domain:city-journal.org
The trans debate suffers from the very common problem of "the most loud, obnoxious, and obvious members of a group come to represent the group in the broader population's minds".
Other examples of this phenomenon:
-
People thinking that vegans in general are obnoxious and morally self-righteous because those are the only vegans they notice. They might pass plenty of vegans in the street and just assume that those people are meat-eaters, since eating meat is the default. But obnoxious vegans draw attention to themselves, hence come to represent vegans in general in the public mind.
-
People thinking that individuals who are concerned about climate change are all annoying lefty activists who want to destroy capitalism.
-
People thinking that the majority of black Americans are inner city gangbangers.
Etc.
I think there are plenty of trans people who are chill, but on both the left and the right people are motivated to elevate the obnoxious, deranged activist subset of trans people. On the left, there is a purity spiral - "Do you even support trans people at all if you criticize these trans activists for being obnoxious and insane??? How dare you??? Are you even a leftist?". On the right, there is the obvious motive to focus on the most annoying trans activists and act as if those people represent trans people in general, since that helps the right overall get a culture war win.
Personally, I have never had any issue with trans people. I just find many of the more vocal trans activists to be repulsive. Not because they are trans, but because they are shrill and irrational fanatics.
On a side note, one thing I find interesting when other men say that they find male homosexuality disgusting is that I do not experience this, to the point that it's hard for me to even understand having such a reaction. The idea of having sex with a man repulses me somewhat, but there is no moral dimension to this feeling, for me it's just a subset of "the idea of having sex with someone I am not attracted to repulses me". When I see two men kissing it does not bother me in the least bit. I do wonder why some men grow up finding male homosexuality to be a fundamentally disgusting thing and others simply don't.
One thing I've learned over time is that it's, true, "love is love". To me, a loving homosexual relationship is much more beautiful than a bitter, hate-filled heterosexual one.
roche
14m ago
Oh sure. Deep sleep is insanely important and basically changes your life. Most of my post was a bit of contra-doomerism, which is probably good on this topic because anxiety plays a sinister part in the insomnia loop. Glad to hear you recovered.
Rov_Scam
19m ago
It's not a plea bargain, but a non-prosecution agreement. Whether or not jeopardy attaches is irrelevant because the court didn't overturn the conviction on double jeopardy grounds. The court ruled that, as a matter of public policy, prosecutors have to honor non-prosecution agreements once the defendants have performed their end of the bargain. They note Santobello, where a defendant had struck a plea deal where he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a favorable sentencing recommendation. He plead guilty, but the prosecutor asked for the max and got it. The basic premise is that if the defendant gives something of value in reliance of getting something from the prosecutor, the prosecutor can't reneg.
Here, Smollett agreet to forfeit his bond in exchange for the charges being dropped. He forfeited the bond, and a nolle pross was entered. Cosby gave up his right to Fifth Amendment protections, Smollett gave up cash. You may think that one is more valuable than the other, and that dropping the charges for $10,000 wasn't justified, but that's irrelevant—deals like this don't work if you allow the court to second guess whether they were worth it or not.
the prosecution cutting a (corrupt) deal to drop the charges without the court's involvement doesn't cut it.
The court's involvement has nothing to do with it. The deal is between the defendant and the prosecutor, not the defendant and the judge. In Santobello, the problem was that the prosecutor didn't make the promised recommendation, not that the judge didn't impose the desired sentence. Santobello plead guilty on reliance of the prosecutor's promise, but the judge can typically impose whatever sentence he wants to. There are compelling reasons I won't get into here why this rarely ever happens (and why if a judge has a problem with a plea deal he'll usually give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea), but it is technically permissible.
More specifically, in the case of dropped charges where no guilty plea is involved, the prosecutor doesn't offer a dismissal with prejudice because this isn't within the prosecutor's power. Prosecutors can't dismiss cases; judges can. Technically they could file an unopposed motion and a judge could sign off on it but they don't do this because they've never had to before, and because it gums up the system when you have to wait 2 months for a judge's signature. And I don't even know if this would work because the practice isn't customary and until some custom develops around it the judge's default is always going to be to dismiss without prejudice. I've been an attorney for over 10 years and I've never seen a judge dismiss anything with prejudice. I've heard of a few cases, but these are either criminal cases that involved constitutional violations so dire that the judge wasn't confident the prosecutor could ever make a case, and one civil case where the pro se plaintiff was obviously nuts and the judge didn't want to deal with it anymore.
And won't cut it in future cases when the political element isn't included.
