domain:astralcodexten.com
jake
14m ago
These three images are found in the article: 1 -- 2 -- 3
None of these images show gunshot wounds. These show children x-rayed after a bullet was placed beneath their heads or neck.
These are radiological findings of actual gunshot wounds to the head: 1 -- 2 -- 3
Image searching "cranial gunshot wound radiological imagery" is all you needed for the debunk.
Quoth the article:
These photographs of X-rays were provided by Dr. Mimi Syed, who worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. She said: “I had multiple pediatric patients, mostly under the age of 12, who were shot in the head or the left side of the chest. Usually, these were single shots. The patients came in either dead or critical, and died shortly after arriving.” Dr. Mimi Syed
That's damn bad luck she only had fakes to hand over. Guess we'll have to take her at her word, same for the journos and editors who applied I would estimate at approximately zero scrutiny and negative intelligence. On that note,
I believed the story because there's a huge number of people talking about what they saw treating casualties in Gaza
Nobody treating casualties in Gaza is a reliable source. The Israelis sure as hell aren't reliable either, but you are talking about the bleeding-est of bleeding hearts. These are people truly incapable of thinking about the conflict in terms any more complex than the immediately real of what they see treating the wounded. There is something admirable to those who go out of neither ethnic nor religious obligation, felt, implied, whatever. A white Catholic doctor treating those people, as I'm sure exists, is doing good, but they're never thinking critically. Critical thinking does not lend itself to going halfway around the world to treat war casualties. Critical isn't the same as clear, you know, they might be the clearest thinkers of all. Like, what the hell is everybody else thinking? People are dying and we can help. But if it is, that's warm, it's goodness, while realpolitik is frigid. If they're told an Israeli soldier shot the child they're treating, they will believe it, because they don't have it in them to doubt those who told them. Doubt would send them packing, but really, the doubt would make it so they never went.
I do not. I honestly have no desire to go looking for footage of children being gruesomely murdered, no matter how much it might strengthen my argument on an online forum. I'm aware that this is a dodge, but I'm sure you can appreciate that not only is graphic footage of child murder extremely hard to stomach, it is also banned by almost all major platforms and is frequently removed after it gets too "popular". I regret seeing the clips that I have seen and have no desire to repeat the experience.
This is a place for evidenced discussion and the evidence you provided is fake. To be clear, I don't believe you're commenting in good faith, I believe you're doing a good job at disguising mundane antisemitism. Namely because if you had seen as much graphic footage as you claim, you would know acute gunshot wounds to the head don't look like that. So either you're practicing sophistry in service of your point, or if I were to extend faith, it would mean you're too naive to yet comment on this issue, as it would be total indictment of your ability to assess the truth of things, such as your supposed videos. You take those bullet images uncritically, I must assume you take "graphic footage" equally uncritically. To match your anecdote, I've seen a lot of modern, graphic war footage over the last 15 years and I have not once seen a video anything like you describe.
So basically, pics or it didn't happen. Provide the video or stop citing it as though it has any bearing. I don't want to witness the child victims of war, but I've heard this so many times that I'd rather see it to know the truth of it than be forced to continue only speculating. I would certainly rather see it than take you at your word, because I will not take you at your word.
ControlsFreak
25m ago
Having someone who's more intelligent than you, knows a lot more about medicine than you, and has had a lot of practice managing patients instructing you on what to do helps a lot.
No one is talking about banning doctors. There are options other than "mandatory" and "banned". You can still have literally every word of that.
The doctor has a list of all the medications you are taking
ROFL. Only if you tell him. Or he works for the same conglomerate as your other doctors with the same records system. And again, no one is preventing you from doing these things. And again again, they're generally just a second set of eyes, and a pharmacist does this. There are so many ways that you can have some eyes on what you're taking and look for interactions without blanket bans on prescription meds. But if the point is to make sure you don't take specific different medications at the same time, they're gonna need to be in your house 24/7.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
27m ago
"Littlepeople shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of their Randian overlords" seems to be both a core driver of Musk's politics and a conventional aspect of right-wingery.
Musk is right-wing, and he is eccentric, but the way he is right-wing is entirely conventional. On economic issues he is anti-spending, anti-regulation, and anti-union. On social issues, the views he expresses on X are whatever the right-wing version of the current thing is (even if it is obvious bullshit).
ControlsFreak
31m ago
Would it? Most of the time, when industry advocates are here arguing this sort of point, they're implicitly assuming that the use of medical professionals will drop to zero (or be banned). Thus, they're imagining the least knowledgeable person deciding on their own medical treatment. But when we look at the car maintenance world, we see the vast vast majority of low-knowledge folks still using automotive professionals. The rate of self-injury is, indeed, low, but someone needs a bit more than arguments from bad imagination if they're going to rest on a claim that the rate of self-injury would surely be "quite a bit" higher.
