JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I got to about the middle (about when the vampires show up) and there are certainly some signs of fatigue showing. I decided to take a break from it, and try to come back in a month or two and see if it goes better. I do like the worldbuilding aspects, though some jokes become a bit too forced, I mean I probably heard all the jokes about programmers and geeks that are possible already, I want something new already.
But the first Laundry ones I'd definitely recommend to somebody like me. Also, it's nice to have some British point of view on the world, having been reading so many American ones lately.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Reading arguments for both sides, I kinda see the merit of both, and yet I can't see either of them winning and I am fine not knowing which of them is true - in fact, I prefer it as an open question. In general, I am completely fine with literature leaving questions open and undecidable - you are not nearly omniscient in the real world, nobody promised you'd be in the imaginary one either.
Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to have the same attitude about the political scissor questions. Hadn't managed to achieve this yet though.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I find generalizations of the form "group X is stupid because it doesn't do Y exactly in a way I'd like people to do Y" more a failure of imagination and evidence of the narrow-mindedness than anything else. Maybe they don't have something like Three Body, or maybe they do - but making an impression on the whole culture by such a narrow measure sounds pointless.
they commonly come across as substantially and consistently dumber than other ESLs.
When I cooperated with Japanese people at my work (was some years ago) I (eventually) found out several of them did not speak English, and the English emails they regularly sent me are a product of an automatic translation. That explained a lot actually. It would be nice if they told me about it upfront, but I understand it may be harder for them to admit something like that. But none of those people were dumb - or dumber than any other very smart people I worked with, despite the occasional communication problems. Maybe if you understood Japanese you'd have a different impression?
On the other hand, if I would evaluate people by the content I find on the social media, I'd be forced to conclude that the vast majority of humanity are complete utter morons. I don't think it's actually true though, I think it's just how the social media works, unfortunately.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Generic Classical Art Museum, in my book, is still way better than a generic Modern Art Museum, the latter is almost guaranteed to push a political agenda and have a lot of works whose only merit is that their creators check the necessary boxes. And, they usually have "modern art", which, despite listening for hours of lectures on how to properly understand it, still looks very much like garbage to me. I am not allergic to all modern art, just to about 80% of it, and it's mostly what consists the majority of the collection of a generic museum. But yes, excepting major cities and some special cases, a street walk would probably be more interesting than a generic art museum, even the classic one.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
try to have friendly acquaintances within an hour of a given metro
That likely won't happen. I'm the introvert's introvert. I mean, I feel more exhausted after a 15-minute conversation with a stranger than I do after a good heavy lifting session. It's not that I can not make a dinner with a stranger, and be pleasant and funny and all around enjoyable person. I can, and I did. It's that for me it'd be the diametrical opposite of rest and relaxing. I'd have to recharge for like a week after that effort. To really enjoy somebody's company and relax, I have to know the person preferably for a couple of years, maybe more. But I feel perfectly fine in my own's company too, and in fact in most cases prefer it to the company of anybody, except maybe my wife and a select few other people.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I love parks, and usually always spend some time walking if there's one nearby. On an occasion, though, I feel ready for more active entertainment.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Food toors would be awesome, unfortunately I have some dietary restrictions that usually aren't a problem in a regular restaurant but frequently make me unable to enjoy things like food tours since I can't eat a lot of what they offer, or have to very annoyingly interrogate about what each thing is made of.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
If you are in some city away from home, and you have a free afternoon and want some entertainment, what do you usually do?
Due to certain circumstances, I have been traveling a bit lately, and sometimes I have some free time that I wanted to occupy by e.g. seeing some performances or listening to live music or something like that. So far what I did has been occasionally successful (seen a good play) and occasionally failed (couldn't find anything worthy). Complicating condition I don't want to see (or, consequently, help with my money) anything related to agenda-pushing or wokeness. Several times just opening the site for some local theaters was basically a huge turn-off because it was so full with woke jargon that I couldn't trust them enough to go for anything. Other cases, I am not sure how to evaluate e.g. local bands - there are a lot of them and I have no idea if any of them would interest me. I would like to improve my search quality if possible.
So, what would you do in such situation (beyond the obvious like google, reddit, etc. searches)?
Rather, it indicates a turn away from 'world policing', and the acknowledgement that there are bounds to American interests.
