ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Do we let people with a healthy heart sign up for experimental heart surgery?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I doubt this automatically means that the Greens are going to get the pick instead.
No, it means someone less offensive to the Greens is going to get picked, which means they get to act like they're a part of the ruling coalition without being in it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I'm very right-wing!
Not unless your every post here is a devil's advocate exercise.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Thanks for the heads up!
By that standard, a good fraction of cars on the road don't qualify as human-driven.
How about "has to perform no worse than the worst human with a valid driver's license (without geofencing, etc. etc.), and has to perform in a manner that would not result in the driver's license being taken away from the human"? That's a pretty charitable standard, I'd say, and we should probably aim for average, rather than worst).
My idea for self-driving car laws: It has to pass a standard driver's license exam
The problem with that is that it's fairly easy to train an AI to pass an exam without it implying it can perform in general conditions. I think we already have LLM's that can pass a bar exam, for example.
SEGFAULT. Replied to the wrong comment
And there are other medical organizations and groups that reached a different finding.
Anyone you have in mind? As far as I can tell the organizations can be roughly divided into:
- Ones who did do a systematic review and came to roughly the same conclusions
- Ones who did not do one, and therefore can't really be said to have come to any conclusions
- Ones who did do a systematic review, and decided to hide the results from the public, and made researchers sign a pledge of loyalty to only publish results that will be good for the transgender movement.
Clearly there's a disagreement and we need more high quality research to settle things
Can we at least agree that no one from the third group belongs anywhere near said research?
Was there a bunch of consenting autistic people begging to be given lupron?
Since we're talking about children, they can't consent directly (and since we're talking autism, it's possible they could have been non-verbal anyway), so the relevant question would be about the parents. Yes, there were parents begging for it, that's why they went to a doctor offering it.
I think there are different standards between "studies of medicine forced on someone without their permission" and "studies of medicine done with the consent of both child and parent"
No one was forcing the parents, and if your entire objection rests on children "consenting", it's pretty trivial to manipulate them into wanting it (which is exactly what happened with trans care).
And if you're still not convinced I can give you more examples where the patients were begging for quack therapy, and it got shut down by the authorities. Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy, off the top of my head.
Ah I wasn't aware two wrongs made a right. I guess the Whataboutists had the best idea after all.
It's not whataboutism to want to defund corrupt research, and if you only criticize the defunders, you don't really believe it's "two wrongs".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
It's not a wonder you don't care about reforming the science to have evidence based results on if trans healthcare for minors has positive or negative results for patients if you've already made up your mind that it's unethical off other grounds.
Do you think the science of treating autists with Lupron just needed reform, or is it better that it was axed?
Science should not be
Step 1: Have a view established off something else Step 2: Only accept evidence, research, and experts that agrees with the pre-established view and not the ones that disagree. Step 3: Declare the issue done with and stop further research.
Funny you say that, because this is exactly what trans medicine has been so far.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
If we end up with a qualified labour shortage because everyone went AI-Doomer, I will be laughing for some time.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Something he was expressly authorised to do by Congress
Congress had no right to authorize it either.
federalism and nondelegation grounds, not on fundamental rights grounds
You have to forgive me for not caring for SCTOUS' justifications from this era, they had a few doozies too. In any case, look if you want to judge this particular transgression as less bad than what Trump's doing, I suppose I can see where you're coming from. But if you want to take the cumulative total of all the ways liberals were breaking the constitution, I don't know if it's going to be so clear who comes up on top (or bottom as it were).
Anyway, are you taking that bet on Trump running again or not?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Common usage of the term "centre-right" is shorthand for "pro-establishment right".
I'd say it's a shorthand for "moderate right", but if that's how you're using the term, no further objections I guess. But in that case, what do you think is the point of Trace's project of building bridges with Bill Kristol and Liz Chaney, or whatever? I figured this sort bridge-building is due to ideological closeness, not for the purpose preserving the power of specific elites.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I'd say way it's too early to tell if this really is the case, and there's plenty of people in the circles I frequent who are highly skeptical, viewing Trump as "containment" by the establishment, and all of his "victories" as just an empty show for the rubes.
Apologies if I'm being rude, but what exactly is your power level?
The MAGA base support administrative detention legal immigrants with the wrong tattoos - in peacetime, which makes this worse than FDR.
Sure, if we're going to pretend FDR's excesses began and ended with the Japanese internment, that it may seem that way. FDR had people arrested for selling goods too cheap - in peacetime, I hardly see how it's any better than detaining them for the wrong tattoo.
