General American Politics Thread

[Deep Dive Devin]

There's nothing contradictory there. Do you not understand what an ad-hominem is?

Edited January 27, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[Deep Dive Devin]

Oh wow, you really don't know what it is. Nothing in that message has anything to do with your personhood, it is a critique of the argument that could only have been delivered with a lack of smarts or subtlety with the intent to deceive insecure white boys into thinking they're under attack.  Whether you actually are stupid and unsubtle is unimportant in whether you're making the argument of someone who is. You could be pretending, but your argument isn't going to become better just because you claim that you are better. That's making an argument from your own character to deflect criticism, an argument you have even less legitimate evidence of.

 

To make things simpler; if I say "actually, gravity doesn't exist", that's the sort of thing a dumbass might say, but telling me that is not an ad hominem, because it's not saying that I said it because I was a dumbass.

 

Similarly, you're making the arguments of a conceited bigot. Are you one? Are you not one? It's the same argument either way, but if you want anyone to treat it like it's an argument worth debating legitimately, it's up to you to convince people that it isn't the argument of a conceited bigot.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[rairii]

I'll spare myself the headache. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt anymore since you've made it quite clear how you feel about trans people and Jewish people. This will be my last response on the matter and I'm not interested with any further interaction with you.

 

7 hours ago, Maroko said:

(1) But that isn't the case if you've read the article. It says that it isn't specified how they'd hypothetically go about it. There’s documentation, DNA tests, etc. for the scarce children that could pass up as the opposite gender. FYI you’ve linked to a highly biased source with insulting phrases such as “so-called biology of maleness.”

(2) Wouldn’t that be fixing one problem by creating another one? The bio-males would still be much stronger and so afraid to damage the frailer female-to-male trans. It would condition that competition as well, only in a different way.

(3) I haven’t been able to confirm that but, still, how does that diminish the argument? There are countless groups that are crushed daily in every single way like the Uyghurs and the Palestinians, and yet they haven't such a high incidence of suicide attempts. Doesn’t that underline a bigger problem than transphobia (which I find to be a misnomer)?

1. I have read the article and the bill, and I agree with the conclusion. While the bill is vague on how disputes regarding a student's assigned sex at birth are to be resolved, previous republican bills aren't. HB500 explicitly stated that any such disputes were to be resolved via examination. I think it's safe to draw the conclusion on how this bill is meant to be enforced.

 

2. There's little to no research on the matter and certainly no scientific consensus. Years of further study on the matter would need to be conducted to prove that trans women has an unfair competitive advantage over cis women and that trans men have an unfair disadvantage against cis men. There's almost no data on the long term effects of HRT on bone density and what little data exists is based on short term studies with low sample sizes. Actually. there are a number of factors which affect a person's bone density of which assigned sex at birth and hormone levels are only two, and in fact, there's enough variation in bone density and bone structure between cis male and cis female athletes to create overlap. Bone density and bone structure aren't a point of consideration for cis athletes in any competitive sport that I can think of, so this point is moot until there's enough evidence to conclusively say that bone density and bone structure create a significant enough advantage or disadvantage to disallow trans people to compete with cis people, and I seriously doubt that this will ever be the case. The other main point of consideration is hormone levels and their effect on muscle mass of which, as far as I'm aware, there is enough evidence to conclude trans women aren't at an advantage and trans men aren't at a disadvantage. In fact, you could make the case that trans women are actually at a disadvantage in this regard considering their testosterone levels are typically considerably lower than that of cis women.

 

3. Yeah, nice try, but you don't know the rate of suicide among Uyghur muslims. Nobody does. China isn't collecting data on their rate of suicide and even if they were they wouldn't release it. You're objectively unable to create any link here. As far as the Palestinians go, there IS an increased rate of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and successful suicides among Palestinians compared to the general population of Israel. I'm going to assume you didn't do any actual research here.

 

2 hours ago, Maroko said:

Wait, so everyone conveniently ignored the sourceable points so they could signal each other? Are displaced Palestinians who hate Israel because they’ve lost family at their military's bloody hands natzee too? Also, keep labeling everyone as such instead properly counter-arguing and then act surprised these views are getting massively adopted en masse all over the spectrum.

