ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
24d ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
24d ago
How do you know I didn't?
Maybe it's just vibes, but the way you talk doesn't sound like it could come from anyone spending any relevant amount of time arguing against liberals and progressives. Usually that sort of thing leaves one with enough scars that they'd be able to implicitly signal they're aware of the issues with the other side, but your writing style just screams "basic Trump-bad Redditor".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
24d ago
My understanding is that the mod team has a lot of overlap with folks from rDrama. The Motte's underlying code is a fork of rDrama's.
How does one follow from the other? How do people come up with these ideas about the mods?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
24d ago
Cases of criminals raping their fellow inmates is not an argument against trans rights any more than interracial rape is an argument against civil rights.
Sure, though I disagree that any rights are being violated by not letting a male go to a women's prison.
female inmates rape eachother more than male inmates.
I'll have to read it, but doesn't pass the smell test given the difference in sex drives.
This is a dishonest guilt by association tactic that's not relevant to the actual discussion of the topic.
It's not dishonest. Trans activists were originally promising none of this situations will ever happen.
I'm not surprised people object when they don't know what trans rights are, nor what transphobia is.
You seem to be assuming that the case for trans rights requires no justification, and any disagreement must stem from lack of knowledge. I disagree, and believe the case for "trans rights" is simply unsupportable.
The modern prison system is a crime against humanity.
Again, I completely disagree, and believe this renders the concept of "crimes against humanity" meaningless.
It places people in terrible conditions that facilitate further suffering and strife to no one's benefit.
You have to look no further than what happened with El Salvador's crime rates to see that the benefit to the rest of society is quite obvious.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
25d ago
Your first point isn't terribly persuasive to me, because I don't think most male prison rapists were put behind bars as sex-offenders
I'd figure sex offenders offenders are more likely to offend in prison.
Relatedly, my answer to the second point is that male-on-male prison rape is still widespread to the point of being a punchline
That doesn't address my point. The question is who is more likely to be assaulted, and who has better chances if fighting off the assailant. The polls you cite answer neither of those questions.
I can't condone that perspective - IMO rape is simply not acceptable
You do you. I don't think criminals should be raped as part of their punishment, but I find it absurd to fret so much over not being able to provide absolute safety to the people who have no regard for the safety of others.
But if we grant the premise, then presumably a violent trans offender who gets sent to women's prison would only be able to prey on biologically-female violent offenders, too.
No, because women are less aggressive than men, and even a woman from a high security female prison is unlikely to reach the level of violence of a man, particularly the kind of man that ends up in a high security male prison.
Then I have no idea on what basis you're saying that the definition isn't doing what I described.
Also, we're not talking about politicians refusing to state your position, we're talking about academics and clinicians.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
25d ago
Do you mean that red pill over there?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
The epistemic collapse is that if a woman can be anyone who says they're a woman then we can't know what a woman is without asking everyone what they are, and taking their answer at face value
It's worse than that. Under that definition I have no idea whether I myself am a woman, or not.
I'll grant it's not a fair standard to apply to any particular individual you're having a conversation with. Maybe they really were one of the extremely few principled people all along, and after years of zapped accounts, or basic opsec, they can't provide receipts. Maybe they're too young to have participated in the culture war battles of the past to begin with. Hell, maybe they had an honest change of heart.
But come on, the idea that the mistake is treating social media as life is absurd. Crowds at anti-war protests dwindling to a chorus of crickets and 5 libertarians the very moment Obama got elected did not happen on social media. People moving on from pet issue to pet issue, pretending it's all a matter of principle, and then forgetting about those principles when a new pet issue contradicts them, is all just part of human nature.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
We seem to have some new faces around. 4chan refugees?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
Some might be avoiding political backlash, but some (the majority of academics vocal on the subject, in my estimation) are true believer queer theorists. Their basic belief is that anyone can (or should be able to) identify however they want, and express themselves however they want, that's why they see any constraint beyond a person wanting to be a woman as unacceptable. This is why they have to avoid even a "social" definition of "woman", and always put forward the circular self-ID based one.
