domain:lesswrong.com
I agree, but not many people realize that psychology is the way to go, and get stuck trying to solve life using logic. I think what I wrote above is quite important, since it may help some people take the "leap of faith". When the brain gets anxious it starts questioning and deconstructing things, as well at looking for holes or imperfections which is how we even come up with crazy ideas like "What if you're actually in a coma right and imagining all this?" or "What if you're the only conscious person?". Once the brain hits something unfalsifiable, we get stuck, and that's mainly how philosophy is created.
It's great once people realize that they're a human and that everything important is inside themselves, but to fully go this route, one needs to realize that the subjective is more important than the objective, or that objectivity is limited in the first place, which is difficult for many intelligent people to do
Gay men generally don't want to do things that would have a different impact on other people based on whether they are gay.
Is your argument that Gay men are generally concerned at making sure that the men they hit on are gay, or that they are scrupulous at avoiding statutory? Because that is... debatable.
...there are a million 'bad decisions' a guy can make in a bar that will 100% get him beat up....
...society ... mostly treats barfights over dumb shit as plus-or-minus [consensual]....
Yes, I am aware that there are many ways in which our society fall short of perfection.
If Adam and Bob get into a bar fight, with Adam being the first to escalate to physical attack, then Adam not being charged with assault does not mean that Bob was not wronged, any more than a lack of response to Charles stealing David's bicycle means that the bicycle in question was Charles' property all along.
(Although I could see the case for dismissing charges against Adam if Bob had referred to Adam's ethnic group as 'cockroaches', or called Adam's disabled relative a 'useless eater' or a 'life unworthy of living', or accused Adam of some grave act of moral turpitude such as sexual assault against an infant; but anything short of that....)
if the aggressor is too hard to ignore
...which includes any instance in which the aggressor is substantially stronger, or arranges to have a half-dozen friends when the victim is alone. (If it is two people of approximately equal strength inflicting approximately equal damage on each other, one could make the case for limiting the societal response to a sternly-worded "Don't. Do. It. Again.".)
maybe you meant to say 'protecting women from extralegal violence?'
No, when I said 'people' I meant 'human beings.' The principle¹ that Alex should not be obligated to follow the demands of Bob the Random Nobody merely because Bob happens to be stronger than Alex does not depend on Alex's gender.
¹A principle originally dating back to at least the Bronze Age, even if inconsistently applied.
To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."
-- Code of Hammurabi.
My guess is that Gaetz will probably come back to the Trump White House in some form that doesn’t require a Senate confirmation, after the news dies down.
This is entirely possible, and furthermore, Gaetz may well have been the driving force to remove himself from consideration, rather than doing so at the behest of Trump.
I remember there was a Motte survey a few years back (when on the subreddit), but I haven't seen one since unless I missed it. Do you think there would be any interest in a new one? Any questions you would like asked?
Simply put, public schools are institutions whose goal is to educate children. Put another way, a public school's goal is to indoctrinate children with the beliefs that are commonly accepted in the society they're a part of. Compulsory exercises. This is normal school stuff. Same as most other subjects. I'm sure there are some parents who complain about compulsory math worksheets specifically about quadratic equations or whatever, but I don't have much sympathy for them if they signed up for a school where that is common practice.
You've described a church, and pretended it's a school. Also, you ignore that I'm complaining about the content of the compulsory exercises, not that they exist. But that's about what I've learned to expect from you.
Pornographic material. This would be a big problem if true but I highly doubt this is the case in any widespread fashion. There is quite a large distinction between pornographic material meant to arouse and anatomical/scientific material meant to educate. I would agree with you if the former was widespread, but I have seen no evidence of this.
Who cares if it's widespread? Define? Every school in America? I don't care. It's happening in my school district, hence my emphasis on them not leaving me alone. This book is specifically what Fairfax Country Public Schools fought to keep in middle school libraries, among others. Showing kids sucking each others dicks, however crude the drawings, falls under pornographic material, and not anatomical/scientific.
Secret social transitions. This could mean a variety of things, if you meant that a school would not tell a parent if their child started using a new name or wearing different clothes then this also seems non-probematic. There is a debatable correlation between wearing Goth clothing as an adolescent and going through troubled times, but teachers do not routinely make a habit of notifying parents of such things, and rightly so.
