Pigeon
coo coo
No bio...
User ID: 237
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
Say your roommate brings in a homeless guy from the street and tells you he needs to sleep on the couch you just bought. Maybe you put your foot down; maybe you decide to be a good Christian. If you're feeling really charitable you might even try to offer aid of your own.
The calculus changes if your roommate calls your friends, coworkers, and pastor and hints that you're going to lose your shit. Might you feel a little...constrained? A little incentivized to prove him wrong in front of your social circles?
You realise this could apply to either side?
And yet, consider that the 'tolerance of tolerance paradox' went from being an obscure philosophical musing to an almost globally enforced rule of the internet in less than a decade.
I hate that that's an actual, real, example, and that it's an even better example of progressive "meme magic" than you seem to have laid out.
Consider the initial, Popperian formulation of the Paradox of Tolerance:
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. ... But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. ...
This is a milquetoast, classically liberal statement; tolerance in this sense is to literally tolerate other people, no matter how contrary to good taste (or hateful, or fascist, or communist...) they are. It is to tolerate dissent.
This has been morphed to something like:
A tolerant society welcomes all #ATTRIBUTES. Intolerant individuals do not welcome certain #ATTRIBUTES, and thus spoil the society. Therefore intolerant individuals must not be tolerated.
It does not take any more than a cursory reading to appreciate that Popperian tolerance(1) and progressive tolerance(2) are essentially different words, and that the progressive version of the "paradox" in fact has no paradox in it, merely a word game where tolerance(2) is implicitly equated with tolerance(1).
(Consider:
A tolerant(2) society welcomes all #ATTRIBUTES. Intolerant(2) individuals do not welcome certain #ATTRIBUTES, and thus spoil the society. Therefore intolerant(2) individuals must not be tolerated(1).
If I did not make it clear.)
That the nonsensical lack-of-paradox "paradox" is now the mainstream interpretation is at once disheartening and also an excellent example of successful progressive "meme power" in the Dawkinsean sense of the word.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
Surely the culture war is interested in whether issues like these are sound precisely because they are influencing public policy around such important issues?
In which case:
Now you have to accept the bad actors as members of your own group. You made this bed, now you have to lie in it.
This doesn’t read at all like “we should tolerate criminals”, but “progressives advocated for these paradigms; now that they are seen to be damaging, progressives should take the hit to credibility for supporting these paradigms.”
Your comment is truly an interesting rhetorical invocation of “privatising the gains and socialising the losses”.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
Would a suitable middle ground be that “respecting the lore” makes a product much more likely to be also incidentally good due to various reasons?
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
I’ll chime in and add that I also did not have any clue what “hard-R” referred to and thought maybe it was “racist” or “retarded” until your clarification here.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
I do like that Mokou glowposting reaction picture.
On a completely unrelated note I wonder if anyone feels the same way I do about the Chinese net in that it‘s very heavy on the sarcasm and quite aggressive in tone; it is quite a bit different from older Chinese. (Though I suppose it is the same for any language that makes its way to the internet…)
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
#KillAllMen started nearly a decade ago and had quite some staying power too, didn't it? I still see it once in a (long) while.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
Now you have to accept the bad actors as members of your own group. You made this bed, now you have to lie in it.
And the point of the original commenter was that the progressive position of self-ID is in contradiction to getting to these "other issues, i.e. our ability to get closer to understanding the causes of crime, which is compromised if we intentionally miscategorize those who commit crimes", as the progressive position is to deny the possibility for there to be such a miscategorisation in the first place.
A society in which self-ID is the legal standard has collapsed that distinction, and sees no difference between a trans person who has suffered gender dysphoria since childhood and who has been taking hormones for years vs. a person who gave no outward indication of suffering from gender dysphoria, only "realised" they were transgender immediately after being convicted of a crime, and who has no taken no steps to make themselves more closely resemble a member of the opposite sex.
Taking the broader progressive movement in mind, then, one cannot on the one hand take seriously gender self-identification as the sole marker of gender, then on the other hand ignore the predictable negative effects of that, and chastise other people for focusing on that this policy creates these negative effects - after all, there are "bigger issues" at play greater than mere self-ID!
That is simply rank hypocrisy.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
So now that it hits an in-group, to paraphrase Sartre, you "loftily indicate by some phrase that the time for argument (regarding the self-ID question) is past"?
My point is that, if we want to combat crime, we need to understand it, and you are advocating for intentionally using incorrect data.
That is quite explicitly what @Folamh3 is not doing.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
So as far as I can tell, fedposters are plants who plant incriminating "evidence" in fora, while glowies are plants that try to coax the same from the real posters? Is there a strict distinction between the two?
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
In that case I must apologize; it really did read to me like you were trying to deflect.
On the other hand I do still think that @Folamh3 wasn't initially saying "let's use incorrect data", but "using correct data has become radioactive because of trans activists, doesn't this suck", which is, of course, downstream of your own observation (and which you've noted).
