@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

Some people have argued that to affirm a trans person is lying. I sympathize with someone who says, "if I call a trans person by his preferred pronoun, it feels like I am lying." If this is all that is meant, then I suppose the rest of this post isn't relevant. To me, the stronger claim is, "if society calls a trans person by his preferred pronoun, society is lying." I never bought that claim, because I never encountered a contradictory set of definitions for sex and gender.

But recently I realized the term passing is actually transphobic according to the definitions laid out.

This is pretty clearly a woman. I can tell because of the hair and clothes. I infer she goes by "she." If I had to publicly address her, I'd do so with she.

People typically speak of passing as a woman. Since I can infer she is a woman, it follows that she passes as a woman. But as far as I can tell, nobody would describe her as passing, because she looks transgender (i.e. male). Based on how "pass" is used, it seems to really mean pass as cisgender. To see passing in this sense, as a good thing, is deceptive. It also seems transphobic. Surely a less transphobic worldview would suggest she passes as a woman because I can correctly infer her pronouns, and that her womanness is just as beautiful as a ciswomans.

Inb4 replies castigating me for just now realizing this: nobody had ever crystalized to me that passing meant to misrepresent a trans person as cisgender because most discourse talks about "passing as a woman"

Am I missing something? Can anyone else steelperson all this?

People who are against genocide aren't against it because they think murder or sterilization is wrong, they're against it because it targets a specific group or genetic line.

"sorry officer I didn't know I was speeding"

At the end of the day, "making a woman uncomfortable" is verboten and human society has long shaped itself around sexual differences like this. The topic under conversation is just way #109.

Could it be you just don't think women's comfort is all that important? That could be discussed for a millennia and still be unresolved.

Defining anti-racism as being an activist against racism doesn't strike me as linguistic terrorism.

I suppose the worst thing Kendi is doing in that quote is the you're-either-with-us-or-against-us trick, but all sorts of ideologues do that.

This feels a little like the "feminism is the radical belief that women are people too."

The original poster compared a non-targeted harm (medical transitioning) to a targeted harm (sterilizing "the jews"), and I was pointing out a possible misanalogy. When I used the word "genocide" I was, by definition, referring to ethnically targeted cleansing.

People who believe in genocide necessarily think its worse than murder, or else they would just call it murder, and Hitler's crime would have just been murdering 6 million people. Instead, believers in genocide think the ethnically targeted component makes it worse than just murder. Because murdering members of protected classes is worse than just murder (See also: hate crimes).

Of course, for anyone who doesn't believe in genocide, they still probably think Hitler is a bad guy for the whole mass murder thing.

The invention of the crane reduced the reach of the powerlifter status market, because when people look at buildings, they're assumed to all be made by cranes, but you can still watch real people lift weights and they're obviously not a crane.

AI Art will reduce the reach of artists and their monopoly on making pictures. Maybe in the future, people will assume most logos and the like are made by computers. That's all well and fine. But how can you prevent imposters from submitting AI art to museums and competitions? It would be as if a bodybuilder could hide a hydraulic arm under his clothes (or take steroids!) and compete without working.

First, I want to note that my use of "body" here is a kind of metaphor for reproduction, which it sounded like you understood.

Next, I want to make sure I understand your point, so I will paraphrase what I heard:

You are making a fallacy of the converse. You claim (a) "all a woman is valuable for is her body" but really your facts only imply (b) "a woman's body is far more valuable than a man's body"

Certainly, (b) is correct, because we don't make a big deal out of male rape victims.

The reason we also know (a) is correct is because rape is worse than murder, because most people get mind-killed about the subject and low-decouplers write extensive mental gymnastics (masquerading as arguments) asserting that rape is a special case that has no analogue.

In an alternate world where the same emotional valence was not applied to any rape but was instead only applied to, say, domestic abuse, we could say (a) is false.

What is the "root" of the problem? Is it that people get fat? Or is it that fat people suffer increased health risks, beauty-ism, and are a literal poor fit for clothes and spaces? I'm going to do a little bit of mind-reading and assume that in your world where the problem is solved, everyone is thin.

