Patriarchal Age : the period of time stretching from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's posterity at Mount Sinai Genesis 9:18-27 -- Noah (the only righteous man on earth) decrees that his son Ham and his descendants shall be slaves. (This is punishment for Ham's crime of seeing his father naked) Genesis 12:5 -- Abram (God's anointed prophet) purchased slaves in Harran. Genesis 16:1-9 -- Sarai's slave fled after being mistreated. God's angel instructs her to return and submit to her mistress anyway. Genesis 17:12-13 -- All males must be circumcised, including those who were bought. Genesis 20:14 -- Abraham (God's anointed prophet) happily accepts slaves as a gift. Genesis 47:13-26 -- Joseph purchases the entire population of Egypt for the Pharaoh, making them his servants for life. Exodus 12:43-45 -- God instructs Moses and Aaron that their slaves may only eat food at the passsover meal after they have been circumcised. Legal Dispensation : the period of time from the giving of the law until the coming of Christ Exodus 20:17 -- God provides a list of belongings which are not to be coveted, including servants (implying that they are property). Exodus 21:2-6 -- Israeli slaves must be set free after 7 years unless you trick them into wanting to stay by giving them a wife. Exodus 21:7-11 -- How your daughter must be treated after you sell her into slavery. Exodus 21:20-21 -- You may beat your slaves as long as they do not die within a couple days of the beating. Exodus 21:26-27 -- You have to let your slave go free if you destroy their eye or knock out one of their teeth. Exodus 22:2-3 -- A theif must pay restituion. If unable, he himself is to be sold. Leviticus 19:20-21 -- God tells Moses and Aaron what to do with a man who sleeps with another man's female slave. Leviticus 22:10-11 -- A priest's hired servant may not eat the sacred offering, but his slaves can. Leviticus 25:44-46 -- You may buy slaves from the nations around you and bequeath them to your children as inherited property (except if they're Israelites). Numbers 31 -- After the Israelites conquer the Midianites, Moses orders the execution of everyone except the virgin girls (including the male children). God then instructs Moses on how the 32,000 virgins are to be divvied up and given to the Israelites as their property. Deuteronomy 15:12-18 -- Free your Hebrew slaves every 6 years. Do not consider this a hardship because their service was worth twice as much as a hired hand. Deuteronomy 20:10-11 -- When attacking a city, offer them the option of being your slaves rather than being slaughtered. Joshua 9 -- Joshua "saves" the Gibeonites from being slain by the Israelites. Instead, he makes them slaves to the Israelites in perpetuity. Gospel Dispensation : the period of time from the coming of Christ to the end of time Luke 17:7-10 -- Jesus says servants (i.e. slaves) should know their place and not expect thanks for the duties they are required to perform. Ephesians 6:5-8 -- Slaves are to obey their masters as they would obey Christ. Colossians 3:22 -- Paul tells the slaves of Colosse to "obey your earthly masters." Colossians 4:1 -- Paul says masters should be fair to their slaves. (Tacitly endorsing the existence of slaves and masters) 1 Timothy 6:1-2 -- Slaves should consider their masters worthy of full respect. Titus 2:9-10 -- In his letter, Paul instructs Titus to teach slaves to be obedient. 1 Peter 2:18 -- Slaves, submit to your masters; even the harsh ones.

▲

DonHopkins 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Explain where you get your tendency to call gay people "degenerate". Your bible? Or Fox News? Or your parents?

▲

tzs 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That would have been a good argument when the political differences between liberals and conservatives were mostly on moral or social issues like civil rights and abortion and on economic issues like the correct balance between markets and government.

Those are things where there is no objectively correct position.

Now there are differences on things there this are objectively correct positions.

For example consider climate change. There used to be agreement on the underlying scientific reality, with differences in how to approach it. There was a group of top economic and science advisors from the Reagan and Bush administrations that were arguing for a revenue neutral carbon tax to address climate change and then let the market deal with it. The liberal approach favored more direct limits on emissions and the government more actively promoting replacements for fossil fuels.

Even as late as 2008 Republicans were still in agreement with reality on this. The Republican platform called for reducing fossil fuel use, establishing a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change, a long term tax credit for renewable energy, more recycling, and making consumer products more energy efficient. They wanted to aggressively support technological advances to reduce the dependence of transportation on petroleum, given examples of making cars more efficient (they mention doubling gas mileage) and more flex-fuel and electric vehicles. They talked about honoraria of many millions of dollars for technological developments that could eliminate the need for gas powered cars. They also mentioned promoting wireless communication to increase telecommuting options and reduce business travel.

Compare to now. Now their position ranges from climate change being a hoax from people trying to destroy America to it may be happening but if it is Mankind had nothing to do with it and it isn't bad enough to be something to worry about.

So now any unbiased journalists writing on climate change or adjacent topics, or any unbiased academic working in these areas, is going to automatically be way more aligned with the left than the right.

▲

WhaleClub 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 3 days ago | parent [-]

Please don't make me tap the "grade school biology is intentionally dumbed down because reality is complex" sign.

There are countless ways someone can have a Y chromosome and still be a woman.

There are countless ways someone can have no Y chromosome and still be a man.

Hell there are even a small population of people who are born visibly female with female genitalia (as every human starts female before they (optionally) sex differentiate in the womb (normally)) and they don't sex differentiate until puberty. [1] [2]

Biology is really really complicated and there is never any certainty other than the certainty that there is never certainty. "Gender" is a completely social construct and "Sex" is just a collection of heuristics we use to broadly group people into two common categories. But just like all heuristics, it's not perfect and it can't classify everyone properly. What sex chromosomes you have is one heuristic but it doesn't always work for any number of reasons. Whether the SRY gene activates during gestation is another heuristic and even it isn't perfect. What organs you have also can work but it falls apart in a bunch of edge cases. What hormones your body produces is another one that can generally work as a heuristic but like all the others it breaks down in numerous cases.

---------

Intersex people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.

Trans people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.

It is not an insane idea to recognise that both populations exist and that any single heuristic for differentiating someone into a black and white male/female category is insufficient for the endless complexity that is life.

---------

So to answer your question yes. Someone with XY chromosomes can be a woman either by their gender or by their sex or both.

---------

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency

▲

kortilla 3 days ago | parent [-]

Your intersex numbers are way off: https://statsforgender.org/it-is-not-true-that-1-7-of-the-po...

	▲	OneDeuxTriSeiGo 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They really aren't. Recently (2021-2022) Mexico conducted a large random survey of the population and their results were within margin of the oft-claimed 1.7% number (their rate was 1.3% for the sample). The paper linked does some further analysis on those results [1] but the raw data is available at [2]. And their survey evaluates intersex conditions as those present at birth (even if they are discovered later in life but were present at birth). 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf126 2. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/endiseg/2021/
	▲	seethedeaduu 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Wasn't that claim about people who had surgery (or a condition that is visible for which they usually intervened surgically) at birth instead of all intersex people? I really don't think anyone considers the case of Kathleen to be intersex, seems more like a strawman.