domain:reddit.com
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2m ago
I am once again asking you to have a little empathy for people you find disgusting
Tried that. They turned tail on me, defined me and mine and disgusting, and started persecuting in earnest. That's a large part of the culture war.
Mantergeistmann
7m ago
The new trans woman in Congress who was making video threats about bashing their female colleagues head in the bathroom seemed very threatening.
I'd heard that there had been threats, but not threats by a member of congress.
Dean
11m ago
So anyway, next time you see some dude in a dress, with long hair and breasts but a face and voice obviously male despite his best efforts, think about what kind of emotions must have driven him to that place, and have a little empathy.
And enforce rules he or she does not like anyway even if they occur at their expense, correct?
'Empathy' is not an exception to social regulation. It may be used to claim it, or demand it, or insist that it should, but the fundamental purpose of government is to tell people 'no' and enforce that objection by force if necessary. This includes, and is especially true, for demands by one on the part of others- be it life (no, they do not have to give you their lives), property (no, they do not have to give you their possessions), conscience (no, they do not have to follow your religion), or presence (no, they do not have to let you into their personal spaces).
It is precisely because the government is in the business of allocating resources and punishments that governments are ethically obliged to not do so on the basis of empathy. Empathy is, after all, easiest for those we already care about and in scarce supply for our rivals or opponents. Empathy is, additionally, easy to fake and yet hard to measure- there are any number of performative appeals to empathy, but few metrics to actually identify those who need it (often because they cannot speak for themselves). A society ruled by empathy is an often cruel place, as it is one which takes from those less emapthizable with and gives to those who are most successful in bullying social pressure to claim the profits for themselves.
This is why virtuous governments are ruled by laws, not empathy. Empathy may be a consideration in the laws a just society creates, but only in accordance with any other virtue or favor, and refusing to enforce socially validated laws in the name of empathy for a select groups is a lack of empathy for other groups.
BurdensomeCount
Apparently "BIPOC" is a racial slur now.
13m ago
Modern day twitter basically forces right wing stuff on you the moment you go there. I want to read interesting material regardless of political valence (tell me about the history of cookbooks etc.), not see the libs get owned (eventually one gets tired of that sort of stuff) but that's what Twitter has as its "default meal" these days.
ControlsFreak
14m ago
Let's go a bit slowly here, as you've shown yourself very prone to erratically jumping between different arguments, without much logical connection to what has been said. We were discussing a specific aspect of medicine, and after you struggled mightily in using your vast domain-specific knowledge to make a coherent argument, you invoked Chesterton's Fence, again sort of erratically and not weaved into a coherent argument. Chesterton said:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This was your pithy attempt to just tell me to shut up and go away. However, Chesterton explicitly said that one is to come back after they can explain what the use of it was, where usually, this is interpreted to mean that one has understood that reasonably intelligent humans went through the effort to erect the fence, and so this must have happened for some use for someone. In our case, the fence is the requirement that basically every drug requires a prescription.
I'm going to start needing some clear affirmations of the progress we've made if I'm going to believe that you're arguing in good faith and are willing to have an honest back-and-forth rather than just erratically lurching in every which way, mostly trying to wave your degree around and telling me to shut up. Do you clearly affirm that I have, in fact, described how humans found value in setting up this fence and why it came to be?
If you do not agree, then we need to return to that question. If you do agree, then we can come back to where we were. Let's talk testosterone. Let's hear your argument (only after you explicitly agree that we have satisfied the last demand you made, but before we lurch off onto another hundred erratic demands you'd like to make).
Sophistry (and gish gallops) is not a substitute for a coherent argument.
justmotteingaround
16m ago
Indeed. To take an easy case, I have to constantly admonish secular people have to such empathy and magnanimity towards religious people. Many secular people consider religious folk mentally diseased and morally defective. This is not meant to be insulting. I just take ethics seriously. It would be easy for me decide that all religious people are intellectually and morally deranged; a lost cause. They routinely claim certainty about something I know they are not certain. Almost always they were indoctrinated about what to believe, and then not to question it. Case closed, right?
But that's not the whole story. I know that religion does so much good for so many people. I know what spiritual yearning and salvation feels like. Order. Comfort. Community. Humility that this world is much bigger than we can even begin to understand. To realize that the purpose life - no matter who is controlling it - is to love whoever is around to be loved. To realize that one friend is all one needs in order to be well supplied with friendship. Imaginary friends should count, too.