You hear this same shit from the realtor cartel, and frankly, any cartel that wants to maintain its market power. "Oh real estate transactions are so complicated; can you imagine how the sky would fall if we didn't get our 3% cut of every transaction?! PEOPLE WOULD BE HARMED!" You know what really would happen if you lost some of the sketchier tools to maintain your market control? First, you'd probably have to clean up your act, but second, lots and lots of people would still use you, but for your actual expertise, rather than because they think they're basically forced into it. Sure, will there be some harm that didn't occur before? Probably. But there's some harm now that wouldn't occur then, too. You need an actual argument about magnitudes rather than just imagination.
sun_the_second
32m ago
Had trans women limited themselves to peeing in peace, you might have had an occasional Karen freaking out seeing someone who looks like a man in the women's restroom, but most people wouldn't have cared. My recollection is that this wasn't an issue for many years.
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?
Folamh3
39m ago
This article made me laugh probably more than anything I've ever read on Substack: https://suedonym.substack.com/p/the-real-lesbian-master-doc
(Mods, please delete if it's too culture-warry.)
Folamh3
1hr ago
If half of the rapes are committed by men in women's bathrooms who had previously invoked their gender identity as an excuse to be there, then I would agree that this was a huge fucking problem and we should restrict access to improve women's safety.
But the point habitually made by gender-critical feminists is that, once these policies are in place, a bad actor doesn't even need to invoke the concept of gender identity as an excuse to enter the ladies' room. Once you've established a precedent that certain male people are allowed to use the ladies' room, and you're not allowed to kick up a stink about it even if they have fully intact male genitalia (because not all trans women - indeed, the overwhelming majority - want to undergo bottom surgery) or if they're making zero effort to pass (because "trans women don't owe you femininity"), it is inevitable that bad actors (many of whom don't even consider themselves trans) will exploit this ostensibly well-meaning policy for their own ends.
A policy of allowing certain male people to enter the ladies' room presents obvious risks for female safeguarding even if literally 100% of people who call themselves trans women are perfectly pure angels who would never hurt a fly. (It need hardly be said that many are not.)
With the possible exception of Hogwarts, gender restrictions in bathrooms are not strictly enforced. Someone who is entering a women's bathroom to commit rape is unlikely to care that he will also break some trivial statute about not going to the women's bathroom.
Folamh3
1hr ago
They kill themselves at elevated rates when forced to conform to their biological gender.
I see this asserted all the time, but would love to see some hard data backing it up. I have seen the results of one study from Sweden which found that trans people who underwent sex reassignment surgery had higher suicide rates than trans people who didn't.
sun_the_second
1hr ago
Probably not, the way I joined most of my discords is "you're on a more public platform like a subreddit and they have a link to their discord".
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
2hr ago
Just an aside and nothing personal against you, but I really dislike:
- the use of embedded links as glosses of esoteric terms.
Why: I dislike the continual minimizing/maximizing of windows and the break in flow of thought
- linking to a website instead of simply explaining in words what it is you yourself have intended in your post. (You intended as the hypothetical you, not necessarily you.
Why: it seems dismissive and rude, like when someone asks where the restroom is and you just point at a sign instead of speaking. Sometimes one might intend to be dismissive and rude, and sure, maybe this is just me clinging to more traditional mores. Could be.
I realize people are sometimes short of time or impatient but damn.
Folamh3
2hr ago
Then it's an unreasonable framing because trans people are not people with a cross dressing fetish.
Some and some.
lagrangian
2hr ago
Alright, I've tried to ignore you. I've blocked you, but still see the threads you generate, which was somehow even more annoying. At this point, I'm going to burn some social capital, or take the downvotes, or eat a ban, but by god I'm gonna say it - and I'll wager I'm not alone in the sentiment:
I dislike your weird, pathetic, whiney presence on this board, and I'd dearly love if you left.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2hr ago
We can just… not accommodate crazy delusional people.
Yes, but that raises Overton window concerns among the people first in line to accommodate this brand of crazy. If we stopped accommodating obviously crazy delusional people then it becomes more rhetorically difficult for the less-obviously crazy but still delusional people to maintain those delusions.
As far as which delusions they are... well, the modal champion of trans rights is an unmarried college-educated white woman in a education or managerial career. Surely that demographic has no delusions surrounding gender, and even if they did, surely it wouldn't threaten their socioeconomic standing if we started reconsidering our accommodation of those delusions?
