@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

There's some nitpicking to be done here, for example, maybe the patients already needed mental health treatment and just found out they needed it at the same time as they found out they're transgender, or that just seeing a mental health professional regularly doesn't necessarily mean that your mental health is worse than it used to be.

Neither of those argument doesn't work. There are 3 groups in the study:

  • people with dysphoria pre- some form of transition (blockers, hormones, surgeries)
  • people with dysphoria post- transition
  • people without dysphoria as controls

The conclusion isn't based on just comparing trans people to controls It's based on how theie mental health deteriorated after transition. I also remember the author of the interview saying all students get a regular (yearly?) mental health assesment in Finland.

But my fundamental objection is to the conclusion that no one should be allowed to transition.

I agree that this study is not enough to conclude that, but I don't I've seen anyone say "this study clearly shows that no one should transition". Instead, it is a rebuttal to the pro trans narrative that claims they are able to accurately diagnose dysphoria, and that these interventions not only help, but are medically necessary. This conversation has a long running context, where the pro-trans side was deliberately misleading people and attacking skeptics for years, so I don't think it's right to try and portray them as saying "well, we just think there's a non-zero number of people who might benefit from this"

Speaking of ROGD, its rhetorical use by anti-trans people is a peculiar example of a self-contradictory motte-and-bailey: usually the bailey is a stronger version of the motte, and thus necessarily consistent with it, but here the bailey ("all trans people are delusional and none of them are their stated gender") contradicts the motte ("some trans people with a specific presentation – primarily adolescent girls – are not actually their stated gender") because the latter presupposes that some trans people are, in fact, their stated gender.

The kind of people who say "no one should transition" don't so much believe some one "isn't their stated gender", they question the very concept of gender. I think it's a strong argument, "gender" is effectively a religious belief. Specifically it seems that it's a secular version of the belief in a soul, and I think it's fair to say that this is not a valid basis for a medical intervention

I also don't see the contradiction. You can say "no one should transition", and "this social contagions seems to be affecting mostly adolescent girls". I see no presupposition of validity of other people's gender dysphoria.

Pearson took the most extreme assumption whenever possible

Nitpick: I don't think extrapolating from 3 known points is the most extreme assumption possible - that should be reserved for assuming that some / most other places had an even higher rate of abuse than Rotheram.

Not including any of those assumptions means that his original statement was pretty untrustworthy.

Well, as long as we're talking about the report, I'd say it criticizeable, but not untrustworthy. They didn't hide the method 5 links deep from an obscure note in the references. The quote is in the second hit when you CTRL+F for "250".

What do you mean?

The scale of the rape gang phenomenon is endemic across the entirety of Britain. The 250,000 figure originates directly from a statement in the House of Lords by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 14 May, 2019:

“Do the Government accept that if we extrapolate nationally the Jay report on Rotherham and other reports from Telford and Oxford, there appear to have been upwards of 250,000 young white girls raped in this century, very largely by Muslim men, usually several times a day for years?”

This is the verbatim quote of the report quoting Pearson. How do you make it clearer that they took the Rotheram, Telford, and Oxford numbers and extrapolated them nationwide?

EDIT: I can concede they shouldn't use such a strong / high-certainty language in the executive summary:

The scale of the crimes committed is staggering. It has been previously established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma.

But I'm not seeing where the detective work to reconstruct the method, and therefore the untrustworthiness, is supposed to come in.

The Lowe report (and Lord Pearson’s initial bluster) come out looking miserably untrustworthy

Why untrustworthy? I thought the entire reason the figure was controversial, was that they were open about arriving at the number through a naive extrapolation.

I just hope that automating scientific research and papers will become so cheap and accessible to the layman that it won't be possible to truly censor.

That's why they're getting ahead of it, and censoring AI itself.

Though the image of the author frowning and making notes as she browses racist jokes on Twitter brings me joy

"They keep asking me how I would feel if I hadn't eaten breakfast this morning...".

I don't doubt that there were plenty of far-left morons who engaged in Palestinian flag waving immediately, but in a country of 330 million you can always find plenty of people to take an indefensible position, along with a news media and internet environment incentivized to convincing you that these ideas are mainstream.

But your original claim was that "it was very difficult to be pro-Palestine", so what difficulties have these people ran into? Once Trump got elected they managed to push through some "muh antisemitism" policies and some people got expelled / deported / otherwise cancelled, but that wasn't in the immediate after math of 10/7, and didn't amount to much anyway.

along with a news media and internet environment incentivized to convincing you that these ideas are mainstream. But this wasn't a position that was taken in polite society.

I mean, if the news media and internet environment was such that it could convince people that these ideas are mainstream, than these ideas are mainstream. When ideas are not mainstream, what you see is a crackdown like when people criticized Covid policies and vaccines, mass migration, or genderwang stuff.

That interpretation makes no sense to me. Denmark would have as much luck holding Greenland without NATO backing as with it, if Trump actually wanted to take it by force. You can also compare that situation to cases where he actually did use force, like Venezuela and Iran, and see there's essentially no overlap.

It was horrible diplomacy, and there's lots to criticize there, but acting like the invasion was imminent and it was repelled by the resolve of Europeans bravely standing together is cartoonish propaganda.

Threatening the invasion of Greenland.