To me, it sounds a lot like those showflake souls that propose replacing the police with "community non-violent conflict resolution teams". Which, predictably, results in criminals doing their thing openly and without fear, and "resolution teams" standing around or sitting in a nearby caffe, looking like the doofuses they are. The problem is evil exists, and contrary to what some self-centered Americans may think, it is not always caused - in fact, in most cases isn't - by "American meddling". And if you close your eyes to it, it will grow, until closing your eyes to it is no longer an option. And when that happens, you'd still have to deal with it somehow. Just as inhabitants of "defund the police" cities still have to deal with criminals going nowhere - just there's no more police because the politicians they voted for had those grand ideas about how police meddling causes all the trouble. It's very nice to sit and think "if we just don't meddle, everything will be fine and peachy" but it wouldn't work this way, and the oceans won't help much in today's small world.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
There can be many legit reasons for a public person to use several email accounts. For example, you want one account that you give to random people you have to contact, and another high-pririty one which you give only to trusted confidantes and where you won't encounter all kinds of spam and begging for money/attention, etc. There's little legit reason that I can see to use a fake name in email. In Twitter profile - sure. If you're a public person and want to subscribe to people's feeds without people going "OMG, Public Person subscribed to me!!! Public Person liked my tweet!!!" then you use a pseudonymous account. But email doesn't work this way. Especially not when you in a public office. Then I see only one reason - to hide one's identity and to avoid disclosure, whether FOIA or otherwise, if your name somehow ends up in a communication that leaks outside. I can't see how it won't be shady.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Sorry, of course it's "billion". That's why I gave the link - in case I mistype something (which happens), you can always go to the source and see. I fixed it.
They do, though, from the West.
Correct, but that will be drying up as soon as we achieve "agreement". The war is over, why waste money anymore?
Figures from around June place total US military aid alone at around $50 billion since the start of the war
The correct figure of the aid actually delivered (not promised, not allocated, not potentially available if the President wants to, but actually sent) is a little below $20 billion. The economic assistance about the same. The total figure (military and economic aid) is about $38 billion. To compare, US spent in Afghanistan about $110bn (only military expenses, not counting humanitarian/economic aid) Source: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/factcheck-washington-post-false-claims-about-size-of-us-aid-to-ukraine/
These figures, however, are hot-war figures. Once the shooting stops, sustaining this level of investment will be politically impossible. That's my whole point - the situation now is radically different from the one that would be when the "peace" is achieved.
in the ballpark of Germany's annual military budget
Germany is not really a good benchmark, even they agree now their military is hilariously underfunded and is not capable of any serious task. They were mostly relying on US coming in if any shit is going to go down, and that's why Trump was screaming at them to shape up (to which they reacted with derisive laughter).
and yesterday they successfully struck an airport in Pskov
Ukrainians are pretty good at pulling of spectacular one-off strikes where Russians don't expect them. It's a great thing, awesome for morale, and keeps Russians on their toes. But it doesn't win a war. It doesn't even win a battle. While Ukrainians successfully neutralized the threat of naval invasion on the south, the sea blockade and the constant bombardment from sea-based missile carriers still continues, and Ukrainians can do nothing about it. If Russia is allowed to upgrade their Black Sea fleet (which is largely blocked by Turkey not letting them pass into the Black Sea in war time), the threat of the invasion from the sea will be restored, and given time, the Russians will find a solution for Ukrainian sea drones too. Again, the current situation will change once the sanctions and the wartime impediments will be removed. And the sporadic harassment of Russian airports, while great at embarrassing them, does little to decrease their strike capability, which they regularly exercise against Ukrainian (mostly civilian) targets, and which are limited only by available rockets/drones - again, this capacity will be hugely increased once the sanctions are off.
Now most Western newspapers are freely carrying reports that it seems to have been the Ukrainians.
I can write a report claiming it was Martians. The factual basis would be about as strong. By the grace of Almighty, we still manage to maintain some freedom of speech in the West, but that also means anybody can "freely" publish anything in the papers. If we talk about Pravda, if something is printed there, you can be sure even if it's a lie, it's an officially approved and vetted lie. In the Western newspapers, it only means somebody thought it will bring clicks. And so it would.
Do you see any sign that Western support is in jeopardy because of it?