 

Yeah, you do realize that basically every leftist is extremely critical of Israel for that exact reason right? Israel is a fascist ethnostate, do you really think leftists are jumping to its defense and showing no sympathy for all of those displaced Palestinians? The difference is at least most leftists have the good sense to not blame it on Jews as a demographic.

[rairii]

48 minutes ago, The Britain said:

Hey just tossing this in, please keep it civil. I can sense things starting to go off the rail here a bit.

Look, in complete fairness, far-right filth doesn't deserve to be treated with civility.

Pretty sure a lot of what's being said in here goes in direct violation of rule 4.

[Deep Dive Devin]

1 minute ago, Maroko said:

"YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH", besides calling everything else, from a racist to a:

Yes, you: the person who makes the argument that is stupid, not you, the person who is stupid and are making the argument because of such. Do you think I would be so audacious as to just claim all stupid people are like you? 

2 minutes ago, Maroko said:

Which one, I've asked you multiple times. Oh wait, I don't care anymore; I've given you enough opportunities to act civil.

I've actually been very civil with you, you just don't like that I'm responding to the kind of arguments you're making rather than the arguments themselves. I am not here to convince you whether you're wrong or right, I made that clear from the start. What you have repeatedly shown is that you are uninterested in convincing people to listen to your bad takes, hoping that they will roll over and accept them by honoring you with a proper debate. I disagree with the idea that you should be taken seriously, and you refuse to respect that opinion while at the same time claim that your opinion should be respected. To make things simpler again, imagine a scenario in which saying "we should kill puppies" is to be debated but "we should stop that guy from advocating puppy murder" is anti-unity. I am going to call your arguments, and my impression of what sort of person makes them, bigoted. Why? Because that's my opinion, and if you really believed in free debate, you would try to convince me otherwise rather than shut me down or lie about my motivations for having that opinion.

2 minutes ago, Maroko said:

 

Pfffffffffffffft hahahaha says the person who's accused me of everything under the sun without a single specific example other than tons of strawmanning like "you said all blacks are criminaaaals " which I never did, anywhere. Good job.

You've provided the examples yourself? I do not believe others on this forum are too stupid to see it. I mentioned before, convincing you is not my goal here.

 

Also, I never said that. You claim I'm not giving real examples, but you had to make one up for what I've said.

[rairii]

8 minutes ago, Maroko said:

"YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH", besides calling me everything else, from a racist to a:

 

Which one, I've asked you multiple times. Oh wait, I don't care anymore; I've given you enough opportunities to act civil.

Pfffffffffffffft hahahaha says the person who's accused me of everything under the sun without a single specific example other than tons of strawmanning like "you said all blacks are criminaaaals " which I never did, anywhere. Good job.

Final point here, and just throwing this out here as a fun fact: Treating a point as invalid because it contains a fallacy in itself is a fallacy, and pointing out bigotry isn't ad hominem to begin with. You're not high on the ladder of logical soundness here.

[kerdios]

2 minutes ago, Annie said:

Look, in complete fairness, far-right filth doesn't deserve to be treated with civility.

Pretty sure a lot of what's being said in here goes in direct violation of rule 4.

Hey, at least no one said anything about CP yet
I would have never thought about that second meaning if I hadn't have seen that rule.

CP is short for Civil Protection and that's it , no arguments here!

 

[rairii]

3 hours ago, Mira said:

What is it about this website that attracts so many not-so-subtle nazis

Take a long walk down a short pier

It's honestly kind of shocking. The AF subreddit's discord is fine with keeping around a guy who openly stated he wished for the complete eradication of, as he put it, "the yellow race."

 

Meanwhile I got banned for telling HIM to take a long walk off a short pier.

[Deep Dive Devin]

9 minutes ago, Annie said:

Look, in complete fairness, far-right filth doesn't deserve to be treated with civility.

Pretty sure a lot of what's being said in here goes in direct violation of rule 4.

 

2 minutes ago, Annie said:

It's honestly kind of shocking. The AF subreddit's discord is fine with keeping around a guy who openly stated he wished for the complete eradication of, as he put it, "the yellow race."

 

Meanwhile I got banned for telling HIM to take a long walk off a short pier.

