@Tanista's banner p




3 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 05 Sep 2022


User ID: 537



3 followers   follows 0 users   joined 05 Sep 2022


No bio...


User ID: 537

As cynical as it sounds, I'm beginning to hear the term "algorithmic bias" as nothing more than a form of projection - algorithm systems frequently detect something real about the world, people with racially motivated politics don't like that outcome, and they seek to shift the algorithm towards a bias in favor of their preferred group.

I suppose "always was" is a glib response so I'll say:

This tendency is widespread and isn't even specific to algorithms: leftists always first insist that society did a wrong via its social engineering to then demand social engineering to ostensibly "correct" this.

You see this all the time with nebulous complaints about how "the media" brainwashed people into not liking everything from fat people to Africa to the WNBA and therefore have a responsibility to fix it despite very little evidence being adduced for this (and people ignoring more obvious explanations for why these things are low status)

It's just part of a fundamental, distorted Rousseauianism that has swallowed the Left: any inconvenient situation must be blamed on some sort of malignant social programming and, not just that, on the usual villains: white supremacy, Western sexism,etc. (as if minorities can't "program" themselves with awful beliefs).

I guess this is what happens when your work life and your "internet life" don't need to -or, indeed, can't - be segregated.

Basic work-play segregation practices like "have a work laptop just for work" don't really seem relevant...until they are.

And to that end, in figuring out what is ethical or moral, I think feelings do matter

OP didn't say "feelings don't matter". They said "women's feelings aren't God" i.e. are not the sole, overriding consideration in ethical disputes.

I'm of the relatively firm belief that it isn't immoral to fantasize about having sex with someone, even if they haven't consented to you having such a fantasy

Case in point: some women apparently dislike being "objectified". I don't really care tbh. What goes on in my skull is my business.

If not, why does everyone seem to think it would be?

Because it is a violation of actual privacy: the actual woman is in that room, with a reasonable expectation of privacy and you are peeking in. Even if it wasn't sexual there's all sorts of other concerns with such snooping (e.g. can they steal your stuff now that they saw your locker code)

With deepfakes I guess it depends on how much verisimilitude something can have before you think it violates your "actual" privacy. If I have a deepfake of Angelina Jolie that, for whatever reason, has serious flaws and inaccuracies have I violated her privacy in the same way? That isn't the real Jolie, it's a virtual image that isn't even perfectly accurate.

What if it was trained on topless images of Angelina and perfectly matched her in her physical prime? I think an argument could be made that she removed privacy here herself, in a way she can't expect to get back (we can't unsee her body either way)

I don't think we have an easy rule. I also don't know that this can/should be grounded in privacy. Maybe defamation concerns would be more viable?

However, the women in the shower into which you're peeping might not ever know that you've peeped at them, so is it not wrong to be a peeping tom (as long as you never get caught?)

Besides the reason already given above? It's more reasonable to imagine you will never be caught for private files on your computer vs. peeking into someone's bedroom. Simply not being physically there reduces the risk of detection and thus harm to the person.

The intent seems to be to put constraints on the scale of sexual success of men, in a way that is never analogously applied to women.

I suppose the constraint was applied by biology: women have less reason to go for maximal competition because they have a limited number of potential total offspring. Men do not.

My mom was a big Pearl Jam fan, and I noted that their best-selling album still only sold like 9 million copies. That meant something like 3% of people in America bought an album. Not really all that popular!

Albums have a high barrier; anyone who spends money is one of the more passionate fans (this gets worse the easier it is to acquire things without paying). Now consider how many people listened on the radio (or Youtube nowadays).

From what I recall from the stories it was an almost childish form of 'seeking permission'. Basically he seemed to spring it fast and then, if no one immediately and vociferously objected, he...um, quickly followed through.

The image that comes to mind is an overeager kid going "umcanIkissyou" and then "but you didn't say no!".

My opinion is that it's the sort of defense ("but he asked!") that only seems acceptable when all norms except consent have been so eroded (by the sexual revolution and the same tribe now pushing #MeToo) that only the barest, hyper-literal contractionism counts.

At this point liberal feminism has so thoroughly corrupted shaped mores that it's fighting its own twisted children.

Claims that "cancel culture doesn't exist because this particular, highly , highly talented and famous person escaped our wrath" are, imo, just obfuscation.

Akin to saying "homophobia doesn't exist cause this one rich gay Hollywood Jew in the 60s got away with it"; it changes absolutely nothing about the claim being made about society.

This is a common line of argument with JK Rowling and the bad faith is most evident there: trying and failing is not the same as not trying or being globally ineffective. They absolutely would have cancelled her if they could; she's simply a once-in-a-generation celebrity.

