aqouta
No bio...
Friends:
User ID: 75
This is silliness. Maybe you'd have a point if @TracingWoodgrains used his credibility to push the story but he didn't. LOTT ate bait posted by an anonymous source with zero attempt at verification. He did not pimp out his name. There is no reason to believe anything he writes is a hoax. The only lesson one can reasonably draw from the whole thing is that you shouldn't take the word of random anonymous people or those who do.
aqouta
2mo ago
Love the audio version, a good break from the monotone tts player nearly everything else goes through for me.
aqouta
2mo ago
Does anyone actually think Biden can beat Trump
Definitely, there's a lot of game left. Trying to call it before October seems a fool's errand. Anything greater than ~80% confidence seems like pure hubris to me. We have two people born in the 40s running very volatile campaigns.
aqouta
2mo ago
This is my experience too, but there's been a lot of discussion lately about typical mind fallacy. Trans people supposedly feel their gender directly, and I have no such experience. I'm not being flippant here, there is some possibility that it's just the case that we're missing out on some kind of widespread experience that many other men have. Like that theory from a while back that bronze aged stories about conversing with gods wasn't metaphor but the actual felt experience of the people involved.
aqouta
2mo ago
Normal people don't watch debates, they get their info from people who do. People who watch debates can take all sorts of things from them some of which are the actual policies hit on. It's a very dynamic thing.
aqouta
2mo ago
Your whole premise is flawed. It might make sense if we had some rule that everyone has to watch the debate but we don't. Normies wouldn't be caught dead spending over an hour watching two old people spittle on each other. CNN seems to have claimed somewhere between 50 to 80 million people tuned in, many of which could be internationals. What does influence normies is what their politics brained friends and collogues tell them happened and that is downstream of the words and the performance.
aqouta
2mo ago
I just think I'm skeptical that this is realistically going to work on any topic that is at all ideological. Even with everyone basically agreeing that over prescribing opiates is very bad we get these pain clinics you mention. On subjects even a little bit controversial? Forget about it. It just becomes a matter of who is doing the auditing and an endless series of proxy wars around that and the judges and the people who decide what should trigger an audit on and on and on.
Just the thought of the amount of wasted human effort waging those wars makes me feel exhausted. Societies can't be run like this, we must actually come to some consensus on what reality is or split into small enough exclusive groups who can agree.
aqouta
2mo ago
I don't have an answer to the actual question you're asking besides you can't and probably shouldn't. People should be allowed to make decisions about their bodies and before they're old enough to consent to those decisions we can't do much better than relying on the parent's responsibility to act in their children's interests. Will some parents do irreparable harm in a failure of this responsibility? Absolutely. Does it mean that gating any treatment behind a doctor's evaluation is basically pointless for anything that could plausibly be granted? Also yes. But the alternatives seem worse. If we think a treatment is categorically wrong or wrong given objective criteria like age of recipient then we should write laws that do that. The fight is properly had on the ideological level and the motivation for such a procedure if it can't be won there then it ought not be won on these obscure proxy grounds.
aqouta
2mo ago
This all just feels like moving deck chairs on the titanic. If being trans is real and we can indeed reliably detect it then all of this is pointless. If it's not then deciding what age to do the surgeries is the least of our issues. I don't see how there can be some middle road where we are confident it's real and detectable and yet should move cautiously.
aqouta
3mo ago
I don't disagree, but I'd argue that your position is not scientific/knowledge seeking. You want to protect white people.
What a trick this is! Ask why someone might be motivated to seek knowledge "why here, why now?" to imply racial hatred as motivation and then when some other motivation is reached for you say "See!? I knew no one could just value scientific knowledge!". From how you've constrained the options no path can lead to a genuine motivation.
If you're a supremacist you want to protect white people no matter what. If you're not, why protect white people when there are so many others in need? Surely whitey can wait. And if you want to challenge that aspect of progressive ontology you will be so far outside the Overton Window that they can easily just call you a racist nazi and move on. And I don't think they would be all that wrong in doing so, technically speaking. I mean, we did storm the beaches of Normandy for a reason, right? We depict those guys as heroic for a reason, right?
