domain:farhakhalidi.substack.com?page=2
RenOS
the mountain passed, the sea in front
1m ago
The mobile app is also decent. I've been playing it a bit with friends.
ControlsFreak
8m ago
People have comically false beliefs about all sorts of stuff in the world. We have not discussed what the constraints on marketing would be; I think your comment assumes that there would be none, but I think that is unlikely. So far, we've only been talking about the total ban.
To quote the Wikipedia article on Blanchard's typology (which is generally sceptical of the concept, if not outright hostile to it):
Studying patients who had felt like women at all times for at least a year, Blanchard classified them according to whether they were attracted to men, women, both, or neither.[3]: 444 He then compared these four groups regarding how many in each group reported a history of sexual arousal together with cross-dressing. 73% of the gynephilic, asexual, and bisexual groups said they did experience such feelings, but only 15% of the androphilic group did.[8]: 10 He concluded that asexual, bisexual, and gynephilic transsexuals were motivated by erotic arousal to the thought or image of themself as a woman, and he coined the term autogynephilia to describe this.
From an interview with Blanchard himself in 2019:
When I looked at the relative numbers of autogynephilic and androphilic gender-dysphoric males back in 1987, the autogynephilic cases were already a majority, approaching 60 percent. The proportion had reached 75 percent by 2010, and it might be even higher now.
...
Examples I have collected include: sexual fantasies of menstruation and masturbatory rituals that simulate menstruation; giving oneself an enema, while imagining the anus is a vagina and the enema is a vaginal douche; helping the maid clean the house; sitting in a girls’ class at school; knitting in the company of other women; and riding a girls’ bicycle. These examples argue that autogynephilic sexual fantasies have a fetishistic flavor that makes them qualitatively different from any superficially similar ideation in natal females.
There is also the telling phenomenon of autogynephiles who are involuntarily aroused by cross-dressing or cross-gender ideation, and who complain about difficulties changing into women’s attire without triggering erection or ejaculation. It seems likely that few natal women would give the analogous reports that they wish that they could put on their clothes without triggering vaginal lubrication or orgasm.
Self-identified autogynephiliac trans woman Anne Lawrence, who has medically transitioned, wrote a book about autogynephilia called Men Trapped in Men's Bodies, in which she solicited the perspectives of autogynephiliac males and affirmed Blanchard's typology:
"I would simply like to state for the record that, based on my clinical experience and my reading of the scientific literature, I am firmly convinced that the overwhelming majority — probably 98% or more — of cases of severe gender dysphoria in men arise in connection with either effeminate homosexuality or autogynephilia; most of the rare exceptions probably arise in connection with conditions such as schizophrenia and certain personality disorders. The idea that substantial numbers of MtF transsexuals belong to a putative “third type” that is neither homosexual nor autogynephilic is inconsistent with my clinical experience and is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the best available empirical evidence..."
Scott's survey of his users found significantly higher rates of autogynephilia among trans women than among other groups. When asked the question "Picture a very beautiful woman. How sexually arousing would you find it to imagine being her [on a scale of 1-5]?", the mean response among self-identified trans woman was 3.2.
The highest rates of autogenderphilia were found in bi cis men (autoandrophilia), gay cis men (autoandrophilia), bi trans women (autogynephilia), and lesbian trans women (autogynephilia).
(Scott goes on at length about what it would mean to be a male person who is sexually excited by the thought of oneself as an exceedingly handsome male person, or vice versa. I will freely admit I still have no idea what this entails in practice.)
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
30m ago
I'm reading Breakfast With Seneca by David Fideler. Basically the author takes several themes touched on by Seneca, and writes a chapter on each one with his own thoughts (and corroborating quotes from other Stoic writers). It's enjoyable, although not earth shattering since I have previously read Seneca's letters. But still, it's nice to spend more time reflecting on Stoic ideas, and think of new ways I can try to apply them better in my own life.
Have also just started The Confessions of Lady Nijō. It is pretty much what it says on the tin - Lady Nijō was one of the concubines of one of the emperors of Japan in the thirteenth century, and this is her writing about her life. Not sure I'll enjoy this one very much to be honest, but meh - it's a library book so I haven't lost anything if I don't wind up liking it.