So yeah, I think being religious means something is mentally wrong with you. But don't let what I have written tell on me. I - the author of this post - actually, sincerely, earnestly, unsarcastically and unironically, have empathy for religious people.
But this isn't about religion.
This is about empathy. Not pity. Not sympathy. And certainly not about condoning actions one finds immoral. Empathy isn't best derived from an analogous personal experience. Thoughts can overcome emotion. As a straight guy, I too find depictions of men blowing and butt fucking one another to be inherently gross. According to John Haidt, this is fairly normal as when some straight men are show such images, areas in brain related to disgust become active. However, I have the analogous feelings of love and lust to fall back on. When a gay person says "I want that too" my emotions are easily overcome. When it comes to trans related issues I'm more at a loss. I have hated myself in one way or another, but never in a way that altering my outward appearance would be useful. I'm quite open to experience, so when a trans person tells me they want to be trans on their own time, I have to felt sense or moral or ethical implication, and am willing to make reasonable accommodations in kind. However, when trans activists make a religion out of woke, I can delineate what and is or is not a reasonable accommodation in kind. Importantly, I can still have empathy for the terminally woke. It probably is genuinely distressing to think the Cass Report is bigoted pseudoscience, or that there is some sort of trans genocide, as is often hysterically claimed. Empathy has a role to play in destroying bad ideas.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
19m ago
I just woke up from a nightmare where I noticed the top of my head was balding. Even as a man with a very nice head of hair, having a bald dad gives you generational trauma :(
I think most of the recommendations here make sense. I'd personally advocate for topical minoxidil first and foremost, and then finasteride as an option second, if you're willing to accept the risks. If all else fails and you have the money, Turkey or Mexico beckons.
RenOS
the mountain passed, the sea in front
19m ago
On the other hand, many relationships I've talked about more in-depth with people include some moment in which one partner, usually the women, has some doubts and breaks it off for a while only to come back (often almost immediately). LDRs are one of the most common causes. And she is kind of right, if you only dated a few months, not committing to an LDR of more months than that is a very reasonable decision. Doesn't mean she isn't open to a proper relationship afterwards, and the fact that she starts the messages again shows that she likely has at least some interest still.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
22m ago
Since you're being pretty up front about it and accepting the inevitable consequences, I'm only going to ban you for one day, but yes, this is absolutely not the kind of post we want.
Every one of us (including me) has a list of "people I can't fucking stand and wish would fuck off forever." If even blocking them is not enough for you and their very existence causes you to post things like this, that is a you problem. Deal with it in some manner other than this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
28m ago
Really? Before the trans debate, do you think men could just occasionally walk into the women's bathroom and pee in peace while only being freaked out at by rare Karens?
Men who were making a genuine effort to dress and pass as women (even if they didn't really pass)? Yes.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
29m ago
Out of curiosity, have you actually read any books about the history of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you think you could accurately summarize both the Israeli and the Palestinian positions in words that they themselves would agree with? Of course there is no single "Israeli" or "Palestinian" position, which is part of my point below, but even narrowing it down to the militant partisans on either side?
Yes, I said that my view was based on those things, not that I was just directly quoting them, and I don't think any individual element of that description is inapplicable. Even pro-Israeli partisans admit they've killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, including women and children - “There are no schools in Gaza, as there are no children left.” was proudly chanted by them in public.
Who is them? The footballers in Amsterdam?
It's undeniable that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. There is no war, especially one happening in an urban environment, where lots of casualties weren't women and children. This doesn't make their war just, but it does make it unexceptional. Nor are the Israelis exceptional in having some drunken footballers chanting terrible things and soldiers in the field sometimes getting up to stupid and offensive grunt shit to amuse themselves.
I've based my views on quotes straight from the mouths of Likud officials, not Hamas. As I said, I'm not condemning the Israelis as evil (I don't think calling a state evil really has much meaning) - I'm just taking them at their word.
That would require you to describe them as they would describe themselves. Do you think they would describe themselves as "a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs"? Again, you aren't using the word "evil" but you're clearly saying, in not so many words, that they're evil monsters and there is no other way to explain them.