Do I need to explain the difference between a strike at enemy's vital economic asset at wartime and initiating warfare after a ceasefire agreement, in peacetime?
Ukraine can do whatever it wants
Not if we achieve "peace in our time". In the middle of the war, it's one thing, peacetime is quite another.
such as when they firebombed a university in Donetsk
Spare me the histrionics. Donetsk is a war zone city, and that building is no different from any other building, thousands of which were destroyed (by both sides, but mostly by Russians). The fact that an organization calling itself "university" (no idea what kind of education it can do in the middle of the war zone, probably none) owns the building means absolutely nothing. And if your best complaint about Ukrainian atrocities is that they set on fire a roof on a building that required three (!!!) ladders to extinguish, no damage, no casualties, then I say Ukraine is doing an unexplainably bad job at striking back, they should have much more impact on Russians than that.
"well, they are being invaded by an overwhelming power that does not adhere to any principles after all" (as with the pipeline now).
Again, strike at enemy's economic capacity is a long-existing principle of war, and Russia did that - and much more, as they had striken at purely civilian infrastructure like electrical grid in the middle of the winter, clearly to maximize impact on civilian population, not just blew up a pipeline in the middle of the ocean. Trying to present this clearly legitimate act - which, I emphasize again, not proven at all, but legitimate even if we assume for a second it was Ukrainians - as some kind of outrageous atrocity only emphasizes the dearth of any other examples. If you had anything else but the pipeline and a wooden roof on fire, you'd mention it - but you mention these ones, so I assume that's the best you have. And man, is it weak sauce.
Claims to the contrary, that there is any threat to Western support from actions that Ukraine takes against Russia, should be furnished with evidence.
You can evidence it amply from the speeches of red tribe politicians. Carlson is now in all out PR war against Ukraine. He was also the one who tried to force (and still is trying) the idiotic biolab conspiracy. There are many others that are on the crusade against Ukraine on the red side. On the blue side, it's all pro-Ukraine now, but it will change in a moment once they'd have "peace in our time" signed.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
considering the endurance the US has shown in unpopular and not particularly televised campaigns since 1945
That was a different US. Right now, the question of support for Ukraine has become intensely tribal, and the red tribe wants nothing to do with it. The blues want to support it, but how long it will last? The example of Afghanistan shows us the 180 degree turn is possible at any second, and when it happens, nobody would try to do a smooth transition - the mode of operation would be "dump and run".
Ukraine's main problem right now seems to be that it's "kept on its toes" and can't actually catch a break to accumulate supplies and temporarily swing the balance
They don't have any supplies to accumulate, their own production facility is tiny and can't be upgraded to the necessary level for a long time, at least not without a massive Western investment. Ukrainians spent a lot of time in the last decades selling off their stockpile and production capacities - including to Russia, btw - because they didn't believe Russia would dare to launch the full invasion. Getting their own capacities to the level they could do more that temporarily hold off the Russians would take many years. The years which Russia wouldn't be sitting and waiting.
On the other, Russia's economic sprezzatura has to crack eventually
Why? No it hasn't. Russians have certain problems with both selling the hydrocarbons and obtaining the technologies, which limit their capacities somewhat, but not ruinously so. They still largely have enough weapons to essentially grind the situation to an expensive stalemate, and they can keep on keeping on like that for a very long while. Yes, the life of an ordinary citizen of Russia under such regime would be somewhat shitty, but the life of an ordinary citizen of Russia has been somewhat shitty for centuries, it's absolutely nothing new. Economically, Russia is not close to breaking and the current level of sanctions won't break it, at least not for a very long time. They can muddle through just enough to get to the point where the West gets tired and removes the sanctions, or at least weakens the support of Ukraine, at which time they'll resupply everything they need to grab a bit more territory and repeat. They are banking on Western attention span being short and resolve being weaker with time and expense, and I can't honestly say that it's a completely baseless assumption.