Strong disagree. You make it sound like teachers are merely aloof, as opposed to setting up sophisticated parallel paper trails and tracking systems so that internal processes refer to the child by their new identity, and processes exposed to the parent refer to them by the old identity. This is a thing the schools are invested in, and take an active role in. In fact, they often ban teachers from notifying parents, and punish them if they do. So clearly not at all resembling your position that schools aren't keeping it any more a secret than if the kid was a goth or other such fad.
I don't know of anyone who is 'forcing' anyone with a penis to enter a women's space who doesn't want to. The people with penises are presumably there of their own volition. If you meant that girls are now forced to use bathrooms which may also contain penises, then again I don't see how this is inherently any different than any of the other compusions forced upon pupils in schools.
Obviously I'm talking about the young girls in the space. But this is the usual trollish behavior of trans activist.
Thanks for the details! I'll try these out.
ultra-fine nylon mesh strainers
Great tip, this is what I was missing. Internet recipes always instruct you to "strain through a cheesecloth" which is horribly tedious and messy.
I understand this - what is not clear to me is if OP would accept this definition of woman being given access to ladies' restrooms. They seem to want only "buologically female", but it is not clear to me if that means "female at birth" or more like "post-op".
Three separate objections, I guess:
-
Generalizing from the most visible member of a population is probably not a good way to draw conclusions about desire for attention. Most of the trans women I know very much care about unsexy, routine things so long as they can be labeled femme.
-
Wait, do you know any common fantasies that don’t involve being on the tail end of a bell curve?
-
In the spirit of the “male fantasy” meme, I think you could swap out “AGP individuals” for most any recognizable subgroup. They don’t just wanna be tradcons, they wanna be the 95th percentile tradcons, with a homestead and 11 children!
Now, I'm given to understand, he declines to write about these matters at all. Taken in sequence, it seems to me that the trajectory isn't hard to plot.
He wrote "Some Practical Considerations Before Descending Into An Orgy Of Vengeance" just four months ago. "Be Nice At Least Until You Can Coordinate Meanness" -> "Congratulations On Beginning To Coordinate Meanness, But Your Meanness Is Just As Shitty As Your Outgroup's Meanness" isn't much of a "trajectory," so far as I can plot, the original blogpost just had a wry title.
Much clearer now that this is a set of allusions that not unsurprisingly flew over my head. Thanks. The Motte really does keep me on my toes.
if the 'consequences of a bad decision' include extralegal violence, protecting people from it is one of the most fundamental functions of society, and protects you from somebody else deciding that some aspect of your life-style is a 'bad decision' that they are entitled to assault people over.
Donno man, there are a million 'bad decisions' a guy can make in a bar that will 100% get him beat up -- wearing a dress probably isn't even top 50.
And yet somehow society, while it will sometimes intervene if the aggressor is too hard to ignore -- mostly treats barfights over dumb shit as plus-or-minus consentual, and the response trends in the direction of 'even less than if you report your bike stolen'.
That seems incompatible with 'fundamental function of society' -- maybe you meant to say 'protecting women from extralegal violence?'
That would certainly explain a lot. Including, potentially, the silly debate over "what is a woman". Because if by "a woman" they inadvertently mean "a 95th-percentile hotness woman," i.e. the concept of womanhood inheres in the hotness not vice-versa, then "I'm smokin' hot because I feel hot/ because I believe in my hotness" actually is a popular meme in the wider culture.
In my experience, they totally do. Not the pregnancy ones but the social through romantic ones. The o the point of loudly proclaiming how great it was to do housework.
I’d have said it was downstream of viewing everything through a gendered lens.
Why are they usually in those? I seem to remember reading it was a default option. If true, the U.S. would just pivot to holding them somewhere else.
Last week there was a discussion on the motte about Trump’s cabinet picks, in particular about Rubio who is something of a hawk. This goes against what many of Trump’s isolationist supporters want. It’s almost certain that Trump is making these picks extremely haphazardly, deciding on names after a bare modicum of thought and prioritizing vibes, “loyalty”, and Fox news appearances over any other concerns. The NYT has documented this extensively, and it’s entirely in keeping with the chaotic nature of his first term.