This is the inherent folly of a lot of forums, and parts of liberal democracy itself. It treats order as an undisputed good, rather than something natural that springs from a just society. Order should only be maintained among scenarios where there isn't any real facts. Nobody can, for example, objectively prove whether the Star Wars prequels are good or bad. I happen to think they're not very good, but there's no fundamental law to the universe that proves me right. In that instance, if I were to argue that my opinion is fact and everyone else can eat shit, then a mod trying to maintain civility by making me stop is justified. But that just doesn't work for a lot of political discussion, because if your opinion is, say, "2 + 2 = 5", that's not an opinion. You're just wrong. If one person says climate change is real and another says it isn't, those aren't two people with opinions, the latter is just saying something false. In that regard, pushing to keep those people "civil" with each other is actively allowing one of them to spout misinformation, that could potentially be really dangerous if it got out of hand (which it has, but that's more due to oil tycoons funding entire misinfo campaigns than individuals).

 

This kind of rhetoric, just going "hey hey kids, you know which race does the most crime?" and leaving the motivation obscured, no matter how obvious it is to people like you or me, gets perceived as not sowing disorder, because it's not explicitly saying the thing it obviously means. It's the southern strategy, the Lee Atwater defense, et cetera. The fact that those things are both dated by half a century goes to show how bad a time it's been trying to get people up to speed. 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[Deep Dive Devin]

32 minutes ago, Maroko said:

(1) For what? I've stated many things and when asked specifically about something, like @kerdios did, I've answered as honestly as I could - above the 26th page.

Actually, you haven't been honest. You've been sowing disorder this whole time. The fact that you treat your politics as an identity group that can be discriminated against like race or class is the first red flag.

32 minutes ago, Maroko said:

(2) So you will just keep twisting the truth. Does 'stricking first then crying out' ring any bells?

That doesn't say what you claim I said.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[Deep Dive Devin]

2 minutes ago, Maroko said:

It's not my fault many can't deal with other POVs that aren't shared with insults. And, again, where did I said that?

Actually, you're the one who can't deal with other people's opinions. You're essentially claiming here that "tolerance" necessitates your intolerant opinion be tolerated, but you refuse to tolerate the opinion that your opinion shouldn't be tolerated. You're in a lose-lose situation here. Either all opinions are equal and you are the problem for not dealing with opinions that fall outside your terms, or opinions aren't equal and the trash you keep saying is worth tossing out anyway.

 

1 minute ago, Maroko said:

HAHAHA you're the gift that keeps on giving. So, you misquoting me by saying "black people are violent criminals" all the while claming that I put politics with specific races and classes in the same bag (and calling me a racist and bigot and Lord knows what) is not the same as me saying that you misquoted me by crying out "all black people are criminals"? Dear God Almighty, you are so dishonest it's actually amusing now.

I never said I was being honest with you. Why would you deserve that?

 

No, you very clearly claimed I said you said all black people, which isn't what I said. And that's an important difference! If you think it isn't, it just further shows how uninterested you are in legitimate discussion. Bigots often feign innocence by claiming x person is "one of the good ones", or by saying "liberal culture is what MADE them such degenerates", because if you don't despise 100% of a group, somehow that means it isn't bigotry. Which is also wrong, of course.

 

Not that you're pretending to not be a bigot at this point, just so we're clear.

[Deep Dive Devin]

17 minutes ago, Maroko said:

HAHAHA please don't stop this hypocrisy  it's really out of this world! 

How is it hypocritical? Because I'm doing the thing you're doing? That sure does suck for anyone in a self-defense case. If you're acting like a fascist, I am not only justified, but have a moral imperative to not treat you with respect. I literally told you right at the fucking start that you were not entitled to honest discussion. What did you think this was?

17 minutes ago, Maroko said:

You were supposedly quoting ME, your big scary nazi girl that you can't properly argue against and which you keep claiming falsely that I lump groups and discriminate against them.

Couple things here:

1. I did not claim that you discriminate against people, and I didn't really say you lumped them together either. You probably do, but the fact that you haven't made it obvious is kind of the reason I'm calling it out.

