Off Topic Politics Thread

[StJabbo1]

“the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention was seen modifying its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website.

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

So not the Oxford Languages dictionary and has nothing to do with women. Not a relevant comparison, Oxford Language to an American scientific description.

 

[Osvaldorama]

So not the Oxford Languages dictionary and has nothing to do with women. Not a relevant comparison, Oxford Language to an American scientific description.

No it was changed in the Mariam-Webster dictionary too & presumably the others. They have redefined what vaccine means in the wake of the covid vaccine. Under the old definition it would have counted as gene therapy.

Of course it’s a relevant comparison. It’s another example of words being changed to fit the political agenda of the current government.

I find it all very reminiscent of 1984

 

[StJabbo1]

No it was changed in the Mariam-Webster dictionary too & presumably the others. They have redefined what vaccine means in the wake of the covid vaccine. Under the old definition it would have counted as gene therapy.

Of course it’s a relevant comparison. It’s another example of words being changed to fit the political agenda of the current government.

I find it all very reminiscent of 1984

Nothing whatsoever to do with women off you go within your vaccine redefinition.

 

[garysfc]

I put a like to this because of your second sentence but I think it is best for the club to keep a distance between them. The more he is in the public eye for his views the more it overshadows the memory of the player he was and the club's reputation by association. In my opinion he's the best player we've ever had and despite his crazy ramblings that's how I still think about him but he's in danger of only being known as a crackpot who used to play football.
Sadly, I don't get the feeling he minds too much about how his comments are received, actually quite the opposite.

Yep 100% Pretty sad really (IMO).

 

[Osvaldorama]

I would have answered 'in what context' To my mind those not answering are avoiding a trap given the sound bite nature of the question.

The point is it shouldn’t be a trap.

It’s ridiculously easy to define a woman. They have different chromosomes and physical features to a man.

The fact anyone has to walk on eggshells around this is completely ridiculous.

 

[Libby]

Nothing whatsoever to do with women off you go within your vaccine redefinition.

In fairness you asked him about his mention of vaccines and now he's provided an answer you're saying it's nothing to do with women. Why ask in first place if you don't feel it's relevant?

Seems to me that you just didn't like the answer.

 

[Gregm1988]

In fairness you asked him about his mention of vaccines and now he's provided an answer you're saying it's nothing to do with women. Why ask in first place if you don't feel it's relevant?

Seems to me that you just didn't like the answer.

Does seem a little like moving the goalposts in this instance

Because if it wasn’t then it is close to setting a trap - which seemed like it was being objected to

(And I am aware it wasn’t your comment Libby it just seemed like the most relevant one to add a reply to )

 

[Gregm1988]

The point is it shouldn’t be a trap.

It’s ridiculously easy to define a woman. They have different chromosomes and physical features to a man.

The fact anyone has to walk on eggshells around this is completely ridiculous.

I can appreciate there may be some objection in defining a woman solely in relation to how they differ from men. But it still should be something someone can answer without believing it is a trap

 

[Osvaldorama]

I can appreciate there may be some objection in defining a woman solely in relation to how they differ from men. But it still should be something someone can answer without believing it is a trap

It’s just all part and parcel of this clown world we are now living in where politicians and people in positions of power can lie with impunity and try and ignore objective reality.

If they can convince you that men can get pregnant and women aren’t real, then they can convince you of anything.

 

[Gregm1988]

It’s just all part and parcel of this clown world we are now living in where politicians and people in positions of power can lie with impunity and try and ignore objective reality.

If they can convince you that men can get pregnant and women aren’t real, then they can convince you of anything.

I get what you are saying but most of the people in power aren’t really pushing that. Sure the more left wing side of the US democrats are the noisiest due to Twitter and the like. But they aren’t really in control of that party. They do have control of a small number of states though. But people with very much the opposite view control far more

So you might be over emphasising certain things

Speaking of people who lie with impunity and ignore reality - Boris has spoken out on the sports issue and left a curious gap in the conversion therapy legislation (one that actually does just seem malicious but I will
admit to not fully understanding it). Almost as if he can spot the gap that so many on the left are denying exists. The gap opened by situations like Starmer blustering when asked if a woman can have a penis rather than saying what he really believes. For clarity - he clearly believes the answer is “no”. People can debate over the validity of that “no” until the cows come home if they wish but it seems apparent that this is what Starmer believes. And he is ceding ground on this issue to Boris

*
On this conversion therapy issue and U-turn. Excluding transgender seems really strange and unnecessary

But is “conversion therapy” clearly defined?

Because I have heard interviews with people including someone who was a whistleblower from the Tavistock who described how some children seem like they are coached online to give the “correct” answers to get hormones and eventually surgery to transition well before adulthood. And there was one about a school that counselled a young person who to do this and never notified their family. There just seem like aspect of what people advising young people with regards to transition (especially mermaids) that could fit a definition of “conversion therapy”. But converting them away from what is considered conventional - when the traditional definition is about converting *back* to the conventional.

Without that definition it seems like it could backfire on lgbtq groups as it could ban what they actually want. But I assume a definition must be there.