Being somewhat username blind it's not clear to me if you're merely trying to demonstrate how tightly hermetically sealed the progressive outlook is or if you find yourself caught in it. But in the interest of trying to unravel this nut either way. I will say I care about avoiding the pitfalls of impugning a people with the blood libel of unfalsifiable racism from the same parable the jews were famously put through and in a way that ought resonate deep in the western psyche. It is enough for me that it is cruel, unfair and a violation of our national aspiration to hold whites culpable for a crime they have not committed. But if I must appeal to the progressive stack, that loathsome concept, then I will say that it did not serve the nazis well to place the blame for all their troubles in the jews, nor did it serve Lysenko well to place the soviets on the other side of genuine scientific inquiry. History is replete with people and peoples who thought they could, this time, let resentment and catharsis take priority over truth and the hatred will not serve you. There is nothing to gain from this willful ignorance and much to lose.
aqouta
3mo ago
I don't even really think that's the end of the problem most unstable. The gaps will continue to exist among people with the same background so we're really going to go ahead with the belief that in 100 years when progressive thought is no longer fought at all that we're just going to let the obviously discriminatory leaders continue to do their harm?
If you want to argue in favor of science and knowledge... Why here, why now?
I don't know how many more times this can be repeated, I'm sure everyone with your position who posts here has had this explained but then you go on to ask these questions again so I will explain to you again. The reason it matters to many of us is because White people in America and the world broadly are being accused of a grievous crime of holding entire races of people down. Of perpetrating massive and distributed systems of racial discrimination. The proof is the outcomes from claimed to be meritocratic processes being unequal along racial lines. Everywhere that explicit racism can be found has been rooted out by ever more hysterical people who have gotten to the point of calling the idea of meritocracy itself to be racist.
This calls out for a search for an alternate explanation. And there are some pretty obvious places to check.
If not HBD and our attempts at rooting out explicit discrimination what's the progressive's actual endgame? Permanent and continuous transfers along racial lines with the agreed understanding that white people are just incapable of not discriminating against black people? You think that's a stable solution?
aqouta
3mo ago
I agree entirely. I give it maybe 2 years before AI makes it trivial for even small players to dox anyone with any substantial amount of online writing. My twitter account is just my real name now.
aqouta
3mo ago
They could unconditionally surrender. That's what I'd do if I found myself having started a war with a superior power despite having no actual army. Their other choices are set up shop where civilians aren't and get immediately destroyed or keep up what they're doing and getting their people killed. They've taken that option and are responsible for the obvious consequences.
aqouta
3mo ago
No, I'm saying hamas purposefully colocates military targets with civilians knowing that this will inevitably end up with dead Palestinian civilians which they record and use in propaganda.
aqouta
3mo ago
Yes, I had the same thought, this is very much just exactly the divisive stuff you'd expect Russia and Iran to push as much as possible. There are of course people who lap up the narrative and horrific images, the propaganda wing isn't so incompetent not to get some organic opposition with access to dead children and an organization happy to putting their children in the kind of danger that produces fresh horrific images.
aqouta
3mo ago
This seems like a misunderstanding of the reasons our democracy is failing to deliver compelling candidates. It's not the system, it's not the candidates, it's not some shadowy "they" at the top that will see the signal in your blank vote and adjust things to compensate. It's that we, the voters, have no single coherent thing that we want or can demand. Some few individuals, over represented on this forum, have thought out coherent ideas but as citizens in general we collectively want lower taxes and more government spending. We want less immigration but cheaper labor. We want our burgers to cost less but the guy flipping them to be paid more. What we would want is impossible so we can't have it.
What's the platform you imagine a better class of candidate would even run on? We've all had the self indulgent experience of imagining the speech we'd give on the campaign stage to bring the nation together. But after your elegant and coherent vision is expressed to the camera the other guy is going to accuse you of wanting to raise taxes or failing to support some popular increase in services and they'll be right.