He could easily have made the case against any of the specific policies without that element.
I don't think you truly understand what his case was if you think this is true. He could have made a different case, one that is more compatible with the ideology of his opponents. He couldn't have made his case.
it would seem less than conducive to a healthy working environment to know that your colleagues consider you naturally predisposed to neurotic behaviour, by virtue of being a woman.
The very notion of such a standard is a indictment of the CRA in itself. That a "healthy working environment" demands suspending basic human cognition is insane.
I can understand demands that this may not be talked about in a specific context (hell I can understand banning all politics at work) but once you're asked to voice views on a particular issue connected to biology, as Damore was, the idea that certain views are simply illegal to voice because of their inherent content is clear political censorship, and unjust insofar at is has not been explicitly declared as such and only affects certain views.
This is in effect no different from similar standards that allow people to use racial epithets and rethoric at work, but only against certain races.
You can argue that one ought to know better than to criticize people who hold such a power. You can't argue that it is just that they must.
RenOS
the mountain passed, the sea in front
32m ago
Noah claims that progressives were in favor of immigration primarily, if not only, because Trump was against it, and that the right in general is against immigration on racial grounds. It's hard to take someone seriously after this kind of statement; The left has been very strongly in favor of immigration in general since the 90s, and this has been the case worldwide. The backlash to immigration has likewise happened worldwide, and for near-identical reasons: The number of immigrants were much higher than expected, the strain on the welfare systems, increased crime, etc.
Maybe it's because I'm in academia, but all the extremely woke people here haven't actually changed their opinion, and they haven't actually lost their positions, either. If I read the university newsletter, it's still full of "how to appreciate our diverse gender presentations" and very thin on hard science. If I walk around the campus, it's full of "critical orientation week" advertisements, which is exactly the kind of "critical" you'd expect. The university provides rooms for this week, which ostensibly is against the university, completely free of charge, of course. It's not even very long ago that the university kicked out a right-leaning moderate because "university is not political" and that the university should not "provide resources to political groups".
And this is the core problem imo: If there is a conflict and the right-leaning side is losing, the left will often successfully take away positions up to and including booting them out entirely. If the left loses, they just keep everything they try again after a while. Universities are still de-facto purging themselves of even moderately right-leaning people and promoting quite frankly completely insane people, so long as they are sufficiently far left. Unless we start kicking out far-left cranks the same way we do for the right, I don't see the general trajectory changing much. Sure this or that particular DEI statement gets discontinued, but the next thing is already being implemented.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
32m ago
holds the high ground of the academy
The academy is the "high ground" in the sense that a defeated tribe can hide out in the mountains and wage guerilla war until a suitable opportunity arises (like Hilary wanting a way to attack Bernie from the left) - not in the sense that it is the key strategic terrain being fought over. That would be the government and corporate bureaucracies that actually implement cancellations.
A bunch of stupid nominally left-wing politics was defeated in the late 1970's, hid out in the academy for a decade, came out again as 1990's political correctness, lost again, hid out again, and came back as wokestupid in the 2010's. But wokestupid doesn't come out of academia - it comes out of tumblr - the changes from PC to wokestupid are very obviously driven by the need for social media virality. Academia was just a place where a parasite could be kept on life support until a new host turned up. If wokestupid is retreating into academia, it has been defeated (but not destroyed).
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
36m ago
I don't find the proposition that the argument in favor of the the weak is self justifying convincing at all.
There have been plenty of successful societies throughout history that considered such a principle to actually be evil. And I don't see their arguments as any less self serving.
Why should we acquiesce to ressentiment? Why ought the weak be protected from the strong.
Divine command maybe the only argument I can actually contenance for this position, and even then God (the one of Abraham) is weary of weakness as an animating principle and gives not a command to submit all ressources and efforts towards it but demands the weak be shepherded by the strong. Establishing a specific subsidiary position where the weak's concern may not jeopardize the operation of all of society.
Southkraut
A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
42m ago
· Edited 36m ago
Please let me know if you find out something useful about this topic.
FWIW, I also eat like a combine harvester, pace a lot, don't gain weight, and my skin ages poorly.
