FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
This article claims that 1.2 million illegal immigrants have applied, with 600k applications having been processed so far. Half a million is the lower bound.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
Arguments from motives are meaningless.
"Johnson stood to benefit from JFK's assassination!"
"Okay, but do you have any evidence he was involved?"
"He stood to benefit! How much more evidence do you want?"
Motive and means and opportunity. Motive alone doesn't mean much of anything.
I would like to believe your reasoning is more sophisticated than "something bad happens in a country -> that country has criticised Israel in the past -> therefore, the bad thing was deliberately orchestrated by Israel". But you're really not presenting a lot of persuasive evidence that it's more sophisticated than that.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
Is it a coordinated geopolitical move? Possibly.
Is it a coordinated geopolitical move in which the Israelis are involved? I don't think you've even come close to arguing that claim.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
America, Israel, Morocco, and Spain are the players involved here.
Aside from tweets, what is your evidence for Israeli involvement?
Your post is arguing the Israelis are involved, but you're already assuming the conclusion.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
Although on the face this may seems like a stretch
You should have trusted your gut on this one.
The gloating is obviously of the form "you criticise how we deal with the Palestinians, but it's easy to criticise us when you don't have to deal with tens of thousands of hostile MENA men right on your doorstep. Now you understand what it's like to be on the receiving end." No conspiracy necessary.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
6hr ago
Yesterday afternoon I started yet another campaign in XCOM 2. The first few missions went impossibly well: I think I had four or five "flawless" ratings in a row, zero soldiers killed or injured. For awhile I was actually wondering if the game was taking pity on me after so many abandoned campaigns.
Needless to say, it didn't last. I've abandoned this campaign.
People who can't afford it. People who can't find a chirurgeon who does it. People who can't afford the time off work for recovery.
I don't know what the distribution of these or other reasons is, as the source previously cited did not divide the 'trans without bottom chirurgery' group by why have not gotten it; it didn't even separate out 'has bottom chirurgery scheduled' or 'in early phase of transition'.
Supposing you meet a male person who is independently wealthy, doesn't need to work for a living, and lives in an area with numerous cosmetic surgeons experienced in vaginoplasties. The person claims to identify as a woman, but makes it perfectly clear that he has a penis which he has no desire to remove.
In your opinion, is such a person "really" trans?
This is not an armchair hypothetical. Consider the National Transgender Discrimination Survey from 2011, which polled over 6,000 people who describe themselves as transgender or gender non-conforming, of which 3,870 were male. Of these, only a quarter claimed to have undergone a penectomy, while 23% claimed to have undergone a vaginoplasty. 14% said they had no interest in undergoing either procedure (this finding is on the page numbered 79, or page 85 of the PDF). In your opinion, are these 14% "really" women? (The finding is even more striking among trans-identified females, 72% of which report no desire to undergo a phalloplasty.)
For a more recent source, consider the US Trans Survey from 2022, which surveyed over 30,000 trans-identified males. Only 11% had undergone an orchiectomy, and only 9% a vaginoplasty. 21% affirmatively said that they did not want either procedure, while 27% said they were "unsure" if they wanted the former and 25% the latter (pg 48).
One-in-five trans-identified males have not undergone a vaginoplasty and explicitly do not want to, while a further one-in-four have not undergone one and are unsure whether they want to. Someone who's on the fence about whether they want something can hardly be said to "viscerally feel they ought to have it". By the terms you specified, nearly half of all trans-identified males in the US are not women. I'll ask again: if you meet a trans-identified male who has not undergone a vaginoplasty and doesn't want one, do you consider that person a woman?
These terms are not widely used by people who hold misogynist attitudes.
Well, I think quite a number of trans-identified males hold misogynistic attitudes. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the median autogynephiliac male is more misogynistic than the median cis man.
The former two are an attempt at rigorous disambiguation.
As I've argued repeatedly before, it sure is interesting that trans activists are so keen on "rigorously disambiguating" different categories of people and using maximally clear terminology
... right up to the point where someone points out that, regardless of how they identify, a male person remains male, with all that implies, at which point these trans activists throw a tantrum and call you a Nazi.
No Kamilaroi could offer you a non-circular definition of Ippata; is their kinship system non-sensical?
Yeah, sounds like it.
And prexactly what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Nothing, just that I find it annoying, along with many of your verbal tics (including "prexactly"). Even in the comment I'm replying to you used the term "chirurgeon" for no earthly reason I can discern.