DuplexFields
Ask me how the FairTax proposal works. All four Political Compass quadrants should love it.
3hr ago
Thanks! That's a high compliment on a sensemaking forum.
anti_dan
3hr ago
I think people who have never been involved in criminal law, particularly sex crimes, do not understand is the difficulty of proving a case. The fact that a person is in an area they shouldn't be in is very good evidence they committed a sex crime compared to what normally is submitted.
Most sex crimes happen in private with no witnesses and no corroboration.
But a sex crime where a man is in the ladies locker room and can be seen going in or out? That can be charged. This is the difference between a rapist going free or being charged.
Sex crimes are both some of the most egregious crimes, and some of the hardest to prove crimes in our system. They are much harder than murder to prove, for example.
curious_straight_ca
3hr ago
I think the rate of self-injury from maintaining a car yourself would be quite a bit lower than the rate of self-injury from deciding on one's own medical treatment, and that's the reason for the different kinds of regulation.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
3hr ago
As much as I want to see Smolett get his, I have to agree. Outcomes like this are essentially punishing the prosecutors for not following the rules. Fair enough too.
Ioper
3hr ago
I wouldn't know in your case specifically but her keeping in contact with you is obviously a good sign.
Perhaps you could set yourself a time limit after which you start dating again? Obviously you can't keep pining after this girl endlessly but is focusing on things other than dating for a few months unreasonable?
curious_straight_ca
3hr ago
Now what part of that changes by forcing a doctor into the process
Having someone who's more intelligent than you, knows a lot more about medicine than you, and has had a lot of practice managing patients instructing you on what to do helps a lot. It makes it a lot more likely that someone will benefit from treatment. Most people aren't actively attempting to ignore the doctor's advice, they're just kinda dumb, not really actively pursuing any particular goal, so having someone competent leading the process helps a lot, and the doctor can shut down obviously stupid ideas like 'take a huge dose of estrogen every six months as a Hormone Cleanse' that'd absolutely evolve if allowed to.
Does he monitor you 24/7 so that you don't take specific different medications at the same time
You phrased this very weirdly, but ... yes? The doctor has a list of all the medications you are taking, and when they prescribe a new one they check the list to make sure there aren't any bad interactions. This is an important thing that they do. It doesn't require visiting your house.
anti_dan
3hr ago
In other words, the "they left me" meme is super true for former centrists who became "right wing".
anti_dan
3hr ago
If you think Bluesky is Twitter inverted, you are mistaken. Bluesky is just MSNBC extreme as a social media. Twitter is not right wing, it is just lacking in censorship of people right of center.
anti_dan
3hr ago
Basically what happened is they upheld his initial, corrupt, dismissal. This is not bad. The justice system is supposed to be pro-defendant. That is all that happened here.
Ecgtheow
3hr ago
The bathroom issue is simply an issue of trade-offs. Having to use a gendered bathroom which belongs to a gender one does not identify as clearly can be humiliating.
I don't think it's an issue of just humiliation. A trans woman who is on estrogen for a substantial amount of time and has developed breasts or had bottom surgery is likely to be at risk of sexual assault if she is forced to use a men's bathroom or a men's locker room. There's also the risk of regular non-sexual assault by transphobic men against someone who has had the hormone profile of a cis woman for years and has the accompanying muscle mass. I agree that bathroom assault risk is pretty low for each individual use, but a trans woman in a space where 99% of the other people are cis men has two orders of magnitude more encounters with potential assailants than a cis woman in a woman's room where 1% of the users are a trans women.
I have a trans friend, she passes pretty well now but a thing I witnessed happen a couple times when we were hanging out in bars earlier in her transition was men hitting on her without realizing she was trans, realizing she was trans as the encounter went on, and getting aggressive once they figured that out. I would fear deeply for her safety if that encounter was playing out in private in a men's room and not in a crowded bar where she had friends around. To say she's forced to use men's restrooms is to force her to take on a substantial risk of assault (sexual or otherwise) to exist in public, and frankly for some people I think that's the point, to exclude trans people from public life.
I think people with androgynous physiognomy wearing female-coded clothing (such as Sarah McBride, or indeed Nancy Mace as Twitter trolls took considerable delight in pointing out) used to be able to walk into a woman's bathroom and pee in peace. Most of these people were and are cis women, and they shouldn't have to get their ladyparts out to prove eligibility before they go into a stall.
Bad actors using the wrong bathroom for nefarious reasons is a problem we have, empirically ,managed to solve without bathroom laws for about a century. Assaults by strangers in public bathrooms are not exactly a common form of sex crime.
More options
Context Copy link