Curious how you'd answer it. Some trans woman prisoners may try to rape biologically female inmates if put in women's prisons; but won't male inmates be even likelier to try to rape the trans woman if she's sent to the men's prison?
Sure, I have a few arguments. First, I'm not certain about this one, because I think I saw someone questioned the stats, but the numbers might not work out the way your argument is assuming to begin with, trans sex offenders seem to be overrepresented in prison compared to cis-men sex offenders.
Second, I think the strength disparity between men and trans women is smaller than between trans women and women, so they'd be in relatively less danger.
Third, I don't know exactly how the prisoner sorting system works, but my understanding is that if you're in for something nonviolent, you get pit in a low security prison, with other nonviolent people. You can also get transferred to one for good behavior. If we're talking about a violent trans offender that ended up in a high security prison, I'm less inclined to give a damn to begin with.
Fourth, what Amadan said.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
Damn, I always thought he just got hit by the same bomb as his dad.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
So if it's not the money, what shady deal is going on that they're trying to cover up?
First thing that comes to mind: what was the level of tariffs set for El Salvador during the recent drama?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
Yes, but what I was taught was that what killed him was our sins (I'll take a guess that this is what is meant by "by you" here), not the specific actions of the Pilate, the Pharisees, or the population of Jerusalem.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
How do we go from "gender and sex are different concepts, and woman is attached to gender, not sex" to "Whoops I sat on my dog because I can't tell the difference between a chair and a dog?" That's the bailey
No, it's not. We're not going from "gender and sex are different concepts, and woman is attached to gender, not sex", we're going from "I refuse to give you any definition of 'woman' that will constrain the category in any meaningful way (beyond, perhaps, it applying to humans, but even that is not certain)". How we arrive from there to treating men as though they were women because you're not able to define either, analogously to the dog & chair example I gave, should be clear and obvious.
this is the motte. It's a real problem that I can't argue against.
It's not the motte. It's a supporting example for why my interpretation on what's happening with the definition of the word "woman" is correct, and your's is incorrect.
Why can't we update our institutions to be sensitive to the rights of inmates in general? Why does it take a "male rapist" being sent to a "women's prison" for us to give a shit?
I'll note this is a complete change of subject, but I'll answer anyway.
We do give a shit, and not sending male rapists to women's prison is an example of that. The disproportion of strength between men and women is so massive, that basically every society came up with sex-segregation in contexts where it wanted to maximize the safety of women. If you're asking why we can't provide safety for all inmates, it's because we don't live in a perfect world, and we will never live in one. Unless you put the prisoners under total surveillance under all times (a violation of their rights) or into solitary confinement (a violation of their rights) you will never keep them completely safe. We opted for an arrangement where prisoners are sorted by how much danger they pose to each other, and I doubt you'd be able to come up with something better.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
The whole "what is a woman" thing is just a "gotcha" that abuses the fact that words have different meanings in different contexts.
I disagree, there's no gotcha. This is literally a case where the group that refuses to give a non-circular definition does so, because they don't want to constrain the category. They will not give a biological definition, because they want to allow for transition, but they will not give a social definition either, because that means being a woman requires imposing a certain set of social expectations and that would contradict their ideology as well.
Their only option is to not give a definition at all, which is what they're doing. I think your explanation is incapable of explaining this behavior, so I don't think it's correct.
My take is that if you asked people before the concept was politicized, very few people would spit out the answer "someone with a vagina". They would probably describe quite a few gender-coded concepts, thinking that you were asking something that had more philosophical depth than the most obvious answer.
I don't think so, but even if you're right, that's a strictly superior situation to the one we're in right now.
