FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
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.
1d ago
Where did I accuse him of either of those things?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d 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.
1d 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.
1d 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.
1d 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.
1d 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.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
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 think 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".
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
I still think Trump would get very irate if a member of his cabinet directly told him that he didn't win in 2020, incumbency notwithstanding.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Also, incels at least used to frequently use the term while most people do infrequently.
They call them "foids" now.
I also find the idea of trans activists complaining that it's creepy to use the word "female" as a noun more than a little rich, given the changes to the vernacular they demand of the rest of us. Women may not like being referred to as females, but I can't imagine they like it less than being referred to as "menstruators", "birthing parents" or "chestfeeders" (each of which has a "bonus hole").
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Even domestically, I'd say BLM's material gains were fairly meagre (for everyone other than Patrisse Cullors and co.).
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Turns out, it's really damn hard!
Look at that, you accidentally wrote something you can reuse as a line of dialogue.
I've realized I've been insufficiently consistent with my points of view in the novel. It's usually written with a single POV per scene, but some scenes utilize omniscient narration, which feels like head hopping. I insert a dinkus every time I have to switch the point of view mid-chapter, but this clearly doesn't work when it's two people hashing out their relationship status.
How Not to Write a Novel has an entire section about this, highly recommended.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
I said it was a powerful counter – I didn't say it was the same as "what is a woman?"
Every tribe's grand narrative of how the world works is flawed in some way. The Red Tribe came up with a great "gotcha" designed to expose a flaw in the Blue Tribe's model of the world ("what is a woman?"). Recently, the Blue Tribe has managed to catch up, developing a gotcha of their own. Not being American, I am fortunate enough to be afflicted with neither delusion, but have little doubt that my own model of the world is flawed in some way I'm unaware of. When I encounter a gotcha question of my own, I'll be sure to let you know.
But the argument actually seems to be built on a consensus which doesn't exist.
Is it? Consider the following propositions:
- Most Americans believe the results of the 2020 election were legitimate.
- Most Americans believe that trans-identified males are not women.
It does not therefore follow that most Americans believe both of the above propositions, and I don't recall ever claiming or implying that it did.
But it's worth mentioning that it wasn't so long ago that most Americans could be assumed to believe both propositions (that American presidential elections are safe and legitimate, and that no one born with a penis is a woman). That consensus may not exist now, but it did quite recently, and I suspect it will again.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Two-thirds of Americans sounds like "most people [in America]" to me.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
Support for ending aid to Israel is on the rise for 3 continuous years.
Just like support for BLM was on the rise for six continuous years (the Ferguson riots were in 2014) before abruptly falling off a cliff in 2020. Very interesting!
Yes, it will quite obviously entirely change the US policies towards the whole of the Middle East, including Israels enemies. If you are in denial about this, I suspect you are in a minority, even among zionists.
Remind me to check back with you in six years. I suspect know AOC is not quite as incorruptible as you would have me believe. I look forward to the day the DSA turns on her for being a "Zio stooge" and claim that Mossad has some dirt on her that means her hands are tied.
Well like any movement, they build their case gradually.
Eighty years since the founding of Israel, an independent Palestinian state has not come a millimetre closer. How much time do you people need?
"Building a case gradually" suggests that you're winning tangible stepping-stone victories along the path to one's terminal goal. But I will reiterate that, aside from meaningless symbolic victories, the pro-Palestine movement has accomplished nothing, in the US or elsewhere.
The idea that anyone could consider the pro-Palestinian movement an example of a "successful political movement for change" is so laughable that I literally thought you were joking at first brush.
Supposing you meet a male person who is independently wealthy, didn't need to work for a living, and lived 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?
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.
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.
Yeah, sounds like it.
Nothing, just that I find it annoying, along with many of your verbal tics (including "prexactly").
More options
Context Copy link