Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
BMI 25-30 is historically unusual. Reubensque figures have often been considered attractive; modern obese Americans are not.
Being slightly plump might increase your overall longevity, but relative to other factors, I'll take not fat and active over fat and sedentary. Attractiveness is subjective but whatever heroin chic fashion might have been in style in the 90s, I got really sick of seeing FA advocates argue that humans naturally are fat and some Pacific island tribe proves that obese women are actually sexy.
I think the issue is that most trans people don't feel that the outside view is operating in good faith.
Well, that's one of the issues. And to be sure, a lot of trans opposition is religion-based, or just gut level "Ewww!" reactions, which I agree just use any "diagnosis" of transness as not real as post hoc justification.
However, any attempts at actual diagnostic accuracy have been summarily rejected by the trans movement. Jesse Singhal is a tragic case study: he is despised by the trans community almost as much as JK Rowling, because his whole thing is deep dives into studies and data analysis, in which he consistently shows that trans studies tend to suffer from all kinds of shoddy methodology. And despite the fact that he's about as liberal as they come and repeatedly asserts his support for trans rights, he is accused of being, like JK Rowling, a fascist who wants to see trans children dead in the streets.
So while I understand the mistrust you might have for a generally hostile "outside view," the fact that you take it for granted that any negative conclusion must be bad faith and born of hostility rather than clinical assessment means that there isn't really any way to find some common rational basis for settling trans issues.
And as I've said before, I think the actual issue is trans right supporters being unwilling to confront the bad faith actors in their own camp. People like (presumably) you who just want to live your lives and would trouble no one would be mostly accepted even by the majority of the population who doesn't really believe your gender self-identification is real. But you have a small but vocal group that does things like dress like Cormac McCarthy's hellish parade of Commanches and behaves in the most aggressive, male manner possible while screaming that they "don't owe anyone femininity" and you will call them she/her/they. You have trans women who make a point of inserting themselves into every female space they can, from lesbian dating apps to Girl Guides, just to make a crusade out of crushing the expected resistance. And you have the grifters and the "pornsick men" who are obviously, obviously autogynephiles and getting off on making other people (pretend to) see them as women, and in many cases making people pretend to see the emperor's new clothes is part of their delight in the experience.
It should not be surprising that these highly visible faces of the trans movement make a greater impression on trans opponents than the folks who "just want to pee."
It is not comically trivial. This is the sort of problem the Wellness thread is for.
Is having skin in the game a reason to trust your self-read more, or less?
If people were able to be real and honest with themselves and their self-intuitions were reliable, we would not have such a booming therapeutic/self-help industry. No, in my opinion most people are actually pretty bad at knowing themselves. Of course they think they do. Who wants to admit that their self-image bears no resemblance to reality, or that how other people see them might be more accurate than how they see themselves?
Intelligent, assured, and emotionally stable people don't have to worry about this much, and may not understand just how many people are not all of those things.
This doesn't mean there are no trans people who really and truly experience gender dysphoria and an internal sense that their gender is different than their biological sex. Whether or not that is "real" in the sense of being a thing that exists outside their mind, it's real enough to cause genuine distress and I'm sympathetic. But no, I don't think every one of them is really and truly what they perceive themselves to be and the best judge of what their "real" sex is just because they feel it.
There was a time, many years ago, where one of my weird fascinations was the fat acceptance movement (this was early days, when they were still pretty fringe). I was into health and fitness at the time, after having lost a considerable amount of weight myself. I started reading the forums of people who initially fell into this subculture because, well, they were fat, they were unhappy about it, but losing weight is hard. As you might imagine, the levels of cope and rationalization would give trans people some serious competition. Every pseudo-scientific and psychological theory under the sun to explain why losing weight and keeping it off is absolutely and totally impossible and never works, which leads to elaborate theories of socialization to explain that actually, being fat is sexy and normal and it's just our modern society that's stigmatized fat.
Anyway, as you might imagine, many, many people would cruise by and ("helpfully" or otherwise) tell them they were delusional and/or there are actually ways to lose weight. A common refrain from the FA people was essentially what trans people say: "How dare you presume that you know more about our bodies than we do?"
Thing is, yeah, a lot of people actually did know more about their bodies than they did, because the things they thought about their bodies were mostly unscientific cope that flew in the face of reality. Plus the mundane things, like I can't count how many times I've read about someone who weighs 300 or 400 pounds insisting that they literally ate 800 calories and did 2 hours of exercise daily for weeks and physically could not lose weight. No, I am not exaggerating, I have seen those literal numbers quoted. And sometimes much less extreme, but still clearly unrealistic, figures. The degree to which all of these people really believed this, I cannot say, but I'm sure some of them did somehow manage to convince themselves that the bags of chips and bottles of soda and extra whip mocha frappucinos didn't "count."