Future cases are one of the reasons the case went the way it did. The opinion is pretty clear on this. There are various diversionary programs where defendants are given the opportunity to have their cases dropped if they complete them. They get nolle prossed and if they flunk the charges are pursued and if they pass they stay nolle prossed. It would be perverse to suggest that someone would participate in such a program and be prosecuted anyway after successful completion. Some of these programs have high success rates saying that prosecutors aren't bound by these deals would put them in jeopardy.
the prosecution cutting a (corrupt) deal to drop the charges
What's corrupt about the deal? Do you have evidence that Smollett paid a kickback to the prosecutor in exchange for lenience? Or is just that you don't like the politics that you assume was behind the decision?
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
21m ago
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.
This is the crux of my objection as well. I have issues with the idea of taking a healthy human and mutilating their body to make them a crude facsimile of the other sex, but at the end of the day I think adults have the right to choose self-mutilation if that's what they want. But what I will not play ball with is the attempt to try to get me to affirm a lie (that a trans person really is the sex they claim to be) as the truth.
I try to treat trans people I encounter with respect and compassion; they are my brothers and sisters just like everyone else. And Lord knows that they have enough on their plates without me disrespecting them. But "respect and compassion" does not include telling bold faced lies just because that is what they want to hear. I'll avoid the topic of gender as much as possible for their sake, but if it's unavoidable then I'm not going to lie about it.
hydroacetylene
27m ago
The Greek-Catholic belt in Eastern Europe, Georgia the country, and the American red tribe have TFR’s ~2. It’s achievable even if I couldn’t really point to the unifying factors- western social conservatism, religiosity, and ruralness, I suppose.
hydroacetylene
32m ago
Men in a dress and a wig? Yes.
hydroacetylene
34m ago
I mean, the solution for this poor unfortunate is to work through whatever issues drive interest in transgenderism rather than transitioning. Make your bed and now lie it, I suppose- using the men’s locker room is a risk for some biologically male transgenders, but society oughtn’t to be in the business of protecting individuals from the consequences of their own bad decisions at the expense of people who haven’t made such bad decisions.
roche
36m ago
Of course I have empathy. Trans-bashing has never entered my mind. It's more like, every trans person I've come across has some deep mental problems and not-being-a-woman isn't even foremost of them. They're neurotic. They're obsessed with porn. They hate their parents, and conservatives. They're pale and sickly. They cut their own hair and make awkward looking bangs. They only want to talk about themselves. You rarely come across a trans person that makes you think, "Huh, this is just a normal person that wants to be a girl". The rejoinder is: "Our fucked up society is the reason they turn out this way!" Which... yeah, sure. But if you agree society messed you up, isn't priority #1 then to repair the damage?
Actually, what bothers me about them is the odd double standard where they demand recognition from our society, yet refuse to play by any of its standards and so indulge in hypersexuality, self-harm, gross fetishes, disruptive behavior etc. which is what made the gays so hated in the past. If transexuals were otherwise healthy adults that acted like the opposite gender, almost no one would mind.
waffles
breakfast food
38m ago
I read the Matthew Walker book when it first came out. At the time I was sleeping maybe about 6-ish hours on weeknights, maybe 8-9 on weekends, sleeping in or whatever after staying up late or going out, dreading the alarm clock on a Monday morning, all-around normal stuff for someone in their mid 20s. In retrospect, there were hints that I wasn't getting enough rest to function well (e.g. tiredness during mid-afternoon, inability to focus on highly technical work, waking up groggy on weekday mornings) but guess I didn't pay much attention to that until I finished the book.
(Obviously our bodies are all different, some of us need more sleep than others, and I feel like I'm sightly on the right side of the bell curve for quantity of sleep required to function optimally)
I made some lifestyle changes, some major, some minor. The most significant was consistently sleeping and waking up at the same time. I got myself a wake light, and started using that instead of an alarm clock. After a while, I realized that I could wake up without an audible alarm, and the feeling of waking up refreshed, every morning, instead of to a blaring alarm clock, beat the pants off my former lifestyle.
Minor ones included avoiding blue lights or bright lights before going to bed (to the best of my ability) which makes it easier to fall asleep. I also cut out alcohol near bedtime, which appears to give the sense of deep sleep but studies (?) and personal experience suggests otherwise.
It wasn't until a couple months of this that I realized how truly sleep deprived I was before. Consistent quality sleep is truly mind-altering and I can't imagine going back.
hydroacetylene
39m ago
I mean, trying to pull permits for a literal rocket launch would do they anyways.
hydroacetylene
41m ago
This is the purpose of government under liberalism. You can totally have ‘different people live under different laws and there’s complex rules about who defers to whom’, and have a state, as long as it’s not a liberal society.
I don’t think trans realize that.
TwiceHuman
44m ago
I suppose so, yeah. Some people arrive at axioms "I think therefore I am", others arrive at nothingness "Nothing is real" or at least the conclusion that thinking is fundamentally limited "The dao of which can be spoken is not the real dao", "where one cannot speak one must be silent", "I can only know that I know nothing", "Life is absurd".