Trump is already running for a third term in plain sight
Are you taking any bets on this?
His abuses of power didn't start with WW2, so "we should never have another FDR" after he reshaped the entire country, setting the tone for next century, is awfully convenient.
Also, this particular line of argument seems irrelevant until Trump starts running for his 3rd term.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Oh please. Yeah, I heard his origin story of being a Mitt Romney republican, but there's nothing conservative about him. His entire posting history here indicates his goal boils down to 'tard-wrangling the hardcore progressives so they stop scaring away the hoes normies.
I'm also struggling to charitably respond to the assertion that a center-right no longer exists. The neocons don't get to define the center-right, and disagreeing with them doesn't mean you're "far-right".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
This effectively means that liberals don't care for America having a president, not a king. They love having a king as long he's a man of "exceptional virtue" (steamrolls checks and balances to implement liberal policies).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
You can take a kind of functionalist position and say that Democratic politicians are what they do, and so in 2020 they were radical trans ideologues. Sure. But it doesn't give much insight into how they will respond to changing circumstances.
The direct implication of this is that we don't know if they won't come right back to sending trans women to women's sports and prisons the moment they win.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
but feels like it's 6 years old.
Months, maybe. No backpedaling was happening until Trump won again, and I'm still not convinced it's happening.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
The problem is that the people who are extreme are uniformly Democrats, and that gets projected on to the rest of the party. It doesn't help that these people tend to, by their nature, be the most motivated, loudest, and most likely to get signal-boosted by their political opponents.
I'd say the biggest problem is that they get appointed to be the Secretary of the Public Health Service, where they hatch conspiracies to abolish age limits on "gender affirming procedures".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I want to believe true things. This isn’t the first time you’ve convinced me that my reflexive reaction was wrong. I really appreciate that.
P.S.: I forgot to mention, I in turn appreciate you being a sport here. It takes me waaaay longer than that, on average, to grant that someone might have had a point, if what they're saying goes against my reflexive reaction.
What's the idea behind this kind of discourse? It seems so alien to any kind of strategic understanding of politics and campaigning to me, especially now when the liberal order is more vulnerable than ever
It's because they are more vulnerable than ever that they have to tighten the screws. All that tolerance, discourse, and "the marketplace of ideas" were just a flex, like a boxer sticking his neck out knowing the other fighter doesn't have the skills to land a punch. It also seems like a straight-forwardly correct move in the short term to alienate a few powerless people and keep an iron grip on the institutions, than risk losing them for the sake of being reasonable.
I partiallly agree, and partially disagree (or still misunderstand). I think you're right that science doesn't matter in the sense that this is, to a large extent, a conflict of values. I wrote about it in the past, how I thought the discussion is centered around science, and how to best treat the condition called gender dysphoria, or whether such a condition actually exists rather than being an artifact of another psychological issue, and how it turned out that the pro-trans side admitted that it doesn't care, that it was using the "medicalized narrative" strategically to build acceptance for their true goal - patient autonomy, and the pursuit of authenticity through body modification.
You might be right that this is symmetrical, in that it's merely convenient for the anti-trans side that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is dubious, and that there are all these scientific, medical, and health concerns about the treatment, and if all of these concerns were shown to be moot by advances in technology, they'd still be against letting people modify their bodies to such a radical extent, but you're wrong about the science-based arguments being useless. The Science™ is the framework for resolving disagreements that our society has agreed upon, given conflicting values. This is the battleground that was picked, so this is where we have to fight. Also, trivially - if they were useless, the pro-trans side wouldn't be using them so much, even as they knew they can't be backed by evidence.
To that end, despite my personal objections, I tend to bristle at state legislatures that seek to make the decision themselves rather than allow parents and doctors to make it together.
Why? This is business as usual, we get between parents and doctors all the time, sometimes about the very same drugs (and arguably about the very same condition) that we're discussing right now, and no one bats an eye. Is it somehow worse because it's the legislature doing it, instead of the medical licensing board?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I think they were doing it with boxing. At least what I vaguely remember is some setup where some ripped-as-fuck dude, and a pretty-ripped woman take turns throwing punches at a ripped-as-fuck-dude-wearing-a-blindfold, who then proclaims that ackshully the woman hit a little harder, or something like that.
Somehow that's even more surprising. Who even reads websites at this point? Most of the content I run into is commercial slop, and if it's not written by AI itself, it might as well have been.
More options
Context Copy link