(And of course I could be being very literal and just noting the English language similarities between converting and transitioning)

 

[StJabbo1]

P

No it was changed in the Mariam-Webster dictionary too & presumably the others. They have redefined what vaccine means in the wake of the covid vaccine. Under the old definition it would have counted as gene therapy.

Of course it’s a relevant comparison. It’s another example of words being changed to fit the political agenda of the current government.

I find it all very reminiscent of 1984

Are you claiming the US government conspired with the lexicographers to redefine vaccines?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
Definition of vaccine
1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease:

Oxford Languages:-
vaccine
noun
plural noun: vaccines

1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
   "every year the flu vaccine is modified to deal with new strains of the virus"

 

[Gregm1988]

It seems to be another case of what I mentioned on the other thread - increased scale highlighting issues that have always existed

There were always vaccines that didn’t give immunity but did give increased immune response. But no way near as many people got them and they weren’t big news

 

[StJabbo1]

“the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention was seen modifying its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website.

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Is this another conspiracy with the US government colluding with the CDC similar to the dictionary definition? The then government seemed to be at odds with the CDC most of the time.
This gives a logical view:-
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html
"The previous definitions could have been “interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered,” the (CDC) spokesperson said. “It’s also important to note that the modifications to the definition of ‘vaccine’ don’t change the fact that vaccines and the act of vaccination have prevented millions of illnesses and saved countless lives,” the spokesperson said in an email."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/diseases/forgot-14-diseases.html

 

[Gregm1988]

Is this another conspiracy with the US government colluding with the CDC similar to the dictionary definition? The then government seemed to be at odds with the CDC most of the time.
This gives a logical view:-
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html
"The previous definitions could have been “interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered,” the (CDC) spokesperson said. “It’s also important to note that the modifications to the definition of ‘vaccine’ don’t change the fact that vaccines and the act of vaccination have prevented millions of illnesses and saved countless lives,” the spokesperson said in an email."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/diseases/forgot-14-diseases.html

A more detailed version of what I was getting at above. With my point highlighting the answer to the “why change it now?” question.

 

[Schad]

The part where it gets silly is, for example, that a big song and dance is made that the Supreme Court nominee who said she couldn’t define it either is the “first black woman justice”. But can’t or won’t define what a woman is

Same as everywhere now has to publish gender pay gap reports (the less said about that the better) - but how? How could this be possible

It is starting to seem a lot like cherry picking

The funny thing is that they asked the people who asked Jackson how you define a woman, and, uh...

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

It seems to be another case of what I mentioned on the other thread - increased scale highlighting issues that have always existed

There were always vaccines that didn’t give immunity but did give increased immune response. But no way near as many people got them and they weren’t big news

The flu vaccine is one example.

 

[StJabbo1]

EU travel is reopening. https://reopen.europa.eu/en and https://reopen.europa.eu/en/map/NLD/7011 I'll be checking the high speed train sites including Eurostar for deals and hoping there are no disruptions. Rail is our preferred means of travel. The UK situation looks dire with all the flight cancellations.

 

[Gregm1988]

The funny thing is that they asked the people who asked Jackson how you define a woman, and, uh...

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

Blackburn’s is a reasonable response (eventually). The guy who said “his wife” is clearly a clown

I don’t like when people bring up fringe cases. Because it is clear this discussion is not focused on people who have had those operations or the tiny tiny fraction of people born with different chromosomes. As with this issue in general - it is obviously important to people who fall in those tiny groups but I’m not convinced legislation should be (or can be) that microfocused

It could even be suggested that saying things like “what about women born with only one X” or the like are bad faith questions. Or attempted traps. Because can people be born without them or are they trying to trick the person. Isn’t a woman born with only on X going to have been born XY and thus a transwoman. Or can people be born with just one - as in just an X (I didn’t think that was possible)

So I’m not sure this is the gotcha that the tweeter hopes / thinks (other than the NC guy)

 

[Schad]

Blackburn’s is a reasonable response (eventually). The guy who said “his wife” is clearly a clown

I don’t like when people bring up fringe cases. Because it is clear this discussion is not focused on people who have had those operations or the tiny tiny fraction of people born with different chromosomes. As with this issue in general - it is obviously important to people who fall in those tiny groups but I’m not convinced legislation should be (or can be) that microfocused

It could even be suggested that saying things like “what about women born with only one X” or the like are bad faith questions. Or attempted traps. Because can people be born without them or are they trying to trick the person. Isn’t a woman born with only on X going to have been born XY and thus a transwoman. Or can people be born with just one - as in just an X (I didn’t think that was possible)

So I’m not sure this is the gotcha that the tweeter hopes / thinks (other than the NC guy)

How are they trap questions? Like, those things aren't common, but they aren't extraordinarily uncommon, either. More than 1 out of every 1000 men have more than one copy of the X chromosome. More than 1 in 2500 women don't have two X chromosomes. That's a few hundred thousand people in the US, and that's just two classifications of intersex people. There's a much greater percentage of naturally female-presenting individuals who have XY chromosomes. If your ironclad definition of what constitutes a man or a woman leaves out that many people, it's fairly flawed.

Reality is that there is no ironclad definition, because biology is weird.

 

[Libby]

Just realised there are local elections coming up. As ever my vote is up for sale should anyone be interested.