2. You constantly demand proper arguments, I do not want you to have one. Again, you don't deserve that. If you wanted honest discussion, you would have entered with an honest post, or at any point apologized for the bigotry.

3. That wasn't a quote. To pretend otherwise would imply I thought you were just saying exactly what you mean. Do you think I believe everything you say?

17 minutes ago, Maroko said:

But cool, let's stay with the "black people are violent criminals" - where did I say that? Annnd here comes a diversion tactic again:

Uh, nowhere? You keep asking that, but I never claimed you directly stated that. If you did, that'd kind of ruin the point I'm trying to make, wouldn't it? You're the one diverting things. You're so interested in the minutia of semantic debates that you think people won't notice the hate behind your words. Though I guess after that last big post, that cat's kind of out of the bag, isn't it.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[TB]

Let me make something exceedingly clear here. Argue about whatever you want, keep, it, civil. No name calling, no mud-flinging. I also want to clear something up, no political position justify "gloves off" or a lack of civility. If you're going to talk about something, expect someone to come in with a differing view that you might even find offensive. There's a fine line between citing facts and being an outright bigot, a word that just gets thrown around too easily anymore.

 

Argue about anything you want, but we shouldn't need to jump into every one of these threads to say this.

 

@Maroko, we do care, chill.

[Deep Dive Devin]

With all due respect, I'm not sure I can agree with that. This sort of values-neutral approach just isn't effective. There's a reason this forum has a rule against the most overt hate speech, but that, technically, is still a "political position". Is it uncivil to ban them? Obviously not, but failing to extend this line of thinking to politely-worded hate isn't great.

 

I mean, look at the situation we have here. Annie expresses distress over proposed legislation that would 100% harm not only trans people, but also potentially amount to the government molesting schoolgirls (forced DNA tests aren't good either). Not even equal-opportunity molestation, they only wanted to check girls. She also dunks on the republican party, because, y'know, they're the ones who want to legislate this.

 

Maroko's response to this is to post not just dangerous, but obvious, long-debunked misinformation about trans people in sports, along with patronizing remarks about the struggles they do (and don't) go through, with not a thought paid to the overwhelming force of social and economic oppression that this minority faces and has continued to face for centuries. Remember, this is all to justify policy that may include a government checking children's genitals before it lets them play sports.

 

Nevermind the addition of a meme literally laughing at trans suicides, in case you thought this was somehow out of genuine concern or something. When called out that yeah, people who are treated like shit tend to have mental health problems, suddenly we get whataboutism for Muslim genocides in Israel and China, with an extra dash of you aren't real and your problems don't exist (men commit more suicide than women. does that mean maleness is a mental illness?). Add some bonus antisemitism and a "whites under attack" meme, and I think this person might not be engaging in good faith.

 

I get into my big dumb semantic argument with them, because hey, every second they waste on me is one they're not spending on their other bullshit, and we get an interesting problem, don't we? "We shouldn't need to jump into every one of these threads to say this", but what did you expect? This is where the "free marketplace of ideas" gets you. The most extreme reactionary ideas will prevail, because they're intently focused on driving others away. If a black person gets chased off by racists, it's not because they lost a debate over their right to exist, it's because they realized it was unfortuitous, and possibly unsafe, to remain.

 

How is it civil to suggest that a person's identity is a lie, that they should or will kill themselves, or any number of the other rancid things going on here, and uncivil to suggest that someone who says that stuff can fuck off? That is not civility, it is expressing a preference for who an incivility should be directed towards.

 

 

[Kraken]

Yikes okay so I guess it's time for me to come back. First things first: 

On 1/26/2021 at 7:37 PM, BTGBullseye said:

It's because he is one.

BTG it's really not hard to refer to people as their "preferred pronouns" (that shouldn't even be a charged or political pair of words but apparently now it is.)  Purposefully referring to people by the wrong pronouns is just being petty, obtuse, or on the extreme end, an asshole. Not sure where exactly you lean on that spectrum so take that as you will.

 

Now for the next order of business: diving headfirst into a political debate online citing statistics/sources. (I understand if there's some skepticism from reading something from Wikipedia but it's usually good enough to have an introductory understanding. also you can just check the sources. or look up alternate views/sources that aren't from neo-nazis/conservatives who hate anyone who isn't white/cis/male.)

