FeepingCreature
No bio...
User ID: 311

I believe none of those are the reasons, though they're close.
for depopulation purposes
It's not "in order to depopulate", it's "because we don't hold population as a virtue, it fails to apply as an argument to prevent this".
to make money in the medical industry
You think the average leftist cares about making big medical companies money?
to give more power for government to intrude in the family
I think this is a general mistake with attributing intentions to other people. Leftists don't think trans is good because it lets them strengthen the government's intrusion, they think the government being able to intrude is good because it lets them support trans kids.
If X has the result of "Y", while you think "anti-Y", it's common to say "they're doing X to support Y." But those disagreements are very often a question of relative ranking of X and Y; it's usually "they think X is more important than Y, so that they will accept an anti-Y result to bolster X". Compare pro-life vs anti-life, pro-choice vs anti-choice.
If I find examples of people who do appear to be claiming that men can be women per se, would you change your mind? For example, people who insist that someone who was universally regarded as a man ten years ago is in the present a woman
But this is arguing that "universal regard" is the definition of gender. Those sorts of assumptions are exactly what is being disagreed with. That's why there's "assigned gender at birth".
"Let's think step by step," the angel said dubiously.
Okay yes but they don't actually visit us. Even if this is all true, the people seeing demons in this worldline are still crazy.
Good point!
But then the point of "satanic religions of old", for a Christian, would be equivalent to saying "religions of old", surely? Because there is only one God, so every non-judaic religion is either fraudulent or satanic. Or is it "the set of religions considered demon-worshipping by the OT Israelites"?
Or is the argument more something like "LGBT has become like Molechism"?
Ah, that's fair. So for instance the TPM could detect a patched bios by polling the actual eeprom for a checksum? Or just signature check the whole thing. It wouldn't even have to use the BIOS to talk to the hardware in the first place. The BIOS just has to go "okay, you have the hardware, I won't touch the bus for the next x ms."
I guess that's pretty convincing in theory. (Do I trust that it's actually working like that? Is it even on?)
No I don't think so.
It sounds like you're not saying "we know they did" but "well they would have, wouldn't they." IMO we actually cannot safely assume that at all.
I mean, they aren't? The Bible does not to my knowedge list any old religion that worships Satan. The only Satan-worshippers show up in Revelation.
Particularly for instance Moloch is not said to be identical with Satan.
Also, here's Claude Sonnet (AI):
The Israelites would more likely have seen Molech as:
- A false god (but still a distinct entity)
- A "demon" or "shedim" (as mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:17)
- Simply "an abomination"
The strong identification of pagan deities with Satan seems to have developed more in later theological traditions, particularly in Christian interpretation.
Which matches my knowledge.
Conversely, if Kamala wins, does that mean you underestimated the power of Orange Man Bad?
Sure. But every time an exploit comes out that chains together like seven distinct vulnerabilities, people ask "how was this possible? they seem to pull out a new security hole at every single layer of security." And the answer is normalization of deviance, ie. "that's bad but we still have more layers of defense".
A modified BIOS would cause the OS to reject the boot attempt
I don't know how the security architecture works in detail, but that really seems like the sort of thing a modified BIOS could work around with a strategic byte write to a known memory address. It's ~impossible to defend yourself against an attacker running on a higher ring than you.
I mean, I could turn around and say if you knew that somebody was planning something nefarious but couldn't prove it, "accidentally" releasing the passwords to the public is also a clever way to increase common knowledge of the attack vector, thus making it more likely that people will look in the right place during the investigation.
There has been a lot written about hallucination because some people want chatbots to be worse than they are. With experience you can generally tell when you are asking a question that a LLM will hallucinate about.
This just seems 1:1 equivalent to a citation.
Prediction market links:
- Trump disqualified after being elected (5%)
- Elon arrested, some very schizo results on this one. Apparently half his expected probability of arrest is between 2026 and 2030? This market looks to be trading on a "well it has to happen SOME time" theory. Honestly, I think these are bizarrely high - it kind of makes me want to open an account.
Also, note how smoothly criticism of Israel has become criticism of Jews instead.
In every other situation that'd be true, but saying "Israel is a country of Jews" is hardly antisemitism, more tautology.
I went and looked at the POISE 2008 trial and okay, it does look pretty convincing, but that one didn't actually filter for cardiac surgery. Without that study the results look a lot more balanced. Am I missing something here? It seems this is barely a meta-analysis, it's just "POISE and some others".
What I love about your comment is that it truly is "right is the new left". You could swap some words around and 1:1 have complaints about minority representation circa ten years ago. The stuff about hostile environments heightening objectively-small slights could be from an explanation of microaggressions, etc. I think you could work this out into a general theory of social progress where some tribe of particularists (progressives in this case) develops theory based on concrete allied cases and later on universalists (liberals) generalize it to their enemies.
I have no good opinion on that. I think it's a novel thing, so I can't reason about it by analogy, and I don't think it can be considered accounted for under the law in any sort of originalist reasoning or even at all. I think it's a thing where we just have to make up our minds and decide what we want from scratch.
Eh, I'm not sure that's it. I think it's less that we refuse to contradict them, as that they've come to be in charge properly and so we don't attempt to hinder them. You may gripe about your orders but you still carry them out.
Personally, I believe the court should just carve a distinction between curated and carried speech. There is a speech interest in, say, a supermarket curating the newspapers that they carry; there is not a speech interest in a supermarket excluding topics of discussion between shoppers, even though they take part inside their venue. Nobody interprets, say, their Facebook feed as being a communication from Facebook. IMO this should cover both "direct" and "group" messages. There may still be other grounds to block it, such as a stated or implied disinterest on the part of the recipient, or curation by instruction of the recipient, but not venue 1A grounds, because nobody reasonably interprets them to be the voice of the venue to start with.
Yeah but messing with the dominant search index of the country to censor certain topics is pretty much as close to "he who controls the present controls the past" as a company can get. So does the Dalle diversity scandal for that matter.
Same here as the other commenter: Ronald Reagan, Robert Fico, Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, the Pope, Bob Marley, Truman, Seward, Reagan, President Reagan.
Do you still get Trump if you try it now?
Huh. I also cannot get any Google autocomplete for "trump shot", "trump assassina...", "trump secret s...", "trump inju..."... Google clearly knows of these topics, but they somehow haven't made their way into their search history model.
This is at least very fishy.
I think the way to rescue this is to hold that a person has privileged insight into their own gender but can still be mistaken.
The existence of post-transition trans people who are by their account much less in conflict with their gender perception demonstrates that that there is sometimes privileged insight that is true, or at least beneficial to assume. The existence of trans people who detransition doesn't disprove the existence of those people, it merely establishes that the correlation isn't perfect.
More options
Context Copy link