Not sure if there is anything to it all; maybe we're just reading too much into a bunch of coincidences.
hooser
1hr ago
VA had a hiring spree last year, in large part because of the expanding benefits from the PACT Act.
Your impression of a hiring freeze remains partly correct, because VA has budget shortfalls and plans to lay off staff:
More recently, though, the VA told Congress it now expects to have about 5,000 more employees in VHA next year compared to this year. That's created a new problem, as the VA is warning it is facing a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.
I suspect that VA tends to paint a bleak picture to Congress as a standard operating procedure, in hopes of getting more funding. Though my nephew assures me from his VA experience that more funding would not go amiss.
So back to my off-the-cuff idea of importing doctors: my point is that any VA hospital that finds it challenging to attract a decent US doctor ought to be able to do what the private sector does. Right now, the VA follows AMA's standards, which require any non-US-trained doctor to do 3+ years of residency (plus other things) before they can practice medicine in US. Residency slots are, apparently, the bottleneck for US doctor supply in the first place.
My question is: just how crucial is it for someone already practicing as a doctor in a French or German hospital to do 3+ years of residency in US?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Only in America.
It's why cases where people see what works in American society and try and replicate it in their own makes me wince more than anything.
Hopefully this doesn't come off as too pedantic, but doesn't that imply it's not only in America? I'm probably just as disturbed by their cultural hegemony as you are, but in my experience it's so great that trying to draw a distinction between, say, American and European woke causes is rather futile. Maybe there is more of a distinction between the broader West and the rest of the world.
clo
1hr ago
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
Only in America. Be all you can be and all that, tear down every fence and shatter every glass ceiling. If you're not who you could be, it's your fault, in the land of opportunity.
Oh, and you don't owe your fellow man anything. Why would you?
I share your disgust, but the targets are more broad. It's why cases where people see what works in American society and try and replicate it in their own makes me wince more than anything. The world has internalized their hegemony so hard that it genuinely believes the lies, often with awful results.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
2hr ago
There's an image by https://x.com/patrickjfl that shows there's been a realignment between 1996 and 2024, but it has no dataset attached. To summarize (summarizing a tweet, lol), the parties have switched places: the GOP is now relatively more popular with the plebs, while the Dems have become the party of choice for the PMC.
There's another chart in comments by Kyle Saunders, with even less hard data on it, that shows that the cleavage line on the good old political compass has been rotating since 1960: it used to separate socialists from capitalists, but now it separates progressives from conservatives, with the GOP/Trump side becoming slightly more pro-redistribution that the Dems.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2hr ago
· Edited 2hr ago
I'm not so sure, I kind of doubt Social Media's broader impact on the conversation, because the testimony to it always seems one sided.
As a sort of one-and-a-half-sided attempt (i.e. I am opposed to SJ, but this is something that anti-SJ did via social media), I think Musk buying Twitter and gutting Trust & Safety is the likely key component of Trump's election win based on the demographic breakdown showing the swing being extremely concentrated among the young (which I hypothesise to be from the breakdown of the false SJ consensus created by silencing everyone who didn't fit).
EDIT: I didn't realise this was so old when I posted, although I'll leave it up as an example of "new evidence".
stuckinbathroom
3hr ago
Musk buying Twitter was a crippling blow to SJ, to be sure, but it's far from dead and it still holds the high ground of the academy.
Wokey-wan Kenobi: It’s over, Elonakin, I have the high ground!
Elonakin Blueskywalker: You underestimate my power!
WK: Don’t try it!
clo
3hr ago
Miyoo Mini+ with onionOS is the best OOTB, you can pay a bit extra to have an SD card loaded up and preconfigured from sites like Litnxt. They also offer the Crossmix version of the Trimui Smart Pro similarly preconfigured.
The latest versions of the Anbernic 35XX SP (clamshell) are pretty dang good. And the Anbernic 40XXV is the only 40XX device I'd consider decent.