 

Anyways, the reason for the high rate of (known) transgender suicide attempts can be explained (as in the link just provided, which also has multiple sources credited if you want to go even further) with a few reasons:
 

Quote

• Distress related to a conflict between one’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which they identify
• Stress related to fear of transitioning, including the potential backlash and life disruption, as well as considering the risks and sometimes lengthy time period involved
• Experience of discrimination (transphobia) in the form of physical or verbal harassment, physical or sexual assault
• Lack of support from parents and other family members
• Institutional prejudice manifesting as laws and policies which create inequalities and/or fail to provide protection from discrimination
• Mental illness (including depression, anxiety)
• Excessive alcohol and/or drug use
• Stigma
• Isolation from conventional society
• Homelessness

 

Note that I kept out the "Access to lethal means (e.g. firearms, prescription drugs)" because I personally think that this is an issue plaguing all of America rather than just trans people, even if it *is* a factor.

 

14 hours ago, Maroko said:

Doesn’t that underline a bigger problem than transphobia (which I find to be a misnomer)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Manifestations

Transphobia is very much a real thing. You know that trans people get murdered just for being trans, right? Shit that happens to trans people constantly, like being denied the ability to go to the bathroom, and/or being fired from their job just for being trans, shouldn't be happening to anyone in the first place regardless of them being trans, and yet it is just fine when it's trans people? And we're not talking about what happens in China or Syria or some random 3rd world country. We're talking about Europe. We're talking about the United States. And it's not helping when you demonize trans people in sports. The earlier that trans people are allowed to transition means that there are less differences between someone born as that sex, and someone who transitioned to that. And yet there's all this scare about giving hormones to teens because they might be wrong. So counsel them. Give them therapy and room to breath, to understand their position before transitioning, and if need be, give them hormone blockers before they are given a body that is very hard to reverse. The whole point of being young is to learn about things and yet someone's here talking as "lol funny trans people commit suicide" when it's a symptom of a very serious issue, it being that transgender people are a minority that some people hate. There's no middle ground between "I think trans people should have basic human rights" and "I think trans people shouldn't exist." Because trans people have always existed. You just didn't hear about them as much before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

 

 

also preemptively: My signature does not mean I think you're allowed to be an asshole or that you somehow think you're one of the people that care. Because obviously you don't if you think hating someone for their ethnicity/religion/sexuality/gender is justified. Politically yes, I can think you're stupid. Trump Republicans have given up any idea of working with the Democrats so I think it can go both ways now. (regardless of how much I hate both parties as they are right now)

[BTGBullseye]

11 hours ago, Mira said:

Take a long walk down a short pier

Why?

10 hours ago, kerdios said:

f. I don't like capitalization - sorry btg.

YOU CAN NEVER BE FORGIVEN! YOU MUST BE SACRIFICED SO CIVILIZATION CAN CONTINUE! (for those of you on here that take shit way too serious, this is a joke)

8 hours ago, Annie said:

Look, in complete fairness, far-right filth doesn't deserve to be treated with civility.

So, you're outright stating that you're a bigot.

22 minutes ago, Kraken said:

Yikes okay so I guess it's time for me to come back. First things first: 

BTG it's really not hard to refer to people as their "preferred pronouns" (that shouldn't even be a charged or political pair of words but apparently now it is.)  Purposefully referring to people by the wrong pronouns is just being petty, obtuse, or on the extreme end, an asshole. Not sure where exactly you lean on that spectrum so take that as you will.

And what pronoun would that be? Not all trans demand to be called by a different pronoun, and so far as I can tell, he hasn't requested a specific one from me. Apart from that, he's always been exactly opposite any position I take, for reasons unknown to any but him.

[rairii]

39 minutes ago, BTGBullseye said:

Why?

For using the wrong pronouns, that much should be obvious.

39 minutes ago, BTGBullseye said:

So, you're outright stating that you're a bigot.

"Saying you hate the far right is bigotry" is a room temperature IQ take.

39 minutes ago, BTGBullseye said:

And what pronoun would that be? Not all trans demand to be called by a different pronoun, and so far as I can tell, he hasn't requested a specific one from me.