That "something cannot come from nothing" does not take into account the mystery of why anything exists at all, it also doesn't imply that anything is truly universal - but that something arbitrary seems to be all which exists. You can call laws of physics, human nature, and the universe fundamental, but they're "specific", things which exist in themselves, and thus not thing which generalize outside of themselves. Different people could exist, different universes, different laws of physics. Ours just happen to be what we were given.
And in all honesty, we cannot even communicate or think unless we use a foundation, so I think it's fine just to choose something. Just like it's fine to choose a language, a culture, a religion, an axiomatic system, a system of values, a morality. None of them will be universally valid, but they will be valid in the scope in which they exist, and that's good enough. It's the same for me, I must have a personality, a job, and a social role. I can only specialize, as general improvement stop being possible at a certain point (since the areas of further improvement contradict eachother). I actually recommend not learning too much or growing too wise, as you may lose your ability to believe in the arbitrary things that you've chosen. The alternative to having both pros and cons is simply having nothing at all, which is worse. In other words, we must be egoistic and take actions which from certain perspectives, are mistakes. Our locally valid ideas are only valid in a limited scope, but we must believe in them nonetheless. We must believe in ourselves with no external validation beyond the fact that we exist. We solve nihilism by rejecting the idea that universal validity/external proof is required for something to be real (in other words, rather than solving the problem, we reject the problem). In the words of Max Stirner "I have based my affair on nothing" (meaning on himself I suppose). My own existence is an axiom to me, that's the solution to any existential problems I may have.
Throwaway05
44m ago
Heard chief.
hydroacetylene
47m ago
And this is specifically autistic, though. Your plumber dissatisfied with his love life hits the strip club instead.
Tanista
48m ago
If he doesn't have a ghostplayer maybe he has a ghostposter. It can't take much effort to just repost all of the DR stuff he's signal boosting with a "!!"
That'd free up a couple of hours.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
57m ago
My understanding of aspies is basically that they have to learn to be social explicitly, they have to kind of learn that something is a joke and that you laugh after a joke, etc. it’s completely external like a skill. And I think that since our vision of our identity or identities is seen through the other, the aspies have a bit less self-awareness of their identities than a normie might. You don’t just naturally act like your gender as most people do by picking up on cues, you learn to act your gender the way I might learn French — you make an explicit decision to study the subject, and then to use it. Of course it’s never going to feel quite natural in the same way my French isn’t going to feel natural— it’s something I’m translating in my head from my natural language to French and it’s not the same as English which I just naturally speak without having to think about it.
hydroacetylene
57m ago
I have empathy for those suffering from mental illness(like those who can’t tell what gender they are), but that doesn’t mean I go along with their delusions. Some things are just false. 2+2=5 men can get pregnant there’s more than two genders etc.
I'm going to be blunt: I don't actually need to understand the various foibles people have ,anymore than they need to understand my own particular...weirdness (though I grant that it's harder to tell at a glance). I just need them to create a social structure where I can tolerate them with minimal cost to myself and the things I consider important, then I'll happily do so. Part of that is minimizing the burden I/they make of myself/themselves.
I was all aboard the acceptance train because I assumed this would be incredibly easy for transpeople (and it probably still is for the man who is merely in the dress - that bit has always been easier for me to manage). Insofar as some of us have changed our minds it's a direct result of us being told every which way that this is impossible.
Empathy (which has been utterly ruined, much like "tolerance", by activists) really has nothing to do with it. Look at the McBride situation: "empathy" doesn't really change anything about the fundamental difference of opinion about who belongs where that continually brings this small population to the front of the culture war. It's just a disagreement that we need to hammer out.
The only reason I know anything about "AGPs" is because I was looking for an explanation for absolutely deranging policies and some strange behavior. What needs to happen is that the salience of this stuff needs to be taken down and that has to be done via message discipline and realistic asks on the other side.
The less the average person has to think about this issue beyond "you do you" the kinder the discourse will be.
roche
1hr ago
Embodying an emotion sounds like it could just be a result of attention directed towards an emotion, such that said emotion is the meditation object?
AFAIK the point is letting your guard down so that the emotion completely consumes you in a controlled environment. The idea is to "sublimate it" like therapy, but to such a degree that your attachment to this emotion in general burns away.
You may also know that the brain accepts something as true the first moment you see it, and only judge it afterwards, which is why some advertisement tries to overstimulate you as it delivers its message.
Yeah, this is true. This is why Indian rituals have long made sport of overwhelming the senses above all, through things like kirtan. I seem to remember some old anthropology quote about how naive and barbaric pagans are, because their idols and rituals are so loud and noisy that there simply can't be any deeper feeling behind it. But more than likely, the overstimulating nature of pagan rituals all across the world serves to overwhelm the senses, so that the brain is tossed on a sea of confusion for a brief time and is more open to processing the raw experience. You can replicate that now by listening to this. When the brain lacks confidence it's more open. Etc.