I was hoping a response would be more about the threat of epistemic collapse
Well, I'd say it's pretty obvious. If you can't tell the difference between your dog and your chair, you might sit on your dog, and take your chair out for a walk, which is exactly what we're seeing with things like male rapists being sent to women's prisons.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
Oh, lovely. I'll "readjust a bit" about the guy even existing, given that the source is the modern media.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
Isn't the line, in this case, a dot? The entire point being that epistemology has collapsed to the point that the world's top experts in the field of gender can no longer define a commonly used word?
especially since throughout scientific history we've updated words to better match the scientific consensus of the model of our universe and our existence within it. I
We're not talking about the definition changing, let alone changing to be more in line with any kind of science (or even scientific consensus), we are talking about the definition becoming incoherent, and experts outright refusing to give an answer about what they mean by the term.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
I'm not having any such trouble. I can name a handful of people who hold this as a good-faith position, I just have huge doubts many people posting here are among them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
I don't know how old you are or the social circles you run in, but among left-of-center people at the time there was definitely a fatigue about Obama setting in.
I still remember people calling Glenn Greenwald a closet rightwinger for pointing this sort of stuff out, and if "fatigue" is an appropriate response to a citizen being sentenced to death without a trial (and the execution resulting in the death of his underage son that wasn't even given a process-free death sentence), than I think shrugging and moving along should be a valid reaction to sending a non-citizen back to his country, even if it violated process and resulted in him being thrown into a prison.
Sure. I'm not saying all systems with no due process are better than systems with due process, or that they're better on average, or anything like that. I'm saying fixating on the idea leaves you open to Goodhart’s Law, a failure mode that seems to be more and more frequent in western liberal democracies. If you want an extreme example, the Soviet Union had due process as well.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
Not a theologian, but the whole conversation strikes me as Big Dum. How is Jesus supposed to die for our sins, if he does not, in fact, die? If anything the Jews should be seen as the same kind of useful golem to Gods grand plan that he says the Pilate was.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
27d ago
Say there is a powerful government official who wants to do these things to you.
Would you rather live in Earth 1 where there is due process, or Earth 2 where there isn't?
It depends on many factors, and there might indeed be cases where I'd opt for Earth 2.
It's not "due process " which is costing you hundreds of thousands. It's the bad government official, and due process is protecting you from them, even if it sucks.
This assumes the government official would do something more egregious to me given the choice, and I see no reason to grant that. If you start sweeping people off the street and sending them to gulags, that's the kind of action that is plainly visible to my fellow citizens, and it comes at a cost to the person who ordered it. Maybe they're as powerful as Stalin and they can afford such ruthlessness, but if we're talking about something roughly analogous to modern American, if nothing else he'll have to be careful about what will happen to him, if his party loses the elections. This is where due process helps people like that. You can ruin someone's life without exposing yourself to threat of retaliation.
Keep in mind, if you want to say that, all things considered, you'd prefer to live in a country with due process than without - that's fair enough, it's a completely respectable position. All I'm saying is that your original position of "due process is never a weapon" is clearly false, and that it's been abused to the point that your original implied threat isn't necessarily so scary.
Okay? But can you actually say what right is being violated? It would make the conversation a whole lot easier.
In any case, even if I just try to use your analogy, without having the argument stated explicitly, I still don't see the case for "trans rights". Civil Rights don't see race as a valid category to segment personhood on, so it demands that segregation be abolished. By analogy this would mean the abolition of sex segregation, but "trans rights" is arguing for keeping it, but making an exception for only some men. If anything it's a supremacist argument, rather than an egalitarian one.
I think it would make the trans activists dishonest, rather than the argument.
If a policy is allowed to go through, partly on the grounds that it will not cause specific side effects, and those specific side effects do materialize, it is an honest argument against the policy.
A quick sanity check - would you consider the UK raoe gang scandal a crime against humanity?
Everything? Just the mere act of keeping them off the streets already requires enacting suffering.
And if you're saying the suffering of imprisonment is a valid tool to use, and are just arguing for not exceeding a specific threshold, I'd like to know what that threshold is.
More options
Context Copy link