I go by a feminine name, it should be pretty obvious I go by feminine pronouns. And even if you're unsure you could use "they" or simply ask.

39 minutes ago, BTGBullseye said:

Apart from that, he's always been exactly opposite any position I take, for reasons unknown to any but him.

Probably on account of the fact that you have a tendency to say really dumb shit like this:

On 7/20/2017 at 3:03 AM, BTGBullseye said:

The Julian year was actually shorter than our current year, and that was a common year length for over 1500 'years'. Then there's the Calendar of Romulus, which had 10 months, all either 30 or 31 days in length. (304 days total, based loosely on Lunar cycles)

 

8 hours ago, Maroko said:

Oh, so all gloves are off because the mods don't really care? Then I'll call you a typical far-left whore. Wait, I can't because you'll never be a real woman like me.

Scathing. How will I ever cope with the fact that my value as a woman is determined by whether or not I have a hole.

[Deep Dive Devin]

27 minutes ago, Annie said:

"Saying you hate the far right is bigotry" is a room temperature IQ take.

[rairii]

3 minutes ago, Shaddy said:

[Kraken]

2 hours ago, Maroko said:

(1) Yet I'm outright denying the legitimacy of a fascist ethnostate. Wait, didn't the Nazi Regime made the Haavara Agreement with the Jewish Zionists to legitimize even more Israel, until the British and such intervened? So, I am a Nazi despite having explicitly being I'm anti-zionist? Man, it's as if you guys don't have a single leg to stand on.

Funnily enough "Emigrants with capital of £1,000, (about $5,000 in 1930s currency value) could move to Palestine in spite of severe British restrictions on Jewish immigration under an immigrant investor program."

 

Also funnily enough "Hitler's own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler seemed indifferent to the economic details of the plan, but he supported it in the period from September 1937 to 1939. After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 the program was ended."

Wanna know what happened in 1936-1939? The 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Suspiciously coincidental perhaps. Also this was really really an unpopular program even among Jewish people. But they feared that if they didn't leave when they could and without causing some "injustice" (in the eyes of the Nazi party) that it would get worse for them. 

 

I personally also hate some of Israel's policies, but I don't think it requires disbanding Israel or for some reason hating Jewish people. For example the situation of the Palestinians is horrible. They should be given a voice in Israeli politics, (and stop being bombed) but that likely won't happen because Israel's an ethnostate. So I'm not "Anti-Zionist" because honestly they have enough problems with themselves to worry about Palestinians. Yet they do anyways. And I'm pretty sure that whenever the president "bends over backwards for Israel" it's not over ethnic lines or for some "Jewish Elite". It's for military reasons. Even if those reasons are strained currently. The U.S. obviously wants to keep getting money from military exportation.

 

2 hours ago, Maroko said:

(1) Phobia means a fear of something, and who's afraid of trans? Don't liking their bogus unbiological plight is not fear. People have been killed for what they are like, for instance, they're skin-color and in much higher rates. Let's talk about them and connect a portmanteu with Phobia, shall we? Let's start with black on white crime.

(2) Randomly bringing up Trump, which I didn't vote for, is called Trump Derangement Syndrome and people have been brutally attacked and even murdered for their beliefs, sometimes even for just wearing a hat ------ MIGAphobia?

If you read the thread at all you would know I've criticized the U.S. police and government's racist actions multiple times. I wasn't talking about races. I was talking specifically about trans people. But since you want to make it about race, it is worse for trans African-Americans. Also seriously did you say "Black-on-white crime"? It's mostly intraracial- that means within the same race. 

 

Also fuck off with that "bogus unbiological plight" bullshit.

 

Anyways Trump Derangement Syndrome means Jack shit when we're talking about the effects he/the Republican party had politically. I didn't bring him up because I'm somehow in your eyes viewed as obsessed with him. Talking about the effects of a President doesn't mean we're deranged about him. Political polarization meant someone like Trump was a result of it- inevitable. He's merely a figurehead of a party that mostly encompasses everything he is. But like I said before, I hate both parties as they currently are. And it's because of political polarization. 

 

EDIT: also I forgot to mention but there's an awful lot of far-right terrorism

Edited January 28, 2021 by Kraken (see edit history)