Also, Likud is one political party in Israel whose popularity waxes and wanes. They do not speak for the Israeli state and the entirety of the Israeli citizenry. This would be like taking some of the Republicans' most extreme statements and saying they speak for Americans. (Which of course is exactly what they and their enemies would both like to claim, but it doesn't make it true.) Much has been made of Netanyahu's "Amelek" comment. Netanyahu is a sort of Trump-like figure in Israel - he has a lot of supporters, especially after 10/7, but a substantial portion of the Israeli's population hates him. Think of all the outrageous things Trump has said, which a sizeable portion of the American population would not agree with, and then claiming that Trump was clearly speaking for the American people, and reflecting what Americans think. In an abstract sense, this may be true (they elected him, after all), but at the same time, you'd be completely wrong in claiming he's channelling the American psyche and voicing what the average American thinks about everything. Netanyahu, and other militant Likud officials, are pretty open about despising Palestinians, and there's a sizeable portion of Israel that would just like the Palestinians to go away (who can blame them, after all this time?). But most Israelis do not want to exterminate Palestinians because God said to, and you know this and you know it's not an accurate characterization, you're just using that description because it makes Israel sound really super-evil.
I'm just taking them at their word. I think that they're motivated by ethnonationalist impulses
"Motivated by ethnonationalist impulses" is rather different from "literally wants to commit genocide because God told us to," which is what you are claiming.
We have a number of white ethnonationalists here, and while sometimes they will admit that they would be okay with a violent solution to create the ethnostate they want, none of them would accept as uncharitable a description of their motives as the one you are claiming is the Israeli one.
Whether or not you believe ethnostates are bad, people (including Israelis) want them for reasons beyond "We hate other people and want to purify the Earth."
That's precisely what I'm doing
No, you are assuredly and absolutely not. Again, can I ask what books you have read?
I can imagine how insanely hard that would be, to have something wrong with your brain so that instead of having sexual and romantic attraction to the opposite sex, you have it to the same sex. And how hard it would be to have all those feelings of eros, of being-in-love, that scream to you from the rooftops that this is right and good and beautiful and what I'm meant to do, except unnaturally directed towards another man.
Can you?
Because the actual answer to how hard it is, is "not at all, actually". This is way, way more projection than anything any of us actually feel -- save those who have been bullied and belittled into thinking they should feel that way. But as someone who has been anti-religious since early primary school it has not been difficult in the slightest to deal with. If anything, seeing the state of women in 2024, I feel lucky. Blessed, even.
Anyway, I don't think the reason most ordinary people take against trans is disgust in any case. I think it's the entitlement.
99.9% of the population are supposed to change their manner of speaking and the rules for this 0.1%, who aren't ever even grateful for any kind of effort, but just make more and more demands once any inches are given. If you do not believe a man can become a woman, an incredibly common belief, you are supposed to never ever voice this belief, and indeed act and speak contrary to it at all times, because it is your responsibility, your duty, to reinforce these people's identities at all times. But they'll still fucking despise you despite it.
And don't you dare try to exclude them from your dating pool, even if they have the wrong genitals! That's -phobic, makes you a "genital fetishist" and "not really gay, since you only like dick and not men" and that means they get to call for your death on public social media and that's justified and totally fine. Bigot!
Nah. Fuck 'em.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
30m ago
Genuine empathy cannot be compelled. And to the extent that it could be, it would have no value. We should encourage understanding; that is, a rational understanding of the physical and social causes that make people think as they think and do as they do. But such understanding is distinct from empathy and compassion as emotional affects.
What I find most obnoxious about the contemporary transsexual "movement" is that they have legislated, by social fiat, a prescribed position on a philosophical question that rightly should be a matter of free inquiry and debate: namely, the metaphysics and ontology of gender. This really grinds my gears like nothing else. Possibly more than anything having to do with bathrooms or puberty blockers. The right to open inquiry is one of the closest things I have to a sacred value. When you are forced to refer to an MTF transsexual as "she", you are being compelled, under social duress, to assert as an ontological truth that this person just is a woman (and all parties are aware that that's plainly what's going on here - otherwise it wouldn't be such a heated topic of disagreement in the first place). I can't accept being compelled to assent to such a contentious position.
For my part, the two positions on the ontology of gender that I take seriously are the conservative position - that there are such things as men and women, and the way we usually sorted people into those buckets up until ~40 years ago is basically correct - or the eliminativist position - that no person is either a man or a woman, and thus "X is a woman" is vacuously false for all X. On either position, to say that an MTF transsexual "is a woman" is to utter a falsehood, and thus I do not believe that such a statement should be socially compulsory. There have been serious attempts to develop an ontology that would support the transsexual position, and I treat them with the same respect that I give by default to all positions that I disagree with, but I don't personally consider any such view to be a live possibility.