I would therefore actually expect that in 5 years, a rested, rearmed, hardened and sure-footed Ukraine could roll over a Russia
If you expect that you are horrendously deluded. Nobody is "rolling over" anybody there, not with Ukrainian capacities. They are smart and brave people, but in this war God is on the side of big battalions. They just don't have the capacity to roll anything, without substantial air force, naval capabilities, far strike capabilities and with numerical and resource disadvantage. They are much better warriors than Russians, but it's just not enough. The absolute best Ukraine can hope for is slowly (and very, very expensively) pushing Russians back to pre-2014 borders, and that would cost a lot and require a lot more Western help that is being given now. If Russia is given time to resupply and rearm and upgrade their technological level and turn all the occupied territories into a massive fortification, the best Ukrainians can hope is when the Russians attack the next time (and it will be them attacking, Ukrainians would never dare to break the peace and risk jeopardizing the Western support) it won't cost them more than a couple of minor cities until the Russians are ground to a stop again. Then there would be the next time, and the next time after that, until the West would reasonably decide that since 40% of Ukraine territory is occupied by Russia anyway, and in the current form it's not economically viable, it's better to broker a permanent solution where Ukraine becomes Russia's bitch protectorate and the war finally stops. And all the armchair strategists would lament that we should have done it decades before and saved all the effort and trillions spent.
For the latter, I think that after Ukraine's resilience surprised most Western commentators in the opening days
That is true, Ukrainians proved to be much more capable warriors than the West expected. That's the reason why Ukraine still exists as a nation. But it's not enough. Long war is a question of resources, and Ukrainian's own resources are small compared to Russia. If the West is not willing to commit enough resources to overcome that disadvantage, the Ukrainians will lose. And if Russia is able to resupply and refit their resources, then the disadvantage will only become more pronounced. Heroism can only take you so far.
not a far-reaching scheme by career civil servants or even passive resistance from federal employees.
Except in reality it's both. Moreover, the latter reinforces the former - if you know you'll have to walk through fire once you take the job, the candidate pool will be 10% heroes and 90% short-term grifters who don't mind the noise because they are shameless and their grift would work whether they are hated or not. If whoever doing the selection is bad at separating one from the other and very susceptible to flattery, then the chance the grifter gets the job are very high. These are not opposed, but reinforcing factors.
Congress impeached Trump. Both times.
Yes, but the deep state prepared a basis for it. For the first one, mostly, the second one is such a clown show that it didn't even bother with preparing anything, it's purely "orange man hitler". But the first was the result of the alliance between the Dems in the Congress and the deep state, especially the security services and State Dept wings of it.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Korea? South Koreans seem to be doing pretty decently. Also, Japan. Also, to some measure, all of Western Europe, which has been relying on US military coverage for decades. Also, Israel (not without caveats, but there has been sustained support).
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I don't think the Russians will take this deal
They might not, but this would be colossally stupid from their part.
Because the war is on Ukraine's soil, and because Ukraine has a smaller economy, they are being attrited faster.
Right now Ukraine economy mostly runs on Western money.
Pausing hostilities thus benefits Ukraine more than Russia.
It absolutely doesn't. Pausing + removing sanctions means Russia can load up on munitions and material for the next attack, and import all the technologies they need to manufacture drones, rockets, etc. in-house. That's what they are constrained with currently - they have tons of people, and don't mind losing hundreds of thousands of them, but their communications, hi-tech weapons, etc. are seriously lacking - they have to buy drones from fricking Iran, which is not exactly a leading technological powerhouse. If the sanctions are removed, they can have any technology from China, Israel, US, Germany, etc. - and don't be deluded there wouldn't be somebody in the US that is willing to sell them anything for the right price too, after all if there's no sanctions anymore, it's OK. They'd also have full access to oil/gas markets, so money would not be an issue, they could pay very generously for the necessary technologies. No "soft" export limitations would be able to withstand that.
Meanwhile, Ukraine will suffer a huge drop in Western support, because the war is off TV screens, so the budgets for it would dry up, especially on long-term projects like building drone factories or artillery ammunition or HIMARS rockets and anti-ship capabilities (Russia still has a fleet in the Black Sea, and will beef it up seriously once passing Turkey is no longer a problem because the war is over). The popular sentiment would be "the war is over, how great, let's relax and maybe give them some money for repaving the roads and that's it". Nobody would be able to sustain a level of investment even close to what is happening now, it will probably drop even below of what it was in 2014-2022 - the war is over, after all, we need to move on.
