@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

First, you have to determine whether or not the law itself makes a distinction based on sex. This is a legal question, not a biological one.

Not really. If the law says "you can't change sex" to both sexes, it's not a sex-based legal distinction. It's a sex-based biological distinction, because how exactly you'd go about changing your sex is a biological matter.

I believe in you guys.

Thanks, but we're being ruled be literal lizardmen, and we don't have nearly as many guns in the hands of the common people as you do.

Splendid. Nation-destroying Syria worked out so great for Europe, there's nothing that would bring me more joy than doing it again to country ~4x it's size.

constant citing of statistics from sources engineered to affirm his priors does not strike me as rigorous social science

I am deeply skeptical of there being such a thing as social science that doesn't do it. Pretty much every academic has a preferred theory explaining societal ills, and they'll pull of similar tricks to the sources you're complaining about, in order to promote said theories.

Okay, I believe that, but there are a lot of other explanations for those things. It is not convincing evidence for the argument that this is because women overall have become completely unreasonable and delusional and 80% of them are getting pumped and dumped by 20% of the guys, and decent normal men can't get any action at all.

I agree with you that the issue is much more complex than "it's all the women's fault", but I also think that any solution demanding that women change anything about their behavior is haram in our society, and that such changes are indeed necessary to solve the problem.

What I see is not that guys simply cannot find a girl, but that relationships between the sexes are more fraught than ever before, and also the whole idea of trying to market yourself online with an app (which is apparently how most people do it nowadays) seems hellish to me.

Yeah, that part of the conversation is hard for me to participate in. a) I don't personally know that many Zoomers, and b) I live in Europe, where American societal trends arrive with a lag.

I would have guessed it's another Iraq, but it's two of them.

Like I said in the other comment, I actually ended up liking Cruz after listening to it, so don't want to give him too much shit over pedantic stuff like specific population statistics, but I would like to hear some kind of a plan on how to handle the toppling of 2xIraq, if this is indeed what they're going to do.

Knowing the specific population of Iran is far, far less relevant...

Yeah, the specific population. I wouldn't care if he was off by 10 million in either direction, but knowing the ballpark is pretty important. I didn't know it's population either (like at all), and finding out we're talking about a country the size of a fifth of the entire EU spooked me out quite a bit.

Off-topic to the whole Iran issue, but: everybody's giving Ted Cruz shit over that interview, but I actually ended up liking him after that interview. He didn't have a good answers to several objections I found important, but it was refreshing to see a politician have a normal conversation trying to step someone through their reasoning on an important issue, answering relevant (to me) objections in real-time, etc., as opposed to sticking to talking points and pre-prepared statements as is typical on short-form TV interviews.

With all the talk of the impact of podcast-bros on the results of the election, I wonder if this won't be something that future politicians will have to git gud at.

Yeah, "approved" in the Milgram Experiment sense.

It wasn't a long time ago that the pro-trans side had total information dominance. Even If a parent had their doubts and wanted to double-check what the doctor said, all they'd find after googling is papers and statements from respected institutions telling you how Gender Affirming Care is The Science™, and you're an ignorant fool for wanting to delay or avoid your child's medicalization. It takes a special kind of contrarian to go with their gut, against every authority figure in vicinity and beyond.

Frankly, I believe my lying eyes more than I believe a collection of blackpill-curated stats from places like the Institute for Family Studies.

I actually endorse this approach 100%, but surely this implies a general rejection of social science?

I'm sorry you are having such a struggle, and honestly, the dating landscape does look kind of awful right now (speaking as a guy who was pretty awkward and had a number of other strikes against me in my youth) and I am glad I'm not on the market.

Wait what? Why are you glad you're off the market, if your eyes are telling you things are fine?

Doesn't that mean you're that much more screwed if you end up changing your mind later?

The number of top surgeries on underage patients is in the hundreds per year for the whole US anyway, might as well have the minimum age be 18 and avoid the moral panic altogether.

My opinion on blockers and hormones isn't particularly high either, but yeah, never understood why we can't settle on 18+ for all this stuff.

I'm ... skeptical about the Milgram theory in general, and for this behavior in specific, but even presuming that they're correct and generally believing the Beware Trivial Inconveniences theory

I personally know a parent that it happened to, and I met them by chance rather than activism. On the activist side as well "my kid said they're trans, so I took them to a psychologist hoping they'll talk through their feelings. Instead, I got a referral to an endocrinologist, and was told the kid will kill themselves if I don't give them hormones" is by far the most common origin story.

As others pointed out, it's not about trivial inconveniences, it's about preventing authority figures from pulling parents into something that goes against their better judgment. If they are willing to go to another state for the trans care, they were probably ok with it to begin with.

A significant portion of MAGA agrees that the issue with enforcing immigration restrictions are business attempting to cut costs. It's not a direct contradiction if his argument, there are several factions in the GOP, but the tension between them does make it a bit awkward for the theory that "the heart of the GOP" has zero interest in immigration enforcement. Vivek found out the hard way that it's not so simple.

Are mastectomies really that expensive? Aren't there a good deal of insurance companies that cover it?

In any case, my argument is one I've made before: many parents are Milgram Experiment-ed into it. If they want to travel to California to lob their daughter's breasts off, it's their choice, but if the practice is locally illegal, they'll probably figure out they don't have to listen to the psychopath in the labcoat.

Trans people are already used to travelling for surgeries

A bit hard to pull off for a 14 year old girl, without the approval of the parents.

and not because you have access to information that hasn't been made public

Oh please, why should anyone expect judges make their decisions based on non-public information, rather than tribalism and ideology?

Hot damn, that is indeed too spicy even for my tastes.

Not quite. When I don't give food to the homeless, I just don't give them food. Maybe someone else does, maybe they go to a church-run soup kitchen, but I don't put a bullet in their head.

So no, the comparison fails, and once more I wonder how the Elite Human Capital had the hubris to unironically use the name.

Ironically men are attending church more than women now, the previous trend os just barely inverted.

Because they converted to another religion, which is conveniently not tracked by church attendance, as it's pretending to not be a religion.

The Antipopulist is literally the nerd emoji who goes around saying, 'if we replace all the MAY with SHALL, that TOTALLY restores the legitimacy of the system.

Yes, I know. My point is that Gattsuru can, and does, show that irrespective of the hostility he exhibits, and therefore the hostility is unnecessary, and only drags the quality of the discourse down.

@gattsuru had a bit about them throwing Skrmetti to the red tribe to compensate for the betrayal on the gunz issue, and I can't unsee it. Not that I disagree with the decision, but I'd happily trade one for the other.

"Nothing ever happens" is a completely valid sentiment, more valid than all the proclamations of all the academic experts combined, in fact. Also, people don't chime in with "I agree" comments over here. People only responds in agreement, when a comment is exceedingly insightful, otherwise they tend to respond with disagreements, which you can observe in this very instance.

There's some largish subset of Gen-Z women who are claiming that in their daily lives, they almost never see 'hot' men out and about, and the vast majority of the men they do see are hopelessly ugly, don't take care of themselves, and are just horribly unattractive, meanwhile they also claim that most of the women they see are gorgeous, well-put-together, and otherwise "hot" and thus deserve better partners than they've got.

Look, listen, I'm broadly sympathetic to the points you're raising about relationships for younger people, but this ain't it. Women are more religious than men, and this just so happens to be a religious belief that they have to proclaim even in anonymous surveys, but that doesn't mean they actually believe it. See: Lizzo is beautiful, right up until you call a woman beautiful just like Lizzo.

What I always wanted to know is, having bitten that bullet, how do they justify not biting the bullet on infanticide, or extermination of the non-self-sufficient.