Was this meant to be a gotcha? I do think you lack confidence in your own arguments to persuade people. Unlike you, I would be more than happy to define the word "woman" while being filmed.
And I wasn't jeering at you like an adolescent: I genuinely, sincerely think that your stated reluctance to define the word "woman" while being filmed is indicative of a deep-seated uncertainty about your own worldview. Many trans activists are willing to define the word "woman" while being filmed, up to and including by a person who doesn't share their worldview. I find it interesting and, yes, rather telling that you don't fall into this category.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Where did I accuse him of either of those things?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Thinking about giving 10% of my net savings each month away (either in the form of paying for substack subscriptions or increasing the amount I donate to my income sharing club), so would also appreciate any thoughts on this.
You're more than welcome to become a paid subscriber to me if you like!
Previous discussion. Most days I only eat one meal, consisting of air-fried chicken breast, boiled broccoli and a large portion of brown rice.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
New Year's resolution check-in:
- Posted my seventeenth blog post of the year on Monday (cross-posted in the CW thread).
- Went to the gym three times last week and again yesterday evening.
- Have not consumed any pornography since waking up on January 1st.
How goes it @self_made_human, @thejdizzler, @birb_cromble, @ThomasdelVasto and @falling-star?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
As of this morning, I'm down 5kg from my starting weight. Good start after a bit over two weeks. I'm not finding it too challenging, aside from some brain fog.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Watching someone answer such a question, then theorizing on how they must be a turncoat, lunatic, or dishonest coward, though?
If Swinson had responded to the question "what is a woman?" with "a woman is an adult female human", I nor any gender-critical person would consider her a turncoat. The gender ideologues in her camp, however, surely would have. Likewise with Clayton: I wouldn't consider him a turncoat for saying "Biden won the 2020 election", but Trump and hardcore MAGAs would have. Do you disagree with either claim?
If Swinson had responded "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman", the gender ideologues would not consider her a lunatic (indeed, they would be cheering with delight). But gender-critical people (and, dare I say it, most normal non-extremely online people) would consider her a lunatic. Likewise with Clayton. Do you disagree with either claim?
These questions aren't Bulverism, and nor is my diagnosis of why they're effective. They are designed to expose either that someone has crazy opinions, or that they're fearful of alienating the people in their camp who have crazy opinions.
They recognize a loaded question
I've asked before and I'll ask again. What makes "what is a woman?" a loaded question? What controversial assumption is encoded into the question "what is a woman?" Likewise "who won the 2020 election?" What makes either of these questions "loaded"?
I’m not trying to accuse you of bad faith. I think you have a standard human blind spot for tribal affiliation, and right now, it’s telling you that this weapon only works on the outgroup.
Firstly, I've already asked you who you think my "outgroup" is, and you refused to answer. Downthread, I argued that the number of Americans who are neither 2020 election truthers nor gender ideologues are probably a minority: a depressing state of affairs, to be sure, but that doesn't make it any less true. I likewise argued that, while I'm confident I don't suffer from either of these blind spots, there may well be a blind spot I suffer from that could be exposed by a gotcha question. If and when it comes up, I promise to let all of you know about it. As a moderator, I thought you might be a bit more cautious about ascribing opinions to people that they've never expressed and don't endorse.
It works on whomever you can put on the spot.
Yes. Is this a bad thing?
We might say that gotcha questions of this sort are effective on anyone who a) believes things the average person considers crazy; or b) doesn't believe crazy things, but can't be seen to publicly disagree with the people in their camp who do. Does that describe literally every person in existence? Maybe it does. That doesn't mean "gotcha" questions are a bad or underhanded tactic: it means that, like so many other rhetorical or argumentative strategies, they expose the fundamental irrationality of the human species.
Indeed, one can say much more overtly positive things about every other ethnic group ("Black is beautiful", "Black don't crack", expressing pride in being Asian), but merely saying that it's "okay" to be white is completely beyond the pale. Drawing attention to this fact is, of course, the purpose of "it's okay to be white".
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Scott was writing in 2015, when the idea of "cancelling" people via social media was a fairly new idea. While it had been popularised by progressives, Scott noted that conservatives were starting to catch up to the idea and deploying many of the same tactics. Scott optimistically hoped that eventually people would realise how pointless and self-defeating this was and agree to a mutual laying down of arms.
So, yes. If the tactics employed by the Dems in 2020 were legitimate for them to use, they're legitimate for the Republicans to use in every subsequent election. But my God, I wish both sides would agree to a clean fight and put the genie back in the bottle.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
That is required for the state of cognitive dissonance, but not for simple outrage. It is entirely coherent to regard Islam as a backwards religion which is wrong about a lot of things including women and be outraged that someone is claiming the negation of this belief.
