FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
38m ago
If you have hard data showing that the overwhelming majority of MAiD recipients are older people who've been diagnosed with terminal and/or degenerative conditions, I would love to see it.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
39m ago
I take "sexting" to mean sexually explicit text messages, not photos. In many jurisdictions sharing intimate photos without consent ("revenge porn") is a crime, and I presume that if the victim was a minor that would be considered an aggravating factor.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1hr ago
If one in twenty deaths in a country were caused by suicide or deaths of despair, that would be headline news. Somehow it's ho-hum when it's medically assisted suicide.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
Fair enough, mea culpa. I don't think teens sexting should be legally classified as CSAM. By "CSAM" I was referring to the narrow case of photos and videos depicting minor children being sexually exploited.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
Fair enough, mea culpa. I don't think teens sexting should be legally classified as CSAM. By "CSAM" I was referring to the narrow case of photos and videos depicting minor children being sexually exploited.
And I will reiterate: your 'factual' claim is no such thing because you are smuggling in a subjective value judgement as if it were a fact.
No, I'm not. "I think Sydney Sweeney is hot" is a subjective value judgement. "Sydney Sweeney is considered exceptionally attractive by millions of people" is a statement of fact. "Millions of men would give away all their worldly possessions for one night with Sydney Sweeney" is a statement of fact. If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", it logically follows that a person considered beautiful by 1 million independent beholders is 100x more beautiful than a person who is only considered beautiful by 10,000 independent beholders. Given that, to the best of our knowledge, Sydney Sweeney's appearance is ultimately the product of her genes, it follows that Sydney Sweeney was born with genes which produce traits which are considered highly desirable by a huge proportion of the population – traits that a huge proportion of the population would either like to have for themselves, or would like their romantic partner to have. A reasonable compression of the previous sentence is "Sydney Sweeney has good genes".
Once you have taken for granted that some human phenotypes are "good" and others "bad", and that this means there are "good" genes and "bad" genes
Schizophrenia is estimated to be between 70-80% heritable. If presented with the option, would anyone choose to be schizophrenic?
There is no "differently abled": some traits are just intrinsically less desirable than others, and nobody actually believes that we're all created equal, much as they might pretend to (or cope by so doing). You can play this "no one is 'disabled', society has simply chosen to accommodate certain traits and not others" game as long as you please, but it's nonsense and everyone knows it.
The belief that "some people are more attractive than others" does not lead inevitably to Auschwitz.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
4hr ago
Initially I thought this was going to be about medical mistakes. It would be fascinating to see a breakdown of the stated reasons that euthanisees sought MAiD. I would like to think that people with incurable terminal illnesses would be in the majority, if only a slim one.
There was a thread a few weeks ago talking about the concept of a "trans genocide", and I noted that the Wikipedia article on the topic devotes a lot of column inches to the notion that conservative lawmakers might make life so unbearable for trans people that they take their own lives en masse. This would make it the world's first self-administered genocide.
Unless Canada beats them to it. Certainly not what I expected the Day of the Rake to look like.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
16hr ago
This just seems like yet another tiresome instance of "dog-whistle politics". "You can't talk about this true fact because some people could use it to justify bad behaviour" is a fully general counter-argument which applies to literally any factual statement.
I find dog-whistle politics particularly frustrating because they always, ultimately, seem to boil down to "you didn't actually say anything bad, but I don't like you, so I'm going to interpret everything you said in the most uncharitable possible light and infer things you didn't mean from perfectly innocuous statements, then treat you as if you explicitly said the most uncharitable misreading of your statement possible". I've read multiple people who independently argued that wokeness/social justice politics/whatever seems to attract a lot of people with cluster B personality disorders, and the shoe certainly fits here: "dog-whistle politics" is practically identical to how women with borderline personality disorder win arguments. (That is, without threatening to kill themselves.)