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
I mean, there are potentially serious and life-threatening lung injuries that can be caused by vaping, so it's not without basis, even if it is generally better than smoking for public health reasons.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
For the kid-friendly one, anime has some history of kid-friendly but not braindead anime like Dennou Coil. Surely something of that sort is replicable in the west?
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
I’ll second the “excellent women programmers” thing; though I am not in tech, I am dating a woman who is as far as I can tell “good” at programming (graduated from Carnegie Mellon roughly in the middle of the CS cohort), and she tells me that there was at least one woman in her cohort who was brilliant enough that her professors described her entering industry as “a great loss to academia”.
That said, she also describes that women were an overwhelming minority, that the entry class was 50/50 M/F but very quickly all the women left, and she’s…well, not happy, but willing, to bang her head against a programming problem for ages without apparently making any progress. (She is quite neurotic, though, and had to really work through that during her undergrad.)
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
Democrats are entitled to object to this (manufactured) burden.
Manufactured by?
Republicans shouldn't get to act as if their maneuver highlights hypocrisy.
Why not?
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
My understanding is that THC-containing vapes are a solid majority (75-80%) but certainly not all of the vaping-associated lung injuries, last time I read up on it on UpToDate. The pathophysiology of why vaping causes lung injury is also not entirely elucidated at this point.
Vaping also hasn’t been around long enough for us to see if it has long-term deleterious effects (like COPD for smoking). We do know that vaping seems to make COPD worse, however.
In any case, I would suspect more vaping to coincide with more vaping with poor products, which appear to have a higher incidence of lung injury, in which case a norm that increases vaping uptake would likely cause some amount of increase in these serious injuries. Whether that is worth the trade-off is another issue.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
how inferior they feel in income
Just a quibble, but don’t psychiatrists make bank?
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
I think you missed the part where it’s a person quoting another person steelmanning a position he doesn’t necessarily hold himself.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
I think you’re putting words into @Folamh3’s mouth. He is advocating for the recognition that yes, you can put out fires, but until you catch the serial arsonists you’ll still get houses getting torched on the daily, even on the same houses!
A sound public policy that is agnostic to trans activism may be sound policy in the abstract, but 1) it will directly contradict trans activist ideology and 2) it will mobilise a backlash from the progressives who will shit on the “sound policy” even harder than before. He isn’t asking for the firefighters to stop doing their jobs (and I have no clue how you could interpret it as that), but asking for the police and criminal court syste to step up their game.
To try to clear things up, I believe what he is aiming for is the recognition that sound public policy is incompatible with our current strain of trans activism a la:
-
Proposition. Current trans activism (and local public policy) asserts the primacy of self-ID, such that the individual’s assertion of gender self-identity trumps any other measure, including biological sex and any judgement by other people that determines otherwise.
-
Proposition. Individuals can be deceitful or mistaken in their declaration of gender identity.
-
Statement. (1,2) There is no method of clarifying whether any particular self-ID is genuine, mistaken, or malicious within trans activist policy (including that adopted by organisations and governments) and ideology, even when such claims are farcical.
-
Proposition. There is incentive for criminals to lie about their gender identity (broadly, for better conditions and forms of access to other prisoners while imprisoned).
-
Statement. (3,4) Criminals will lie about their gender identity in order to gain advantage, and trans activist policy adopted by institutions are ideologically unable to distinguish genuine profession of gender identity and bad faith profession, even in blatantly obvious cases, unless they repudiate (1) and reject trans activist policy (and incur the wrath of trans activists + allies).
-
Proposition. (2) Sound public policy regarding incarceration requires accurate information regarding gender identity (and/or sex).
-
Statement. (5,6) Sound public policy regarding incarceration is incompatible with trans activist policy, and trans activism more broadly. Ergo, to care about the crime issue, you have to care about the trans issue.
and that you are, for whatever reason, strenuously trying to avoid any association between sound public policy and trans activism by trying to claim that Folamh3’s statement taken as a whole is actually an endorsement of proposition 1 taken as a statement (???) rather than the entire thing that ends as a criticism of 1, and I am really not sure why you are doing that. You seem to be arguing against the same system Folamh3 is, rather than disagreeing with Folamh3, but for some reason don’t want to admit the same? It just reads so bizarrely.
I think I understand now. I think for most others, sound public policy about incarceration is indivisible from sound public policy about crime, because one is the social consequence of the other, and so there is a clear (if indirect) path of causality for how differences in incarceration can potentially lead to differences in crime.
In either case I don’t think you are arguing against @Folamh3’s case as much as you are participating in a different argument, one contained within the OP, that Folamh3 didn’t actually intend to participate in (he was explicitly focused on issues of incarceration, I think, unlike the OP)? In that case I would only take issue with that you involved them in the entire thing, since I don’t think they made any comment on the actual crime bit (and we can talk about issues with incarceration separately, if not entirely divorced from, issues with crime). I don’t really understand why he has to be wrong for you to be right; your claim and his seems orthogonal, and I also don’t really see any great utility difference in trying to address one without the other.