Which means, in 4-5 years Russia would be fully restocked and ready for the next phase of war, while Ukraine... well, they would have nice roads which will serve very well for Russian tanks to get where they need to get.
we have been giving them military aid since 2014
You must be kidding. No serious military aid was given until the start of the 2022 war, even shipment of things like anti-tank weapons, which you can't use until the enemy tanks are already in your face, was hugely controversial. Most of the aid was "helmets and blankets". Heavier and more advanced weapons - which are absolutely a must when fighting an army of Russia size over a 1000km front - were flat out of the question, and Ukraine had no budgets to get them on their own.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
This also sounds as "we will defend Taiwan, but only while it is profitable for us, and only if Taiwan is very nice to us and does exactly what we say". Which, consequently, means that if China either manages to make Taiwan takeover not threaten "American interests" (like promising to put TSMC into a special economic zone of something, Chinese are very practical in such matters, they'll find a way), or, alternatively, make costs of defending it higher then giving it up (like saying "if you intervene, we'll nationalize all your factories and kick you out, and to heck with economic consequences, people starved in China before many times, who cares, that's why we have this fascist regime to be able to pull of such things") - in either case Taiwan is out to dry. And since the condition was "if they behave nicely" - this will be presented as them not behaving nicely and "provoking" China and being unreasonable and ultimately their own fault.
Cynically, this is what would happen in any case - I mean, if defending Taiwan is too hard, US won't do it anyway. But declaring it upfront is inviting China to make it so, and any person who doesn't understand this has no business even talking about those things.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
The idea is insane, and even if it were sane because I missed some clever way in which it could be done, it would not be possible in current setup, which makes it doubly insane. I know it's more complicated that would fit a bumper sticker, but things often are. There are several factors in play here, and each of them plays against this idea.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
he's not only a political appointees but one whom Trump appointed himself
You're saying it like it should prove something. Trump is notorious for bad appointments, he appointed many people who either stabbed him in the back, or made policies that were entirely contrary to what he declared he wanted to do, or completely ignored him and did their own thing. He appointed Fauci, for example. He appointed Sessions. He appointed/selected Pence. He is not great at selecting people who will - not even do what he wants, in any meaning of the expression - but at least not behave like they are his sworn enemies.
Deep state is nothing more than a smear against anyone in government who does something Trump disagrees with.
That is completely false, deep state exists and it is a vast federal bureaucracy which will defend its enormous and largely unchecked powers by any means necessary. Including, for example, impeaching the President. And being appointed by Trump does not contradict being a member of this bureaucracy - Trump can't just appoint a random person to be the head of a department, he'd usually be offered a choice of potential candidates. If every single one of them is the product of the same bureaucracy, or will be obstructed by it to the point they can't do anything at their position - what can he do? Fire the whole federal office to the last chair warmer? Even he is not that bold.
As for the actual civil service, part of the problem is that they're subject to laws passed by Congress
Technically yes. Factually, the opposite - the Congress routinely passes laws which leaves huge rulemaking powers in the hands of the federal bureaucracy and they only limit it in the most vague way. Even when the Congress does say something specifically, they would attempt to ignore it, and must be sued to actually follow the law. And even after an adverse court decision, they would just turn around and try again - because there's no personal responsibility for virtually anything (immunity!) and the most you get if you win a case against the bureaucracy is that they don't succeed this particular time and maybe pay you something from the taxpayer money. The system itself is immune to any damage and can not be hurt - so there's no incentive for them to not to try and violate the law if it serves them.
Part of the reason Trump is so often accused of being a wannabe dictator
Just like literally every single other Republican candidate or President, to note
is that he expects the apparatus of government to do his bidding regardless of whether there's any legal basis for it
That's BS. He expects the apparatus - unreasonably, of course, because the apparatus reasonably considers him the mortal enemy and would sabotage his every move - to work with him, as the representative of the People, because they are supposed to be serving the People, and not instead to obstruct him on each turn. Of course, that could never happen, for the reasons I already stated.
If Joe Biden told the Social Security Administration to stop sending checks to certain counties for whatever reason
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-confirms-withholding-key-funds-schools-hunting-courses-shameful Random latest example. The federal government is using "stopping sending checks" as a tool to enforce compliance and force the dissenters to bend the knee ALL THE TIME. It's not some freak occurrence, it's literally their routine and favorite tool. Tons of regulations rest on it - if you don't comply with X, Y, Z, ..., you don't get federal money.