This is the brains model of the body, often called the spirit body by mystics, and it may be related to our sense of Proprioception. I don't know if you can accidentally mess up this sense, but it's possible.
I've definitely had the "thinking center" of my brain change places a few times before. Once a few weeks ago, during a particularly bad episode of insomnia, it was like a bunch of thread had fallen loose from the spool and took extra energy to reach my "thoughts". Another time was during meditation, where it did a very bizarre rotation down to my throat and rotated back up. Yet another was an incredibly neat phenomenon where I was meditating in a chair, and for a brief feeling it was like my perspective rose "up and over" my head, and I realized then our perception of reality is based on the tiny nook in our minds from which we see everything normally, and if you happen to see from anywhere else, everything will appear differently.
I hope these insights were useful! If you want, I will try to dig up the titles of some of the books I've read on this, though 40% of it is my own original ideas and guesses.
Mm, yeah, it's good. But I still have no great leads. There's no desperation for these weird Eastern practices to be true, or whatever -- it's more like "We have several millennia of records, they claim incredible things, some of them have already proven to be correct, but nobody is reading them". Personally it astounds me that the Indian discovery (and Chinese discovery for that matter) met with such little fanfare during the Enlightenment. It was by integrating the mystic traditions of Eastern high priests that the Greeks began their scientific golden age, and so to see the Eastern world met with either profound apathy, or religious fanaticism, is really strange. Because obviously when you tell someone about the Tao and it sounds dumb and impractical, the move isn't to say wow these Chinese sure were bad at philosophy, but to realize the very book is telling you words suck at conveying meaning, and virtually all intent behind its writing is lost, and to get at it you've got to dig and dig and dig and dig. And I would absolutely love to do it, but I'm on Japan now, and next comes India, and I'll be in a casket before I have time for China. But anyway... have you looked at the Tibetan practices or tantra at all? That's the most promising area IMO
Folamh3
1hr ago
To clarify, I'm not saying that obsessively texting or calling someone should be illegal, and it's rarely more than an annoyance for the person at the receiving end. But I also think that pestering or bothering someone is bad behaviour, and that when the object of your affection has made it perfectly clear they aren't interested, you should respect that. I'd put on the same level as ghosting someone: obviously not calling for it to be banned (how could it?), but I consider it inconsiderate and disrespectful unless proven otherwise.
Throwaway05
1hr ago
"Reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood."
The fence is not some abstract Platonic solid locked in time, it is a thought experiment to remind you to understand why the current state of affairs exists instead of some other possible state of affairs.
I have provided numerous questions whose answers may help explain the current states of affairs. You have quibbled over a fence like it is some sort of shamanic totem that if only you shake it in the right way argumentative success or understanding is reached.
This does nothing to address the issue at hand.
hooser
1hr ago
TapWaterSommelier translates some Russian gallows-humor jokes from the start of the current war / special operations. The original source of the collection is great but it's in Russian, and jokes are some of the hardest writing to translate.
My favorite:
“Good morning, here is your conscription notice.”
“Who are we fighting with?”
“Fascists, of course!”
“Ok, and against whom?”
The original source is an anthropologist who studies jokes-as-coping-mechanism in Russian-speaking world. TapWaterSommelier gives a good summary of the trends. The joke I quoted is an example of a "common-man" character who obstinately and deliberately remains clueless about anything political.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1hr ago
What I see is that both of you are doing what is very common in Internet debates, which is, being very confident that you're right and the other person is wrong, adopting a rather condescending tone in explaining how wrong and ignorant the other person is. I do think @Throwaway05 is being a tad condescending, but we don't generally mod for being "a tad condescending." You, however, were getting increasingly heated, especially in your last post.
I very frequently find myself writing a post layered with sarcasm and condescension directed towards someone I think is being an ass. I usually (usually) rewrite it and manage to take a more neutral tone.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1hr ago
I think you're right that the zeitgeist has a lot to do with it. I remember at the nadir of my dating life (before Obergefell) looking in the mirror and asking why I couldn't find an awesome woman. And at least very briefly thinking that I'd be a good one myself (fit, tall, all those cool male-coded interests: what's not to like?). But it wasn't a popular idea to consider at the time, so it got shoved aside never to return and things got better for me within a few weeks. I'm occasionally thankful it didn't get further consideration at the time.
The primary lesson is that it all falls apart once you get to the edges, so we shouldn't dwell too long there. Hence most of our bright philosophers like Descartes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Leibniz doubling as scientists, historians, politicians, missionaries and giving the rag of philosophy a squeeze to extract whatever potential was in it. Any effort you'd like to invest in philosophy should be redirected toward psychology, IMO.
More options
Context Copy link