I will reiterate: the factual claim "many desirable human traits are heavily, if not solely, determined by one's genetic makeup" does not in any way imply the normative claim "therefore, governments should proactively intervene in the lives of their citizenry to improve their average genetic fitness". The belief that American Eagle were trying to promote the latter belief (via a fucking jeans and) is silly and absurd, one step removed from the surprisingly widespread belief that the CEO of Procter and Gamble is an avowed Satanist who openly admitted his faith on national television. The people advancing this belief deserve to be ridiculed. The belief that American Eagle are advancing the "many desirable human traits are heavily, if not solely, determined by one's genetic makeup" idea as a "dog-whistle" for literal eugenics is only marginally less silly, and deserve to be ridiculed. If you believe this about American Eagle, then you deserve to be ridiculed.
As an aside, "HBD is true, but the only people who want to talk about are white supremacists, so you should be automatically suspicious of anyone who brings it up", in addition to being one step removed from Bulverism, is just factually wrong. Most HBD enjoyers are acutely aware that Ashkenazim and people from the Far East are above average in intelligence. LKY built Singapore on HBD principles: he was aware from the outset that Malay professional outcomes would never equal Chinese, and took intentional, practical steps to mitigate the resentment that would inevitably ensue. In your opinion, is LKY a white supremacist?
And even if people want to talk about HBD for reasons of political policy, there are plenty of HBD-influenced policies which no reasonable person would characterise as white supremacist in nature. If indeed there is a significant IQ gap between blacks and whites, it follows that we can never expect black representation in STEM to equalise with white in our lifetimes, and so all public monies advancing that goal might as well be flushed down the toilet for all the good they'll do. It is hardly a coincidence that many HBD enjoyers are advocates for universal basic income.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
21hr ago
My point was that this is the first I've heard of teens sexting being categorised as CSAM, and would genuinely love to know in which jurisdictions it's categorised as such.
I consider "cancel culture", broadly defined, to be a politically neutral set of tactics. It was invented or popularised by progressives, but conservatives quickly cottoned on, and there have been successful right-wing cancellation campaigns.
When the OP said "wokeness is defeated", I took that not to mean "cancel culture is defeated" but "the most recent strain of radical progressive identity politics is in retreat". My example of the city festooned with progress pride flags was intended to illustrate that it's premature to claim that said movement is defeated.
Whenever someone says "woke", do you interpret that to mean "cancel culture"? Most conversations around here would be practically incoherent under that definition. I understand that cancel culture is a political tactic closely associated with wokeness, but it's not the ideology itself, any more than the ideology of the Provisional IRA is "Armalites and gelignite".
Even if we grant this point for the sake of argument, that still leaves "phrases like good genes are taboo" as a bona fide leftist shibboleth that the American Eagle ad campaign would have been stepping on the toes of. The question then is whether they did so out of ignorance, or if they considered that left-wingers would be offended and decided that being seen to mildly upset SJWs suited their PR purposes just fine.
Again: I never disputed that American Eagle was being provocative and intentionally stepping on the toes of wokescolds. That's quite far removed from the claim that American Eagle were explicitly touting the virtues of governments proactively improving the genetic fitness of the populations they govern. Wokes were not rending their hair and claiming "Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle are promoting a belief which is a prerequisite to endorsing eugenics!": they were saying "Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle are promoting eugenics!" The belief that some people are hotter (smarter, taller, faster etc.) than others for reasons of genetics does not in any way imply the belief that governments should e.g. sterilise those deficient in said traits against their will. This really does strike me as transparent sanewashing.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
22hr ago
CSAM includes material produced by sexting teens.
I think this is an extremely noncentral example of what people talk about when they talk about CSAM.
Then why just list "debatably-crazy things lefties are still allowed to say" rather than "debatably-crazy things righties still aren't allowed to say" as the watermark?
Because the OP was claiming that woke is defeated, and wokes being able to say absurd extreme things without repercussion is not what a defeated movement looks like. I presumed it went without saying that conservatives and moderates still cannot express comparably crazy (and in some cases, ordinary commonsense) opinions without repercussion. I mean, it obviously does go without saying: even you aren't disputing it.
