aqouta
No bio...
Friends:
User ID: 75
I think one should probably not try to draw too many conclusions from votes on trump threads. I'd hazard at least half of regulars just collapse any thread with trump in it immediately. I suggest others do the same, it makes the place much more enjoyable.
Wait, how'd we get to civil liberties? We're talking about decorations on public property. As far as I know there is no such liberty and demanding the walls be painted blank white would violate no actual rights.
If a guy did a squat stream that prominently displayed their ass (maybe for form demonstration reasons) would Twitch mod it for sexual content? What if a woman did the same? I have no trouble believing Twitch would mod the woman but not the man.
I'm surprised everyone else just seemed to swallow this proposed injustice. Male and female squat demonstrations should be treated the same. A woman who has some kind of exercise stream and shows all sorts of movements in good faith trying to demonstrate fitness should be fine. But I think we all know that there would be a little bit of that "I know porn when I see it" going on in 95% of the woman squatting streams and like 5% of the male squatting streams.
Lots of places rely on the unpaid/voluntary labour of hopefuls to carry them through backlogs, or the busy period, or rush orders.
There is a certain narrative that this is common but I'm not sure a buy it. Maybe it's just software engineering but interns have never made sense as a free labor prospect to me, they cost more in senior dev time spent training than they could possibly be alleviating. It only makes sense as a junior talent pipeline tool.
Patriarchy doesn't mean "imposed by men on women" It means men take the role of leaders. Like most culture it's primarily transmitted from one generation to the next through women teaching their children. I think it's wrong to model it as maximizing what men want although that is basically how unsophisticated feminists use the term.
Retailers get that giving you credit is the real way to sink their claws into you.
If it's zero interest and you're responsible there is not reason not to finance everything at 0% interest. I understand this is bad advice to dumb people who are not responsible but I've done very well just off inflation before opportunity cost into investments for financing many things.
As someone who personally got to their mid 20s with no credit history and has found out the hard way that the only way to build a up a pillar of a good score is to wait a decade despite excellent income and perfect payments I certainly think some improvement can be made. Does the credit history past a year or two really capture anything besides who's parents had the foresight to open a card in their name as kids?
And so the whole world must be made blind. I want no part in it.
You're letting affective valence drive your interpretation, and being maximally uncharitable towards anyone not treating your views with careful aesthetic kid gloves
That's about as much as I needed to read. Good luck. What could possibly be the point of arguing when you get to just pretend I said something different and attack that person.
'Lower average IQ' is aesthetically nicer than 'more stupid'
No. These are not the same statement. They say vey different things. If I were to say that black people are more stupid than white people I would be denying the important fact that there are indeed black people smarter than myself and white people dumber than nearly all black people. It's very important, and I am careful always to be very specific about this fact.
We are talking about population level averages that we could, as a society, just decide not to look at or be interested in at all. I have no idea what the relative average iq or job achievement of blonde haired people is when compared to brunettes and I don't care to know.
This is not hair splitting, it is foundational to the prescription. That you pattern match them is perhaps why this has had to be described to you so many times. Do no not pattern match this. Put away your bingo card.
'less suited for or interested in' is aesthetically nicer than 'more incapable than'
uninterested vs incapable just very trivially mean different things. This matters a whole lot in particular discussions like the Damore memo you invoke. It really does matter if women are not going into some high paying fields because they are understandably unpleasant to most people VS if they're being discriminated against in hiring. It is very possible there just isn't a way to make things like computer programmer much more interesting to women but we could definitely reduce discrimination. This difference is critically important to any serious look at the topic. That you think they mean the same thing despite being told exhaustively multiple times that they don't leaves me in a kind of good faith trap. Is it worse faith to assume you're just incapable of understanding this difference or to assume that you understand it but are playing dumb?
Less suited for is closer to a incapable but then again I'm unsure why I'm defending words you conjured.
Those two rephrasing of my beliefs are egregious enough themselves but then you, and I understand why you didn't even bother trying to defend this part, broke out:
and stop giving them jobs that earn more than a subsistence wage?
What a thing to say! What an absurd thing to assume would happen if we used race blind hiring. I believe we'd see disproportion in many jobs but you seem to think that there are no black people that can compete on merit. Not to mention that you apparently equate less than average pay to be equivalent to bare subsistence.
It would be one this if I had any faith that you'd take any of this onboard and avoid applying this uncharitable filter to the things people like me say in the future. But I think we've had this talk before. I think I will wake some time in the future to a post by you that has made the same error, not even on a different topic but this same topic. You are in love with your hatred of a position that as far as I can tell is not held by anyone here.
We go back to having white men be 70% of characters in all entertainment media, and another 25% are white women with zero character traits beyond 'sexy and horny for the main character'?
We all agree that actually women and minorities are genetically more stupid and incapable than white men, and stop giving them jobs that earn more than a subsistence wage?
