aqouta

aqouta 4mo 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.

-5

Context

aqouta 4mo 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.

Context

aqouta 4mo 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.

Context

aqouta 4mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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?

Context

aqouta 5mo ago · Edited 5mo ago

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?

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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?

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

-2

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo 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.

Context

aqouta 5mo ago

heavy taxes on the parties who benefit directly from the loans over the decades.

I look forward to this meaning those of us who paid off our loans but are in the wrong industries get hit by this twice and those that didn't and are in the right industries get a double boon.

Context

Moderations, Bans, and the State of the Motte - Let's have a Discussion

aqouta 5mo ago

The main problem is just the source of new blood since leaving reddit. I've dropped a couple links to vault on twitter as a bread crumb and can't really know if we've caught anymore. Improving the vault, updating it with more links might help. I think more or less the moderators do an excellent job and I have very little criticism, I could give or take the hlynka ban.

Context

aqouta 5mo ago

And during the ottoman empire land ownership was created, given to Arabs, some of which became absentee landlords(often by tricking the people who lived there into thinking the land rights were a scam) and later sold some of that land to the jews who moved in and kicked the Arab tenants off the land they bought. Hundreds of thousands of jews didn't show up out of no where, that's not an accurate paraphrasing of what hat happened and the details matter. The ottomans were in no way the same people as the Arabs in the land that they ruled over.

I'm not even fully on the side of the zionists but your description is cartoonishly one sided.

Context

aqouta 5mo ago

I'll drop my take in the interest of breaking that 1000 post mark. I am not a big fan of this, I do not like Trump or the deranging effect he has on politics and wish for him to be defeated the normal way. That said he's probably guilty of this and more likely guilty of the documents case.

I long even more than before for an end to the Trump era. I miss the ability to have actual substantive discussion between the parties that aren't dominated by a rehashing blow by blows of nationally embarrassing stories. The president should be above these kinds of thing. I understand the slippery slope of letting petty scandals give your enemies a veto over who you can rally behind but can it at least be made hard? Would that be so much to ask? That a candidate not actually cheat on his wife with a porn star such that the legality of hush money paid needs to be debated? Surely that bar is low enough.

The toxic Israel Palestine debate where the protestors chant inane slogans at the decrepit president that stands behind Israel no matter what is a breath of fresh air because as stupid as most of the narratives are at least they're about the conflict.

Some have noted that we're already almost into June and it doesn't really feel like a race is on yet. A normal outcome of having two relatively uncontested primaries after two hotly contested elections in a row but even with things not yet ramping up I'm already exhausted. A feeling I think I share share with our two presidents both born in the 40s before disposable Diapers and the Transistor and Color TV.

I don't have a great way to wrap this comment up, or this election. It's probably going to be pretty consequential who wins but I feel like I'm holding my breath until 2028 election.

Context

aqouta 5mo ago

The Palestinians were in Mandatory Palestine peacefully living their lives and doing their thing when hundreds of thousands of Jews invaded their country, formed a fifth column, and declared independence at gunpoint.

One of the most interesting thing abouts this conflict that I've had the pleasure of learning since I too like @Folamh3 have taken to catching up on the history is how much you can tell about someone by how they read the tea leaves on this conflict and decide to characterize events. There is enough back and forth over many years that one can justify just about any framing and find facts to fit the pattern. The story to you starts with as some sudden wave of hundreds of thousands of Jews all at once showing up, in a place where there was some kind of coherent community to even betray.

Context

aqouta 5mo ago

Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?

The appeasement of Hitler is just the most recent example of appeasement not working and people keep suggesting that Russia should be appeased by letting them take over Ukrainian territory. You'll note that after Hitler was stopped the rest of the west did not colonize Germany and it still exists as an influential independent country in good standing.

The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things.

These were not wars of conquest nor was proximity to NATO countries a major factor.

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.

I'm just not really interested on whether we've hurt Putin's feelings because after he invaded neighbors unprovoked in a war of conquest he gets compared to the last guy in Europe to invade his neighbors in wars of conquest. It doesn't somehow retroactively justify the whole invading your neighbors in wars of conquest thing. You don't get to act like an unhinged lunatic because you're concerned that people around you might treat you like an unhinged lunatic and then pretend your subsequent treatment justifies your behavior. when you escalate and have all the ability in the world to de-escalate you can't call the people you're currently invading unreasonable for not de-escalating, this isn't even behavior we'd accept in our toddlers.

All Putin and Russia need to do is get the fuck over themselves and step out of the 20th century. The whole high school bully act was lame after you graduated and decades on it's just pathetic.

Context