One of the goofier explanations given by those on the right was that nominating Rubio was actually a 5D chess move to get Rubio out of the Senate, which is apparently extremely necessary for some unexplained reason…? As opposed to Trumpian loyalists like Murkowski. It was just a silly idea altogether.
Why do I bring it up again? Well, because it might have actually worked! Just… on the wrong person. Trump nominated Gaetz for Attorney General, and Gaetz almost immediately resigned from the House when the news broke. This is a bit unusual, as most people stay in their seats until their confirmation is done. There was the looming release of an ethics report on Gaetz which will likely damage his reputation somewhat, so there’s a chance that Gaetz was always planning to resign, although I somewhat doubt it. In any case, Trump yanked the nomination when it was clear that there was bad press coming from it, and now Gaetz has said he won’t come back to Congress even though he probably technically could.
One might ask why Trump would want to get rid of Gaetz from the House. Well, Gaetz was instrumental in paralyzing Congress over the last term, so perhaps Trump wanted to avoid that. The issue with that explanation is that Gaetz is a fiercely pro-Trump, so it seems weird that Trump would promise something to an ally, and then leave them high and dry. The word “backfired” might be a more accurate description in such a case.
My guess is that Gaetz will probably come back to the Trump White House in some form that doesn’t require a Senate confirmation, after the news dies down.
Considering how many false positive trans kids would otherwise have just turned out gay, one could argue that gay kids are disproportionately affected.
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.
This proves too much¹; your argument could be adapted to defend either cancel culture or Jim Crow laws!
I mean, the solution for this poor unfortunate is to work through whatever issues drive interest in
transgenderism[wrongthink] rather thantransitioning[expressing their opinions]. Make your bed and now lie [in] it, I suppose-using the men’s locker room[disagreeing with grievance studies departments] is a risk for somebiologically male transgenders[white males], 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.
or
I mean, the solution for this poor unfortunate is to work through whatever issues drive interest in
transgenderism[race-mixing] rather thantransitioning[integrating]. Make your bed and now lie [in] it, I suppose-using the men’s locker room[using the whites' water fountain] is a risk for somebiologically male transgenders[[racial epithet redacted]s], 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.
Your argument also begs the question² of whether transitioning is a bad decision; furthermore, even if it were, if the 'consequences of a bad decision' include extralegal violence, protecting people from it is one of the most fundamental functions of society, and protects you from somebody else deciding that some aspect of your life-style is a 'bad decision' that they are entitled to assault people over. (You still Kant dismiss univeralisability.)
¹Proving too much: an argument which, if valid, would also prove something known to be false; elaborated here.
²In its older sense of 'a proof of P that assumes P'.
No.
But only because my answer to all calls for empathy, unbidden and spontaneous, is no. I'm not going to participate in the hyperreal fixations of others. Nor am I going to be coerced into accepting the implicit axioms such worldviews come with.
Others may support you. I will not.
I do have one of the gradual brightening wake lights. I purchased it probably 6+ years ago now, but I believe it's the Philips HF3520.
Dumb idea, but you might be able to try a fluorescent light in the fixture. Those usually take a few minutes to get up to full brightness, especially if it's cold in the room. The wake light I have can be programmed to brighten over about half an hour.
you were having this pure and chaste and beautiful reverie and now you're thinking about sex
Why does sex inherently contradict the former?
Seriously, I want to know, because it's very far from obvious to me; I tend to see the latter mostly as an extension of the former, but then again I don't get out much these days and my attraction heuristic has always been more "what body type predicts the former" than anything else.
I have never cross-dressed, not even in private.
I, too, consider Japanese sailor school uniforms unisex. Then again, I'm not really AGP either; the reason I don't do this more often is because most of the clothes don't fit/look bad. Girl clothing is generally softer and (to a point) warmer, so if you have the sensory-processing issues mentioned downthread, you're going to identify a bit more with them beyond mere sexual arousal (provided it fits, of course).
as though they are all sick perverts who want to inflict their fetish on the rest of us
I take this one level higher: I think it's a bunch of wicked women (and men, but women have much more incentive to do this) who want to inflict sick perverts on the rest of us as an extension/entrenchment of the privileges they already enjoy. The wiser transpeople [the ones following the golden rule described in a sibling comment] are trying their best to minimize themselves/accommodate for other people (for the reasons below), and as such I don't have much problem with them. Most of the ex-women and ex-men I know are like this, but some of them are not.