A fat-activist does not have any disgust to fat people, and aesthetically values diversity of size, In her world where the problem is solved, there are fat people, but they don't suffer health risks due to improved medical technology, nor beautyism or logistical issues because of social engineering.

To make another unfair comparison to your position -- would you say glasses solve the root problem of poor eyesight? Of course, nobody is disgusted by poor eyesight...

You might argue that you consistently are taking the path of least resistance:

  • the easiest solution to fat people probably is a world where everyone is thin (based on what the past was like)

  • the easiest solution to poor eyesight seems to be glasses

The question then, is what is the fat-acceptance movement doing differently? You say they've given up on solving the root problem, but (if my mind-reading was correct) you would be modeling fat-positive types as giving up on making everyone thin. I do not think they want everyone to be thin. I think they are willing to implement more difficult solutions (medicine, social engineering) to achieve their preferred aesthetics.

I suspect even, that they are so against memocide, that they would approve of societal interventions to increase fatness, because interventions to decrease it are problematic. Whether or not they can do this openly is a political question of optics. This also explains LGBTQ groomers.

I've never heard anyone say "my dog is a rescue" and the only times I've heard suicide used as a noun would be cops saying "it was a suicide" and I think its referring to the situation, or its just an idiomatic it like "it's raining outside."

Could you give another example of what you mean?

What if most charismatic and energetic people are dead on text, and other charismatic and energetic people know this as "normal way to text." What you call "not dead on text" is basically mental illness and coming across as way too strong?

But your more general point, that OLD success is based on looks and not texting styles, is a different point. If attractive people can get away with texting however they like, that would support your theory that there is no thing as text game.

I agree that there are absolute truths, but how sure are you that you have direct access to them? I agree that actual, better reason will always illuminate false prophets, but seeing a true proof and seeing a false proof look very similar.

I agree social constructivism is an attempt to dethrone an existing hegemon, and has an agenda.

I think ultimately enlightenment, reason, and empiricism are mistake theory, and require some sort of shared assumptions or shared trust in order to work in practice. Once you step outside of the narrow scientific domain, and into the wider one of relations and conflict, is reason really all that important? Would you accept an argument from an enemy?

I agree that promptmancy is the appropriate analogy to photography.

But I can't imagine prompt engineering is subjective though. Translating human intent into a prompt to make an image feels like a skill in a way that photography feels like art

But this just might be sloppy thinking on my part, or an opinion I've been socialized to hold

I don't know if this has already been reported. I tried to search for it but realized my folly as the only search term that came to mind was "Reply"...

In the middle of writing a post I highlighted text in the parent comment and hit "reply." I was hoping that it would automatically quote that text and add it in the middle of my comment. Maybe that was silly of me. But it completely overwrote my comment, where a better user experience would be a kind of "Are you sure? your comment is not done..." kind of alert. It's a little awkward, because as far as I can tell, this codebase prefers to silently persist drafts when you return to comment (I just now checked with the back button) instead of using alerts at all.

Whites still get plenty of status and power in institutions, as long as they're the right kind of white. For example, if your kids pretend to be are LGBTQ, they might do very well for themselves.

  • Do you lament a particular culture dying out and being replaced with another monoculture? Are you rural, christian, or some sort of free-speech absolutist libretarian?

  • Do you hate the particular woke monoculture for some reason?

  • Do you care about skin color specifically, removed from other things like: how your children are treated?

  • Do you want your kids to believe, act, or virtue signal a particular way to carry on your legacy?

Unless one of these bullet points applies to you, I don't see why you're concerned. But, maybe there are more possible bullet points I missed.

Someone who pushes the pill could say it's to increase gay representation. With a pill like this gays could become not a minority. That everyone would take the pill would be denied, so the future you outline here wouldn't concern anyone. Indeed, as concerned as you are, you must have an ulterior motive!

Reading this anecdote was a little confusing to me. That is, your confusion is confusing to me. Of course this is what happens when you act that way. I could have predicted that.

But I do realize, that I can't explain exactly why. I could give a thought-terminating cliche like "virtue signaling" or something, but I don't think it would actually explain anything. I don't think there's a grand psychological theory that can bring you peace.