The truth is that we're a divided people under a system that is designed to lock shut if there isn't a mandate. Our representatives can't push through what we want because it's not popular enough but they can shut down the other guy's thing that also isn't popular enough and we're going to keep supporting them in that shutting down because we find their radical ideas repellent. That's the way things are and they way things will stay until we as a nation are able to come back together and unite under a shared vision.
Vote blank if you want, it won't do anything because it can't do anything. You're screaming into a void and no one is listening.
aqouta
3mo ago
I understand "can humans be vermin" sounds like it could be on the 'IS' side of the Is/ought distinction but I think it's actually on the 'ought' side. I don't think "is there such a thing as an internal gender experience such that it can be out of alignment with a person's sex" is on the is side. I believe this because I think there is some amount of proof that could sway me into believing that gender as an innate felt experience is real while there is no proof that would cause me to believe that some humans are vermin.
aqouta
3mo ago
It seems like common sense to suppress the manifesto. Same reason you don’t publicize suicides. These things all have a huge amount of social contagion.
This is one of those things that seems like a good principle but when not applied evenly is a weapon. If the Christchurch shooter's manifesto was suppressible do you think it would be suppressed?
aqouta
3mo ago
This feels like quite a stretch. Maybe it's just the time I've spent among the progressives in my life but I know the type of people who, through blinding empathy, advocate for things like the WPATH guidelines.
There are certainly leftists who resent, hate and advocate for violence against people that I can see as analogous to nazis, as there are rightest for whom the comparison would be taken as high praise. So I don't think I'm just incapable of comparing modern people to nazis.
Rather than thinking of the consequences would you rather live with empathetic but misguided people or slightly more correct, with their own wrongness, people who advocate for and are willing to partake in violence against their out group?
Consequentialism in a moralish society has this quirk where straightforwardly evil people can't get public support and thus can't do much harm and thus rank low on consequential harm measures. While moral empathetic people can get lots of support and thus can cause lots of, inadvertent, harm and thus can score high on harm measures. This is a dynamic to look out for and we should always be critical and careful with those we entrust with great power. But it seems a horrible mistake to conclude that the moral empathetic people are as bad as the straightforwardly evil people on these grounds. It really matters that if we entrusted other groups with the power that the progressives are entrusted with that things would be much worse and they should get some reasonable credit for that. Not absolution, not a free pass, but they're not nazis.
aqouta
3mo ago
I think the thing is that these people do mostly share some distorted version of my values in the way that the Nazis don't. The Nazis tried to exterminate a people that they thought were vermin while invading their neighbors in a war of aggression. While the WPATH people are doing what they're doing out of a mistaken application of empathy and harm reduction. The modal true believing Nazi is a hateful bigot, the modal true believing WPATH person is someone who cares a lot about trying to alleviate suffering even if circumstances tragically end up such that they are causing more suffering. The camps weren't the Nazis trying to turn the jews and undesirables into Germans, they were built for the horrible purpose that they were used for. Trans healthcare is built to help people.
aqouta
3mo ago
Yes, despite deep skepticism of the trans worldview I've always modeled it as more confused than evil or anything. The people behind it clearly think they're making the world a better place and that there are tons of kids that are suffering immensely worse lives for not being found and allowed to be "who they really are". They don't seem to adequately grapple with the possibility that someone could be deluded into believing strange and untrue things about themselves especially when those things are packaged into appealing memes that contain soothing explanation for why they don't fit in or are confused at puberty. They genuinely believe that if someone say they're trans there is a special sense that definitely have in their head that is providing them total proof and that it can't possibly be imagined.
aqouta
3mo ago
pro tip, windows key + left/right arrow key has the same effect as dragging all the way to the side. If you continue to hold the windows key after doing this you can then hit the up or down arrow to quarter the window.
No reason to burn this bridge. I enjoy the new freer X as well, but the ground has not even settled yet. That is a land ruled by a mad an capricious man that any day may change his stance and wipe us from existence. That and, while I understand why the current obsessives might sour your experience, there is still magic here. I think before this election is done we'll need to rely on it again.
More options
Context Copy link