I don't want autogynephiles to transition.
I only want the wise ones to be capable of considering it (they're the only ones able to bear the costs, anyway). I want the answer to be "no, because you only want to do it to validate a certain obnoxiousness/only want to validate it just to shock the squares" for the wicked, and "no, because this isn't a productive or healthy option for you" for the simple.
But I don't have the kind of revulsion that some people report.
Which is why you need a sensory processing disorder as a pre-requisite (usually from autism, but doesn't need to come from it, and autism tends to be used as an excuse to not fucking control oneself). I think it would be different if your body constantly reminded you that your dick exists, much as I find myself sensorily overloaded when I'm lying flat on my stomach for too long.
because I'm a Christian and take Christian sexual ethics seriously
No, you just read what's presented to you rather than thinking about why it exists in the first place. It's the safe option. (At least Catholics bother to root it in "natural law".)
The main problem with accepting it (should you take seriously "who on earth thinks getting married and tying yourself to another person is the easiest way to indulge in some perverted sex act; come on" as seriously as you say) is the same as it is when you eat food sacrificed to idols- that it gives the wicked a #NotRealChristian division upon which they can prey, setting the wise (and wicked) against each other and driving off the simple. Which is obviously contrary to what should be one's objectives as a Christian.
I'm a bit surprised that foreign oligarchs and billionaires haven't set up a scheme to flood those districts with ex-pats who are available for jury duty.
That would require changing federal law, as currently, non-citizens are ineligible.
What AGP individuals desire above all is attention for simply being. This also explains why even handsome and widely known men like Bruce Jenner would be AGP despite being objectively sexually successful, rich and famous (largely) heterosexual men. The reality is that 95% of women don’t really experience this, but male attention is so overwhelmingly focused on the hottest women, often without them even knowing, that they extrapolate this to the wider female experience. The trans fantasy - and this part is true for both AGP and HSTS - is to be a 95th percentile hotness woman. The rest of womanhood or womenfolk don’t concern them or factor into it at all. It’s like how acting students never imagine life as a merely moderately successful actor scraping by on bit parts and background roles in off-broadway shows and police procedurals; the fantasy is being the star.
I've heard it pointed out that transwomen who embrace the female in long hair and flirty dresses never seem to connect with the unsexy but more psychologically and socially deep-rooted parts of stereotypical female gender performance, like being held responsible for emotional labor in conversations, over-contributing to household scut work, organizing office parties and remembering birthday observances, spontaneously volunteering care for the sick and elderly, feeling impulses or pressure to politely apologize, compromise and defer in conversations, feeling sorry for winning in a competition (because it hurts someone's feelings), fearing unwanted sexual contact and altering behavior to avoid it, fearing pregnancy and ditto, shouldering by default the more grueling parts of childcare responsibilities, etc.
Not all AFAB people experience all of these to the same extent, but I bet the proportion of women who experience their femaleness partly in one or more of these ways is vastly greater than the proportion who experience femaleness through short skirts, pert boobs and glamour makeup.
Might a real point of compromise be to clarify that AGP individuals desire to be, not women, but specifically hotties? It's possible that the few women who also self-identify as hotties would have an easier time embracing men who do the same, and it would clear up a lot of the issue for the many, many other women who feel that their womanhood is something more complex and fairly unconnected to hotness.
Sometimes societies just do crazy things. Consider foot-binding in China. Enormous amounts of pain and life-long infirmity inflicted on young girls for basically no reason other than it being high-status to have these small feet. The origin was in some dancer who the emperor praised, nobody is quite sure. It makes zero sense. The process is actually sickening to read about, wikipedia casually adds that the death rate from gangrene could be as high as 10%. There were full-scale wars less deadly than this 'cosmetic procedure'.
But it took on a life of its own. Foot-binding became a kind of resistance movement to the Qing dynasty (who tried to ban it several times but failed). We can only assume it was ferociously popular, a way of marrying up in society, conforming to norms. There must've been very deep and powerful emotions behind it, if it subverts a basic parental conception of 'not torturing your child'.
I agree it would be kind of hot to be a very attractive girl. But that's not something that's realistically possible. I have heard horror stories no less disturbing than footbinding about those who try and fail.
More options
Context Copy link