Trump's concerns weren't as blatant, but he willfully ignored the normal avenues by which executive action is taking
Wait, so you brought something Trump didn't do as an example of something for which he's a wannabe dictator? Of course. But the "normal avenues" is to work with the federal bureaucracy in ways that they built for working with them. Which would allow Trump to do exactly nothing because the federal bureaucracy has zero interest in helping Trump to do anything, and 100% interest in seeing him fail.
ended up confusing and pissing off the people he was relying upon.
As I said, he is pretty lousy at choosing people to rely on. Not that it's an easy task - given that any person associated with Trump would be subjected to eternal hate of the most powerful bureaucracy in the world, and the tribe controlling virtually the whole academy, law, entertainment, high-tech and significant part of the major business - and they don't pull punches. But seeing it objectively - the results weren't that good. It is his personal fault - but it does not change the nature of the enemy he attempted to confront.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Remind me of some cases where "apology along the lines of the one he initially gave about getting caught up in the moment" been the end of it and SJWs were satisfied by just that. Because I can't remember many such cases (unless the person in question is a high-status Leftist of course, the rules are different there).
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
This seems like excellent evidence for exactly what Reed described: a climate where the beneficence and effectiveness and necessity of these treatments was just assumed, no matter what happened.
I don't think it was just assumed. I think somebody worked hard at impressing on the mother that if she assumes something else, the potential deadly consequences are on her.
Also, when Wash U investigated itself, it reported zero adverse effects.
That would be a huge achievement if they could have a medicine that literally overhauls the whole body's biochemistry, against how it naturally supposed to work, and had not little, not insignificant - but zero adverse effects. Either they are superbly lucky geniuses or they are liars. But I guess it gives the usual suspects the base to say that the science is settled, and anybody who pushes it further is a bigoted conspiracy terrorist.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I'm not sure how anybody can talk about persecuting a war when a much simpler task - not letting millions of people, armed with nothing but their feet and sad stories, to cross over the border without any authorization or control - continually remains of out reach of the US system for decades. And I don't mean it's a couple of people slipping through the cracks, which happened even in Soviet Union. I mean like thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.
Messing with Mexico with current societal capabilities is plainly insane, and that's before we remember that if Republicans try to do that, Democrats would actively sabotage any effort on every level, to the level that would make Vietnam time resistance look like kindergarten theater imitation of the real thing. I mean, they successfully sabotaged building a fricking border wall, which every normal country would have on its borders, which didn't require killing anybody and only required doing what Democrats love doing almost above all else - spending the taxpayer money. And then we can remember how fucked up the whole thing in Afghanistan was - and there they didn't even had to do it to stick it to the Republicans, they just did it out of pure idiocy. It's like having a leaky bucket, being unable to fix it and wondering is it strong enough to cross the Atlantic in it? Would it survive hitting an iceberg? It can't survive sitting on our own kitchen floor, what are you talking about?
I'm no pacifist hippy, but I'd say anybody who actually proposes this thing as a real solution - I mean not helping Mexico, not training some troops, not sending them arms and other assistance even, but actually going to actual full-scale war with Mexico - is a loon. It maybe could be a nice thing (or maybe not) if it were possible to solve that problem that way, but it's completely and totally impossible.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I find a rhetorical move that makes somebody saying "if you are a chess grandmaster, it's more likely than not that you are smart" into "so, you're saying if I'm not chess grandmaster, I am a moron, and if I don't play chess at all, I probably need to be institutionalized as hopeless drooling imbecile?!" to be very disingenuous and off-putting. I'd appreciate a little less of aggressive bad faith misunderstanding.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Also she probably was told sometime on the way, that trans kid is better than dead kid, and if there's any questioning of the program would be happening on the way, it's a direct way to the kid committing suicide. So given that, would you dare to criticize anything about what is happening? Like telling "hey kid, we thought it would fix you but turns out you're screwed for life, not only once, but twice" - to a supposedly suicidal kid? What parent would do anything like that? Of course they'd say everything is peachy and going great and we are supper happy and those idiot relatives could please just shut up before they make my kid suicidal again?!
Oh there still will be. People would exchange "organic" cp images, just because it's the "real thing". Yes, it'd be dangerous - so what, it's dangerous now, it doesn't stop them. If somebody's brain is broken in this particular way, it's what they'd do.
More options
Context Copy link