I think even the closest friends I have behave this way, to a certain approximation. No, none of my friends care about gay people. But, if I shit talked their favorite anime, they'd defend it. To a different group of friends, if I shit talked McDonald's, I'd be banned from the groupchat for months before being invited back in like nothing happened.

Did anything bad happen with your friends because of this? Did you get excommunicated? You apologized, but maybe you were taking it too seriously? Friends have gentle friction all the time, and even you admitted the dogpile was gentle. I agree that cancel culture is real, and out there it can be brutal, but were your friends really being brutal, just because they were talking about the gays?

I suspect that overlap has a particular direction. I would expect, especially if Nybbler's account is true, that incels would be interested in reading MGTOW more than vice versa. Maybe I give them too much credit, but MGTOW feels to me like Men, but incels are pretty much just boys. If MGTOWs spend too much time on incel forums I'd probably laugh at them.

Am I misremembering or are you speaking figuratively? Didn't Rittenhouse kill 2 and wound one?

Social constructivists often attack science and empiricism. They will say that objectivity, logic, and the like are tools that the powerful uses to oppress the weak. For you, the world we live in looks like world (1): Reason is real, some things are true and some things are false. For social constructivists, the world we live in looks like world (2): Reason and truth aren't real, but are illusions that an existing hegemony and powerful order uses to justify its power. That's why it appears so real, or appears that truth is so convincing.

Since you're all about empiricism, and supporting your beliefs with evidence, how would you distinguish the world we live in from (1) or (2), or do you just take it on faith that we live in (1)?

2rafa is arguing consequentialism here, that anti-AA advocates are firmly aware of the consequences of their actions. This is indeed the bar because the context is that Diversity is anti-white in consequences.

If pro-AA advocates can play the intent and goal card, then the policy goal of Diversity is to stop artificial racist distortion of the market, which is what results in underperforming minorities.

Are both of these inferences unfair, or only one?

I'll answer: they should suck it up because we shouldn't be making laws based around religious commandments. Their children are not property or slaves for them to make irreversible choices for. What's wrong with a standard, reddit-tier "argument for gay marriage" or bastardized "separation of church and state" argument in this scenario?

Cranes, like the cotton gin, manufacturing plants or programming language compilers, are engineering tools used to serve a purpose. That is, an actual purpose. Whereas things we consider art tend to be done because it is fun or for status.

The difference is, that the existence of a crane doesn't affect the status of powerlifters. You can still appreciate a power lifter because you know he's not a crane. To the extent that Stable Diffusion etc. mimic art, you can't really tell.

Now, there are a lot of good reasons to have AI-art generators. Like cranes, they can help us engineer and build things faster. People here have mentioned that AI art is probably already being used for generic business presentations for when a slide needs to be livened up and it doesn't need to be too precise or fancy for the audience to get the point.

Fine, artists no longer get their money ripping off people making powerpoints, but AI art still threatens the status market they're engaged in, which as far as I know, has no analogue.

What good is the right's subtle dog whistles (according to you) if they still get called out on them? Think anti-Trumpers talking about how Trump dogwhistled to white supremists or the white working class during his 2016 campaign. How would you argue to someone that one side actually does it differently?

I'm not asking to explain why This Dogwhistle is different than That Dogwhistle, I'm asking to explain why we see the same calling out on both sides. (Actually, do we see the same calling out on both sides?)

I mostly see "human rights" as a useful rhetorical trick, it feels like a crushing argument to pro-lifers. I doubt anyones' internal thoughts are best described by "the matter is so important that edge cases are not up for discussion."

I suspect that if I wrote the following

Abortion might not be a human right. Even if you're 100% sure human rights must be protected at all costs, are you 100% sure abortion is a human right?

Nobody would be enlightened, or even take the time to read the linked article.

It's true that we can't attribute any of those crimes to a single cause. There's not really any reason to reduce crimes to causes is there? People steal because they want things, and people rape because they're horny.

I've never heard a coherent defense of, "rape is about power not sex" that appealed to truth. They all appeal to something orthogonal, like, "it's good therapy" or "it brings positive social change." The slogan is not even wrong, it's just a tool.

I don't go as far as to say it's a tribal signal though.