So, to tread some new ground: would it be possible that you might agree “sound public policy about crime” also might require trans activism to be “vanquished”, if on slightly different grounds?
- You yourself state that:
Of course it is their fault that fake transwomen are in female prisons. But when trying to figure who commits crimes, we can acknowledge that while simultaneously noting that the crimes those people committed were not committed by transwomen, just as we can acknowledge, per my hypothetical, that autistic people do not commit a huge pct of crime, even if a huge pct of prisoners successfully claim to be autistic and thereby game the system. We can blame the autistic rights folks for the latter, even while doing the former when formulating criminal justice policy.
So, according to you: we can acknowledge that there are fake transwomen in female prisons. And more importantly, we can note that the crimes that those people committed were not committed by transwomen. But that is already a denial of self-ID, because those crimes would’ve been committed by women under trans-activist definitions and language! If we want to collect good statistics and formulate good public policy, then, we have to exercise discernment in how we categorise perpetrators and “acknowledge that [those crimes] were not committed by transwomen”.
So, even entirely separate from real transwomen, formulation of public policy requires the rejection of trans activist policy, because to formulate sensible public policy regarding crime, we would need to be able to identify perpetrators in a way that is at odds with self-ID, even if we don’t care about trans activist policy one way or the other. In other words, wouldn’t trans activist ideology and policy regarding self-ID simply be at odds with policy about crime, simply because it hinders sound thinking and legislation about the issue?
In fact, isn’t this exactly what you are accusing Folamh3 of doing?
- Regarding sentencing, we know that we impute different psychologies and motivations towards men and women, so much so that we sentence men and women differently for the same crime (whether that is just or not is outside the scope of this discussion), among other things. Wouldn’t an ideology that explicitly allows these social norms to be gamed be of interest (and/or concern) in crime policy?
I am sure there are more arguments along this vein, but I have to run now.
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
If all the white people have kids with nonwhite folks (as those friends have) is anyone or anything really dying out?
I think this sentiment is only possible if you are convinced that there is no chance that your culture could die out or become unrecognisable.
Would anything be lost or die out if, in a collective fit of insanity, Japan decided to integrate - and intermarry fully - into the People’s Republic of China as a province? I imagine there would be a good amount of indigenous culture that would be discontinued. Of course, such forms of integration aren’t the only possible way cultures can irrevocably change or “die”, but I imagine it would be a pretty big shift with pretty monumental losses.
(Whether any particular instance of cultural “death”, like a language dying, is something to be regretted depends on your values, I suppose.)
Pigeon
coo coo
1yr ago
I understand that you don’t endorse self-ID; I interpreted you as saying all along that you thought there wasn’t much of a point in focusing on the trans issue because it doesn’t have an impact on crime policy, whereas it is directly important to incarceration policy, as here:
Sound public policy about prison housing might require trans activism to be vanquished, but sound public policy about crime does not, unless possibly transwomen are actually the source of a lot of crime
And
No, my comment was meant to indicate that there are other issues at play other than what gains and losses might accrue to trans people. I.e.: our ability to get closer to understanding the causes of crime, which is compromised if we intentionally miscategorize those who commit crimes.
And more, I think.
Whereas I would argue that sound public policy about crime relies on a heuristic that people can lie about gender identity (and thus e.g. inflate statistics re:trans women being sex offenders, for instance) in informing crime rates, and thus rejecting the trans activist idea of self-ID. In particular, yes our ability to get closer to understanding the causes of crimes is compromised if we intentionally miscategorise criminals, but trans activist self-ID policy requires us to miscategorise criminals or violate its precepts.
Which sounds awfully like “sound public policy [regarding crime] does in fact require trans activism to be vanquished”, because under trans activist policy we can’t have a sane conversation about it, even if it isn’t as directly related as the incarceration issue.
"Now you have to accept the bad actors as members of your own group. You made this bed, now you have to lie in it," which is an endorsement of self-ID (well, not an endorsement of self-ID, but rather an insistence on using it in this instance) even though it hinders "formulat[ing] sensible policy regarding crime." Worse yet, he seems to be motivated solely by a desire to "own" trans activists (because I can't think of an alternative explanation for the "you made your bed" statement, esp given his general hostility to self-ID.
Here I think we interpret this differently. I thought it was clear that it meant “Progressive-pushed policy has created predictable and predicted incentives for bad actors. Now progressives should own this and admit that they did an oopsie, and that the bad actors were in fact supported and empowered by them (and that they are conceived to be a progressive in-group), and reap the related societal censure from it.”
Or something to that effect.
Got a source I can read up on this (on the internet archive or otherwise)?
More options
Context Copy link