I think in many ways they are very similar to trans people: they feel something is wrong about their bodies, they would like to change it, but change is hard and difficult, especially when it's your own thinking that needs to change, so instead, they decide it's other people's perceptions that should change.
There are many people I dislike and would not be sorry to see go. I personally consider it gauche to celebrate death, even someone like Putin or the Ayatollah, though I certainly wouldn't be sad about them. But first of all, wartime deaths are fundamentally different. Second, I'm talking about people who are happy to say they think someone deserves to die for being on the "wrong" side politically. Or even openly advocating for violence.
Sigh. Look man, modhat off.
You're getting reported a lot, of course, but none of your posts are really rule-breaking, they are just... obnoxious. Because you're doing this schtick where "no one actually celebrated Charlie Kirk's death" (yes they fucking did) and the left wing media atmosphere is definitely as tuned to outrage slop as the right wing one. I don't think you are a troll or a Darwin alt, but you generally do not post good or interesting thoughts, just very weak equivocations. As someone who's been accused of that myself because of my squishy liberal sensibilities (now decaying like a gangrenous sore), what offends me about your posturing it that it often seems fundamentally disingenuous and I don't trust that you are being entirely sincere and not just trying to farm outraged responses yourself.
I am aware a lot of the celebratory posts about Charlie Kirk getting shot were obtained by skimming the worst people on X and reddit, which is always a goldmine of really bad takes if you're trying to assemble a wall of Chinese Robber mugshots, LibsOfTikTok style. But in my own social media orbit (i.e., people I know), I saw a lot of takes along the lines of "Well, murder is bad, but he did cause harm to marginalized people..." Or a smirking repost of his quote about how the 2A was worth a few dead children.
Do I personally know people who would outright celebrate an assassination? Noo... but a whole lot who would "read the news with pleasure."
I think this is bad and cause for worry and it's why I tend to put a boot on "fedposting," even if @gattsuru thinks I am overzealous about it. People who celebrate death, who advocate murder, who think it's funny when someone on the "other side" dies, who want violence, are bad people.
Zorba never expressed a fear of being served a warrant or asked me to mod fedposters to prevent that from happening. That was me saying "Let's not post things that could result in Zorba being served a warrant," so blame me, not him.
Nowhere do I see examples of your claim at the top that we (moderators) or I (specifically) prohibit fedposting "only for one political allegiance."
I will generally put on the modhat whenever someone is threatening violence or being too explicit about wanting someone or some group to die. Whether or not I actually think Zorba is likely to be served a warrant.
If in your database of Every Fucking Thing Amadan Has Ever Posted, there is a time I came down on a leftie less vigorously than I came down on a rightie for posting something similar, I will say with all sincerity that it was not intentional, I try my level human best to be fair and even-handed regardless of political allegiance, and if I fail, it's because my memory is as fallible as I am. I don't keep a spreadsheet of times I modded righties and lefties and how many days I gave them, respectively, for "fedposting."
If Ken White went on his "Someone should kill Elon Musk" rant here on the Motte, I would definitely have modded him.
The Big Stick is when you get banned. I am not amused that you think this is a joke.
Well, I understand your opinion. I think you're wrong and honestly, being a little silly here, but I am not trying to persuade you to be either a rationalist or a stoic.
You seem more invested in the conflict than I am, but it doesn't bother me. While I wouldn't call myself a "stoic rationalist" or a "rationalist stoic," I wouldn't scoff at the label.
I think the part that hangs you up is the discipline of stoicism I find the least relevant, that of Physics, concerning the nature of God. I find stoicism more interesting in its mental practices and its connection to CBT.
I'm aware they are different philosophies, though I disagree that they "could not be more different." I find them similar in their systemic approaches. As I said, I don't identify with either or take either one as ground truth about the nature of reality.
If someone annoys you and you don't have a substantive rebuttal, blowing raspberries is not constructive. Knock it off.
All(most) rationalists are atheists, but not all atheists are rationalists.
I think rationalism is kind of like stoicism (both philosophies I like and try to practice, though I don't really "identify" as either a rationalist or a stoic) - the basic outlines are unobjectionable and sensible, and more people would benefit by them, but the more fine-grained you get, the harder it is to be a "true" rationalist/stoic. Nobody can act with pure rationalism or stoicism all the time, and the more seriously you take it the more you become entangled in questions of "what is the real rationalist/stoic answer, anyway?"
- Prev
- Next

So.. the Straits of Hormuz are actually open and Iran is just talking shit? There is no threat to shipping, nobody is paying tolls, insurance rates are not being jacked up, oil prices are not being affected, a US military presence is not necessary because the Iranian military no longer exists, and this is all fake news, we can go home and declare victory and ignore anything Iran says about shipping?
That is fantastic news!
More options
Context Copy link