Gaashk
31m ago
I don't necessarily feel disgusted. If I were forced by Society or the State to interact with a (certain kind of) trans woman in a female only space, I would probably feel threatened. The new trans woman in Congress who was making video threats about bashing their female colleagues head in the bathroom seemed very threatening. Trans women in contact sports or women's shelters seems potential threatening, on a case by case basis. I am basically fine with people using their intuition/gut/systems that are below the threshold of rationality to make decisions about things like "does this person feel threatening?" I think that we are wrong to try to squash that in the name of disparate impact.
Sex segregated spaces are usually a good thing. To the extent that we, as a society, have gotten rid of male spaces, that was mostly a bad idea and we should bring most of them back. To the extent that we are now in the process of getting rid of certain female only spaces by admitting trans women who the other women don't necessarily accept without coercion, that is also a bad thing. I think it is very reasonable to admit some trans women to some female spaces on the basis of vibes with the women, and not other trans women to other spaces, on the basis of things like large, strong, and has a penis. We've gone crazy and extra on marginal equity lately, which is a bad thing.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
31m ago
Not a Diablo player in the least, but John Carmack publicly stated on X that Elon actually does that, and that even his wife plays Diablo with him so as to be carried through tougher dungeons.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
49m ago
think about what kind of emotions must have driven him to that place, and have a little empathy.
But emotions can be flawed and often are.
If I see a stereotypical homeless schizophrenic person raving in the street, I definitely "feel" for them, but I'm not about to indulge their delusions of being Jesus Christ.
The thing that's never made sense to me about Trans ideology is that it seems to be firmly planted in the feeling and emotional camp for justification. If you really, truly feel you are the wrong gender, then, apparently, transition is a remedy for that. But there are thousands of people who, daily, really, truly feel that they are depressed, angry, lonely ... and still thousands more who deeply feel they are Jesus Christ. For this later group, we identify that that doesn't meet with reality and, therefore, that dissonance is a disease (or illness, whatever the preferred nomenclature is) and we ought to help that person through it (to the extent that they are capable. There's another thread in here about forced institutionalization, but let's stay focused). I would assume that any psychiatrist who has a patient who swears up and down that they are Napoleon reborn, and then offers that patient a prescription for Fancy French uniforms, they would be rightfully stripped of their professional license.
I have no problem with the idea of men or women wanting to dress, act, "present" as the other gender. If this provides joy and happiness in your life, that's wonderful. But the forced Kafabe of reality is a problem because society should never prioritize emotional comfort over truth (for adults ... we get to play a little fast and loose when raising children as they have to be taught emotional maturity gradually). The word games around "sex" versus "gender" don't make any meaningful distinction and only serve as a way to force conformity and create lines of demarcation for in-group and out-group.
Mostly, I think the trans issue is the same as the left-handed gun owners issue - there isn't one. For an vanishingly small percent of the population, they have severe mental and emotional issues that may or may not be alleviated through medical intervention. Many more are simply gay or lesbian folks reconciling with themselves. Some have generalized self-image issues. For example:
Sometimes -- during some periods in the past, at any time the thought would occur to me, which was quite often -- I want to be female... it's less common now because I don't indulge it as deeply -- I've almost never wanted to be what I actually am, male, except instrumentally... Why? I don't know why, that's just what is. Sucks to be me that I'm actually male, unlike half the human population.
Sorry to lightly edit your own words, but I think you can see how reading this could make someone think that it isn't about male-female, but more generally about self-conception/self-image acceptance. You could sub in some words about "fat" vs "skinny" and the sentences and ideas would still be coherent.
But the Trans-Ideology cult are none of those people and, instead, have taken up that cause as a political cudgel. Agreement with the ideology is far, far more important than empathy to the actual humans. Both of these are far, far less important than an accurate relationship with reality and the Truth.
DelendaEst
53m ago
I am much more hostile to trans than I am to gay, and more than I used to be. I wouldn't say I don't care if someone is trans or not, I will judge them and wouldn't want to hang out, but I am not here to police every dumb thing people do. So then I should be in favor of trans people being left alone right? I guess, but only if they will agree to leave me alone, and they certainly have not.
Demanding that society redefine gender to suit them even though it flies in the face of objective reality, trying to get men into women's only spaces, and otherwise trying to force everyone else to join them in their delusions is a hostile act, and I return it with hostility. If they want to be left alone and treated with anything other than hostility I say they can go first.
07mk
58m ago
My point about trans people experiencing passing is that there's no difference between the two for a trans person going about their day.