It's difficult to take your aside about Pride Month as anything else than "Pride Month celebrations should end" - "
Difficult for you to take, perhaps. I thought the point was abundantly clear: an entire city being festooned with the flags of a particular ideology at the city council's behest is not what a defeated ideology looks like.
Radical progressives would be very uncomfortable with the sheer phrase "good genes"
They might claim to be uncomfortable with the concept, but their revealed preferences (in terms of their choice of romantic partner, their aspirations for their children, the people they sexually fantasise about, which sports teams and athletes they bet on, their attitudes towards inbreeding etc.) would tell a very different story.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
You'd be amazed at the number of self-identified leftists whose response to your rhetorical question would be yeschad.jpeg. One of Dublin's most recent mayors, for one.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
CP?
One can be a free speech absolutist and still think CSAM should be illegal. The thing that makes it evil is the manner of its production, not its distribution.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
I need to dig it out. This definitely isn't the article I was thinking of, but it includes the following quote from King:
... whenever the issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.
From the passage above I infer that King believed some kind of preferential hiring (i.e. affirmative action) was necessary until achievement gaps had been closed.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
Sorry to hear about your engagement. Hope you're doing okay.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
Years ago I read an article arguing that the "content of their character" thing, while a memorable turn of phrase, was not really representative of MLK's true beliefs and he did believe that, in the absence of racial discrimination, the ethnic composition of an organisation would be reflective of its host country. Therefore, we ultimately have MLK to thank for affirmative action and DEI. In that sense he was certainly proto-woke, far more so than Lincoln.
Wikipedia claims the term was first used in 1974, although I can't remember hearing it before the early 2010s.
Weirdly enough I actually think the term is a perfectly legitimate one: it's uncontroversially true that certain cultures promote rape, downplay the severity of it, or protect those guilty of it rather than protect their victims. It's just that every example of a culture meeting this description is a culture that modern feminists would object to being so characterised. "Gangs of adult men sexually exploit adolescent girls in their thousands, and the police turn a blind eye to it for decades for fear of 'inflaming community tensions' (the perpetrators are disproportionately Pakistani men) and because of the girls' socioeconomic background" is such an on-the-nose description of a rape culture it hurts – but intersectional feminists would likely get mad if I said that the UK was a rape culture provided that the rapists are Pakistani. Likewise, pretty much any Muslim-majority country in MENA could reasonably be characterised as a rape culture.
I don't disagree with feminists that rape cultures exist – I disagree with which cultures ought to be characterised as such.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
And your post sounded a lot more like you thought it was a problem that progressives were allowed to voice their beliefs at all.
Well, that wasn't the point I was making at all. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was that woke people can get away with publicly expressing rather out-there opinions without taking any kind of reputational hit, while conservatives or moderates cannot even get away with expressing comparably (or even much less) crazy opinions. This doesn't look like wokeness has been defeated.
"good genes" is, you know, literally the etymological meaning of the word "eugenics"
This seems like a rather extreme motte-and-bailey/sanewashing to me. Eugenics is the belief that governments should take proactive interventionist measures to improve the genetic fitness of the populations they govern. It is not the belief that some people are congenitally more attractive than others. If it meant the latter, there would be literally no one on the planet who didn't qualify as a eugenicist, and if everyone's a eugenicist, no one is.
The "is" belief "some people are congenitally hotter than others" in no way implies the "ought" belief "the government should intervene to improve the genetic fitness of the population it governs".
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
Honestly, give him a haircut and a change of clothes and he'd look like an indie rock singer the Coachella set would be swooning over.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
In everything I've seen her in (granted I've only seen two or three of her movies), she gave the weakest performance by far. Challengers, despite being the best performance of hers that I've seen, was no exception.
Good luck!
More options
Context Copy link