If people don't mind tinkering a fair bit to get everything to run right on Android, Retroid pretty much has the market cornered although the prices are significantly upwards.
roche
3hr ago
But isn't it more fun to find these truths yourself? If you figure everything out, you will be bored (this seems a bit like your current problem actually)
I'm not interested in truths, really, but results. Belief is cheap. So long as we're confined to the same outcomes as the ancients, it's hard to be optimistic.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3hr ago
therefore any evidence against this theory must be wrong somehow.
What evidence?
I do understand the temptation to latch onto the hottest and most bikeshedd-y of all culture war items: the CICO thesis.
I didn't see anything especially notable in the post except for this wild claim I'd never heard of before of skinny people often putting away over five thousand calories a day in the past.
In any case, since I can't resist either, I will propose that higher body temperature provides a possible mechanism for people to burn a much higher (or lower) amount of calories than can be explained by the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation.
There's obviously some degree of RMR difference between people (and the existence of people at the tails of the RMR distribution does not contradict CICO in the slightest btw).
However, it's notable that people are eating way more food these days than at basically any point in the past. That figure is a little rough since it doesn't actually measure what people are eating - those numbers show a similar story but they only seem to go back to the seventies. So it's a little hard to imagine that our ancestors had significantly higher metabolisms while eating significantly less. Small changes are possible and not that interesting to me.
JarJarJedi
3hr ago
That sounds contradictory. Giving people I-Bonds (or cash I guess) is the maximum materialistic gift - it contains the most material component and the least emotional/spiritual component. If anybody, Christians should know that material things can have spiritual meaning, and thus material things (like gifts) can be used to convey emotional/spiritual messages.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3hr ago
· Edited 3hr ago
Musk buying Twitter was a crippling blow to SJ, to be sure, but it's far from dead and it still holds the high ground of the academy. I'm not saying it definitely will make a comeback in the next few years - it's no longer got either stealth or an aura of inevitability, and that's a big deal - but it's premature to definitively say it's peaked; I'll believe it's decisively defeated when the SJ party here in Australia (the Greens) either falls below 10% of the vote or recants its hair-raising "let's ban politicians from taking anti-SJ positions" policy (relevant part's on page 5).
Folamh3
3hr ago
I think Middleton is the exact guy I was thinking of when I posted this question.
Folamh3
3hr ago
About sixty pages into My Brilliant Friend. It makes Italy sound like Beirut.
RaiderOfALostTusken
4hr ago
I definitely get more bot friend requests post elon. There was a while that i was getting lots of fake messages right at first, that's about it
All these articles about "cranks" to me are just wordgames. Radical/progressive/woke left believes in their own conspiracy theories, the main one is what I call as universal leftist conspiracy - courtesy of James Lindsay. It is really simple:
There are two groups of people: purple and beige. Purple people have access to some special attribute or property - let's call it purpleness. Afterwards purple group use this property to oppress beige group. Purpleness also helps purple group to create and reproduce system of purpleness, which reproduces oppression over to the next generation. Liberation from oppression and true equity will only happen if we dismantle the system of purpleness.
This is the most simple and primitive form of conspiracy theory which you can apply to mainstream ideas that for some reason are not considered as low status conspiracies. Some examples:
There are men and women. Men have access to male privilege which they use to oppress women. This system is called as patriarchy and women will never be free unless we dismantle it.
There are heterosexual people and the rest such as queer people. The first group has access to define which is normal, to heteronormativity which they use to oppress nonheterosexual people. We will not have true liberation until we will not dismantle patriarchy.
There are white people and the rest, especially Black people. White people have access to whiteness to oppress other races. There can never be true equality until we will not dismantle white supremacy.
There are capitalists and workers. Capitalists have access to capital and they exclude workers from access to it, reproducing the system of *capitalism. There can never be true equality unless oppressed workers do not have access to means of production which is the first step to dismantle capitalism.
These are all the simplest forms if applied to anything else would be identified as some uncouth conspiracy. They can also be applied to many other popular systematic conspiracies, just define new groups and systems of oppression be it handicapped people or fat people or many more. This manner of analysis is in my opinion absolute farce, similarly to other conspirators people who believe in these things can identify racism and sexism everywhere - from knitting to hiking. Which is the point - once you are woke to this systemic conspiracy thinking, then you will see sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia if somebody who throws bugger from his car as white supremacist.
More options
Context Copy link