Again, completely blown out of proportion. They wanted to buy it, the talk of invasion was media and politicians hyperventilating.

Invading Iran without first discussing with the EU nations, causing economic damage and chaos without even giving them a chance to prepare.

A bit of a dick move, but hardly comparable. The war didn't sabotage some bespoke diplomacy Europe was trying to get done, and the US does not depend on European aid the way Israel does on the US.

Having it in the national security strategy that they want to create regime change in Europe.

Europe has literally censored American speech in order to influence US elections, tried to prevent an interview with the current president taking place on an internet platform, and sent activists to help campaign for his opponent.

Israel was a fool’s errand. You can’t stand against two billion Muslims forever,

Israel in it's present location might have been. An Israel almost anywhere else, probably including one carved out of a German state as reparations for the war, would have been perfectly fine.

It was very difficult to be pro-Palestinian in the immediate wake of the initial attacks

I'm pretty antagonistic towards Israel myself, I'm even rather critical of the attitudes that non-Israeli Jewish people tend to have, but this is plainly not how I remember it. I remember an immediate and massive outpouring of support for Palestine, and not just from the immigrant Muslim population, and Jewish people frantically trying to get the barest condemnation of the attack, out of people they thought were their friends.

I'm playing through the Shadowrun series. I wouldn't call it great (words like "wasted opportunity" might even come to mind), but it's pretty enjoyable.

Though now that I think about it, it's actually done with 3D graphics. You can set the camera projection to isometric, though!

Replace "Israel" with "USA", you funnily enough get how it has felt to be a European for the past year and a half. Trump has instituted an era in which alliances are no longer treated with the sanctity they deserve.

I'm not seeing it. The Greenland thing was blown way out of proportion, and other than that what have done that's such an insult? Slowed down the gravy train somewhat?

I have

Where? I haven't seen you trying to convince progressives that they should be as upset about this as they were about #MeToo, and what you describe in the following sentences changes the subject completely.

And my point is that we need to stop doing that.

Then why not start by telling all the feminists and progressives of various stripes, that they should be at least as outraged about this as they were about Harvey Weinstein and George Floyd (arguably as much as both combined)?

So you think the digital ID will be public for all to see, so volunteer moderators will be able to make decisions like thar? I doubt it, such a solution would cause massive chaos.

Why do you think they'll snip bots though? They're pretty useful to the establishment.

I would be more motivated to fight against this if bot-infestation was not such a massive issue on social media.

You think digital ID will actually help to solve the issue? I don't really see how that would happen.

I don't think we're talking about prostitutes, more like party girls. They're probably also unattached, but this is a collective question, which makes it so icky to the liberals, but I don't think it's easily dismissible. War is inherently a collective endeavor, and the men that get conscripted have every right to ask "What am I fighting for? What will I be coming home to, if I somehow manage to get through this?".

What's so baffling? An intra-ingroup crime is an individual matter, a cross-group crime is a collective matter, everyone knows this deep down, including the perpetrators.

Even progressives acknowledge this in an inverted way. The drama over Harvey Weinstein was a lot bigger than the fallout from the rape gang, and it's because they know these two things are not the same.

Genderslop aside, he's pointing at a real problem. What "country" are they fighting for, if one half of the population gets thrown into the meatgrinder, and the other half leaves and starts a new life with foreigners? What's going to be left of the nation after all is said and done? Is it really "woman hating" to expect that they wait for the boys to come home any more than it's "man hating" to conscript them to begin with?

They convinced most Americans of something, and then America did it.

They didn't. Most Americans were opposed to the war. Politics in general rarely works by convincing the majority, there are many things that the majority want get done that never happen, and things that happen that the don't want. Politics works by convincing the elites, which is much closer to the "conspiracy" interpretation, though it's not an exclusively Jewish thing.

Yeah, fair enough, some countries got carried away with that stuff.

Personally, in fact, I find the continuing proliferation of activities that moral busybodies won't let you do anymore if you have kids to be among the most impactful points on the antinatalist side.

I'm pretty sure we had a higher fertility rate back when drug fueled sex orgies in a tent were somewhat taboo even for the childless.

We have much more invasive technology than Orwell’s time (some, like AI, surpass that in 1984). And arguably we have less overall freedom (at least it’s harder to commit crime without getting caught), but again, much more than 1984 citizens.

Orwell was writing speculative fiction, the system from his book was unachievable with the technology of his time. He wasn't even writing sci-fi as such, focusing more on what society would look, given total surveillance technology being available. So AI isn't surpassing 1984, it's a necessary condition for it.

In a few years our leaders may actually not be human (if we achieve ASI and it merges with and/or overthrows them). Then it is plausible we’d be put into a 1984-like society (temporarily, but that may be a long time: until the AI can do everything more efficiently than humans and promptly exterminates us, or the Earth becomes uninhabitable, or aliens invade, etc.). While I can’t imagine why an omnipotent (from our perspective) AI would even give humans the choice to rebel.

Yeah, this is an issue I have with rationalists. ASI is a religious belief that they obsess over, and ignore far more plausible scenarios. You don't need ASI for 1984. Smartphones and LLMs are more than enough. You just need to build out the infrastructure, you might not even need to improve the models beyond what we have today.