This seems fair enough, and I'd characterize it as that a trans person's experience of passing is indistinguishable from not passing within certain environments and contexts, particularly ones where everyone around them decides to treat them as if they pass. It's the difference between passing a test because you legitimately got 70% of the questions correct and because the professor decided that you deserved a free 50 points on top of the 20% you got correct. You can argue that, technically, the latter fits the definition of "passing," but I don't think that's a very useful definition for the way people normally use the term. For one, it implies that one viable strategy for passing tests is to manipulate every professor you have into giving you a free 50 points, which would subvert the entire purpose of what "passing" a test is meant to signify. I don't think when people say things like "if the transwoman passes, I'm okay calling her a 'she' and having her go into the women's bathroom," they mean that they'd be okay with it as long as they've been bullied, coerced, or otherwise manipulated into treating the transwoman as if they're female regardless of their own subjective perception of the transwoman. Rather, I think they mean something about how an ignorant stranger would perceive the transwoman.
No_one
58m ago
By centrist I don't mean someone who is in the political centre as party politics are concerned, just someone with no firm ideology or agenda.
Apart from his opposition to transgender issues, what politics does he have?
Wanting an efficient government that obeys the law and preferences of citizens and that isn't getting in the way is pretty much a non ideological.
Nobody but certain very narrow segments of political class desire infinity migration.
Tanista
1hr ago
Diablo 4 players, how likely do you think it is that Elon Musk is bullshitting about his global ranking? What time investment would you need to get into the top 20?
Throwaway05
1hr ago
In order to have a conversation about increased patient autonomy you need to know the risks and benefits of increased autonomy. I'm not saying you are stupid, I'm saying you don't know anything about medicine or prescribing, which is the thing you are trying to alter. Demonstrating knowledge of the regulatory landscape is not the same as demonstrating the risks and benefits and you certainly have not intimated any knowledge of the many, many discussions about patient autonomy that have been going on for the last several hundred years.
You don't. And that's normal. If I was arguing for deregulation of nuclear energy and you told me you were an expert and that was insane and I blew you off by mumbling about something else, well...no bueno.
You are arguing that people have a right to walk along the train tracks without knowing about the existence of trains.
Since the 1938 date-
How much has the number of drugs increased since then? How much has polypharmacy increased since then? How much has comorbidity increase since then? How much has personal behavior in response to healthcare changed since?
Do you know to think about any of these things?
Sophistry is not a substitute for domain specific knowledge.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1hr ago
I think honestly I’d consider the relationship over. She’s not looking for you because she misses you. If she did, she’d probably not have broken it off. She probably did move, and either hasn’t yet found someone nearby or she did and th3 relationship came apart. To my mind, that’s not her choosing you, but her choosing to contact you because she can’t find someone in her new environment. If she really thought you were someone she could see herself marrying or even long-term dating, she would have at least made that offer. For whatever reason she didn’t want to. There’s nothing long term here.
My go to of any relationship among people in any context is if they wanted to, they would. If they really want to have a long term relationship with you, they would be making moves to make that happen— either not moving or committing to a LTR or something like that. If they actually want to marry you, they’ll be making concrete moves n that direction. If someone wants to be your friend, they will be willing to make time for you and to actually invite you over on occasion. If your boss really sees you getting promoted, you’ll see concrete moves in that direction— more training, being invited to conferences, being asked for input on things, maybe asked to fill in n occasion. On it goes, but my point is pay closer attention to what people are doing over what they are saying. If there’s a mismatch between words and deeds, go with the deeds.
The other night I rewatched a movie I liked when I was younger, Heartbreakers. If you want a light comedy featuring a funny performance from Ray Liotta and a hysterical one from Bob Hoskins (and also a leading turn from Jennifer Love Hewitt in her prime, displaying acres of leg and cleavage), check it out.
The premise of the film (this is revealed in the first ten minutes of the movie so it's hardly a spoiler, but the movie would probably be more entertaining if you go into it blind) is this:
WhateverHappenedToNorman
2hr ago
I have a lot of sympathy for the heavily gender dysphoric: their existence seems to be very painful, and the apparent best treatment currently avaiable to them, gender transition hard and early, cannot be reasonable healthcare policy with today's screening methods: You're going to ruin the life of many a confused child (or the children of histrionic psychos).
The problem is that their plight gets used as a cover for a bunch of perverts, fetishists, political actors and other assortments of malcontents. As such, trans-acceptance discourse is not properly framed as what it might be: an act of kindness, for which boundaries need to be set, and in which some people who are suffering are not going to get everything they want.
He’s basically gwern but seems more interested in taboo and political stuff than gwern is
More options
Context Copy link