Yeah, I worded that a little clumsily. My meaning was actually clearer in the original draft, I think I may have to amend it for my own peace of mind.
The billions of dollars of aid that we give to Israel is "material", and the US depleting its missile-interceptors to defend Israel in a war started on Israels behest is materially good for Israel and bad for America.
Yes, I know. I'm asking you what material things the pro-Palestinian movement has accomplished. So far you haven't been able to name one.
It would also indicate that all zionist orgs who are freaking out about Mamdani
I don't think Mamdani's policies will have a meaningful impact on the basic relationship between the US and Israel, nor on the existence of Israel, nor on the hypothetical existence of an independent Palestinian nation state. I do believe his policies and rhetoric could make life meaningfully worse for Jews living in New York (and in the rest of the US), and that is entirely legitimate for American Jews to freak out on that basis.
Some other examples I think might add meaningfully to the concept-space you're exploring here: DignifAI was a meme where people used AI image generation to take bikini/lingerie/nude images of various e-girls, and digitally re-cloth them in modest garb. This greatly offended the e-girls and feminists generally, for reasons that they struggled to explain.
Funnily enough, this post originated as something I wrote shortly after the DignifAI brouhaha. It was a Substack post comparing DignifAI, "it's okay to be white" and "Islam is right about women". I couldn't figure out how to wrap it up so it stayed in my drafts for well over a year. When I saw the Clayton clip I had the idea to compare it to "what is a woman?", then realised I could use a few hundred words of copy from the unpublished post.
"Republicans should adopt the strategies used by Democrats in 2020 in every election going forward."
I'm going to plead "Fearful Symmetry".
No, this is base Bulverism.
Bulverism is when, rather than demonstrating that someone is wrong, you assume that they are and then explain how they came to be so silly. Asking them "what is a woman?" or "who won the 2020 election?" does not assume that they're mistaken about anything. Indeed, you are providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate that their model of how the world works is accurate.
I genuinely don't understand how you arrived at the conclusion that "what is a woman?" or "who won the 2020 election?" are loaded questions in the way "have you stopped beating your wife?" is.
The reason "have you stopped beating your wife?" is an unfair loaded question is because it assumes a premise which may be untrue of the person to whom it is put. What false premises are assumed by "what is a woman?" or "who won the 2020 election?"
Both of the one-word answers are inadequate by design.
You'll note that "what is a woman?" is not a question which calls for a one-word answer. "Who won the 2020 election?" does, but it is entirely possible to give a factually correct answer to this question which is one word long ("Biden"). I'm really not seeing the parallels.
Okay, but I like it when my team controls the narrative!
I'm calling gender ideologues and 2020 election truthers stupid. Whose "team" do you think I'm on, exactly?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Some ACX people were really angry about this a few months ago, and I really did not understand the outrage. Libraries, bookshops, charity shops etc. destroy tens of millions of books every year, and no one cares. Besides which, Anthropic bought the books. I had this crazy idea that, if you own an item, it's your right to do with it what you please, provided you don't violate any other laws in the process.
The whole story is just a boo-light for people who dislike AI for other reasons.
However there are multiple people in line to take her mantle as leader of the left if she does not deliver. Remember AOC crawled back to DSA this year to ask for their endorsement and promised not to support the iron dome. This is after they had un-endorsed her over this.
I was specifically asking you what would happen if AOC took office and failed to deliver. She would obviously have no reason to care what the DSA thinks of her after becoming leader of the free world. Her concern then would be on securing re-election, not appealing to the far left.
Yes, and winning multiple pro-Palestinian senators + winning primaries against pro-Israel incumbents in congress in one midterm, would be one of these stepping stones.
No, it wouldn't. The entire American senate could have Hamas tattoos on their foreheads, and that wouldn't in and of itself necessarily translate into any kind of material victory for the pro-Palestinian movement. Electing politicians who agree with you is necessary but not sufficient for accomplishing your material goals.
A whole lot of wishful thinking and a fundamental failure to understand the word "material".
I agree with you that it may be coordinated. My question is why you don't consider the possibility that it was coordinated by the Moroccan government, but instead immediately jump to the conclusion that it's the Israelis pulling the strings.
(I mean, I know why you jumped to that conclusion. I'm just pointing out holes in your reasoning.)
More options
Context Copy link