Could you put even a little effort into not straw manning the opposing viewpoint?
Is it possible anyone could actually believe that anyone would go through the extreme risk and effort to abduct a child and transport them for 4 figures? It doesn't even pass the smell test.
absolute banger. struck a real chord with the anxiety I feel about staying in the private sector and trying to start a family and my bafflement that anyone has time to run for politics. It seems important to me that from my middle class upbringing I don't know anyone who actually has a politically oriented life path and if you tasked me with becoming to the mayor of my city I'd have to google what that process could even look like.
Seems like a good candidate for a scissor statement
I think toxoplasmosis is the more apt scottism.
Just to make sure my position is clear before we give up, for posterity if nothing else
fear not, eventually this topic will come up again and a new angle can be taken until one of us slowly comes to our senses. I hope it's me, it would be much more convenient in my social circles to confidently be on the TRA side.
I agree that we're probably at an impasse, except that I would again ask you to think about reconsidering the level of scrutiny you're placing on this one. How do you 'prove' that you're a 'fan' of a particular artist, or that you're an 'extrovert' or 'mildy autistic' or 'smart' or 'emotionally mature' or any of a million other very normal things to say about someone that are mostly premised on mental features?
I think part of the disconnect is that there is no way for me to convince you I'm not trying to gatekeep out of some arbitrary adherence to categories. I'm not talking about a third person trying to determine if the perspective trans person is 'really trans'. I'm talking about the person themselves honestly evaluating their experience and trying to come to the determination that they're a girl trapped in a man's body or vice versa. That's why I'm talking about their ability to internally differentiate between the true or false belief that they have qualia in line with the opposite sex. I don't think this is the kind of thing someone can actually answer. It's not falsifiable. It's difficult to express how much more comfortable I'd be with this if there was like some kind of brain scan we could do and falsify the belief in some people. The phenomenon of noticing symptoms of whatever medical condition you've most recently read about makes me deeply suspect that many people who would have otherwise lived normal happy and fulfilling lives if they had never heard of transgenderism are able to convince themselves that they were always the opposite sex. Especially children who are prone to adopting fads like goth/emo/whatever and investing far more than an appropriate amount of the identity into it such that it feels like a self betrayal to later admit they were caught up in a trend. It's the kind of thing I could have fallen into as a disaffected kid who, like all kids, didn't exactly conform in every way to the masculine ideal.
we have a written questionnaire they fill out or have a psychiatrist take some observations or something. Gender clinics already do stuff like that in these cases, I don't know the full details but I'm pretty confident you could make a written test similar to an IQ test or DSM diagnostic criteria that most trans people would pass.
And the "correct" answer to these questions is posted online where potential trans people are coached on how to get past these gates.
Sure, I think and have long thought this is the truth. But the commons they burn with the lies they live doom children. They are trapping the priors of others.
If you think described experience is sufficient to differentiate between the experience of incorrectly and correctly believing you have the same experience as someone then that's where we disagree and I'm not sure how we can go further. I'm aware we can vaguely hint at experience through language but it's an incredibly lossy thing.
I'm thinking this in terms of how I could actually prove to myself what gender I am and I am absolutely not satisfied that I couldn't argue myself either way. A child would have no chance, most of them believe in santa because they were told to by someone they trust.
They didn't have rights under the crown either. You were describing rights gained by tactics.
Do you think you know what it is like to be a bat?
These were not the tactics used in the mid 70s, this is an extremely new phenomenon.
We didn't socially construct the female sex. Females do not have higher estrogen, wombs, larger breasts ect because society decided they should. The gender "woman" is built up around the reality of a sexually dimorphic species which must deal with the reality that half of the population has meaningfully different abilities and reproductive role. The qualia of womanness is the internal female experience.
There is a claim that tran women have this qualia and not the compliment male internal experience. The mismatch in these qualia is what causes dysphoria.
Maybe you have some other justification for the existence of trans people but it is tiresome to have the same behavior explained by dozens of different just so stories that all seem to fall apart immediately upon examination.
They never didn't have rights. These tactics have done nothing to advance them.
There being such as thing as being a woman separate from biology is foundational to trans people being a coherent concept. If there is no such "woman" qualia how can you actually explain dysphoria? A miss match implies a correct match which implies some category.
Legal recognition of what? Which rights are people missing? To go with the gay rights metaphor I was in favor of taking the state out of marriage and building out civil unions to be the state equivalent with no reference to gender. I'm deeply suspicious that what you're implying is you want to use the state to enforce some views you have on gender and sexuality and not just as a meditating body for letting people live peacefully with those who disagree with them.
Public employees already have very controlled expression rights on the job. This argument seems really silly. Public employees are entrusted with unusual power and those powers come with limitations on speech while wielding that power. You would not be confused about this if cop cars were decked out in trump gear. They're decorating public property.
More options
Context Copy link