So, how do you refresh your memory of the books you've read? Do you have a set process or use a third party app?

We really are going to have to look hard at the idea of transgender being a mental health issue, if the likes of these guys are going to be cropping up again and again.

I feel like we should have looked at it hard as a mental illness or paraphilia when people started to suggest surgically removing their genitals. Like...we don't need more than that. Prima facie that is a strong indicator of potential mental illness that needs to be examined.

But an utterly contingent act of sidling up to another sexual minority civil rights movement seems to have led to people to be less critical in assuming that this is just more of the same: a harmless deviation from the norm.

And somehow the fact that trans are making claims that gays didn't (e.g. you need to provide an intensive suite of self-modification tools so I can pretend to be a woman or I will kill myself vs. just don't be bigoted towards me) doesn't seem to penetrate. If anything people use it in defense of uncritically accepting transpeople as the next civil rights cause when it seems to be the best argument for a mental illness definition of trans-identification.

I personally think this is incoherent but it manifestly seems to not bother others.

Why is a Scottish nationalist party making this an elemental part of their program anyway?

I can't find the article anymore but I recall one making the argument that progressive virtue signaling and standing against England is what Scottish nationalism boils down to at this point (since blood and soil isn't a good sell in Europe anymore, even though it is the more standard or intuitive justification for nationalism).

The UK was perceived as stepping back on some of this stuff recently so perhaps Scotland decided there was an opportunity to distinguish themselves via moralism (aka the Canada model)

Sure, and why not? Their opponents still concede the frame.

I'm unsure, but maybe they have to in the UK? I know that they've sent policemen to people's houses for trans critical tweets, so it's possible it runs afoul of some hate speech law.

He's openly a right-wing culture warrior

Yup, he's a clear political operator.

It's a strange category error when leftists cite him saying "Do X to win" (e.g. make sure parents associate woke ideology with CRT or vice versa) as if it's him using a logical fallacy in a formal debate or in a philosophical paper. As if political maneuvering hasn't always included this (see the conveniently named "Don't Say Gay" bill which deliberately picks the less controversial LGBT minority as the target and ignores anything else)

It might also reveal something about the mindset of political operatives on the Left: they seem to believe that they win via socratic dialogue and good faith and that similar tactics to Rufo's (or even ones much bigger in scope) aren't being used.

Suffice it to say, I'm sure their enemies are equally skeptical of them.

Even if we assume that the prison environment is so lax that this basically guarantees that our protagonist will be able to rape the female inmates, they're prisoners! The median normie doesn't know any women who went to prison, can't imagine women going to prison for anything short of "microwaved her 2 year old", and probably has laughed about prison rape jokes when it was about male prisons

I'm not sure it matters. Even putting aside a women are wonderful effect , I think some policies can be unpopular or eye-catching enough that it draws a serious political backlash. Which seems to have happened.

Especially when the underlying logic is also being used in other highly visible cases like women's bathrooms (which almost all women use) and schooling (which many people use) and sports (which many people don't play but gets outsized visibility)

I, for my part, don't find single instances of any of those situations to be particularly meaningful.

I do, when:

  1. The problem is totally avoidable and was in fact predicted ahead of time.

  2. It's motivated by a maladaptive ideology that will not be content to stop here.

  3. It is worse than a previously used or easily implemented alternative.

My problem with this is not that one person did it. I don't freak out at every car accident or serial killer. That's a real random, individual act that is probably not driven by policy - i.e. doesn't require large masses of people (or a small mass of dedicated elites) to buy into an ideology I find perverse and then instantiate that, even partly.

The fact that this - a rapist man - was even potentially a possibility is bad. Because going from an absurdity to a possibility for social ills is bad. Going from an absurdity to a possibility despite being clearly warned about it and the consequences being utterly predictable should make you worry about the ideological gulf between you and the lawmakers of your country.

Women sexually abusing other women is a thing that also happens; is the implication that that is less concerning?

The argument is simple:

  1. Women are less aggressive and physically powerful than men

  2. Therefore women are less likely to be in prison for violent crime. In fact: less women exist in prison period.

  3. Women are less likely to commit violent sex crimes.

  4. Women are also more likely to be the victims of said crime at the hands of men.

  5. Thus segregating women can not only reduce incidences of said male-on-female crime, but women's spaces can be more appropriately designed given their different crime patterns.

  6. Allowing men into female prisons breaks all of this. Not only are more powerful and aggressive men more likely to assault women (they assault men right now and they're harder targets), this will almost certainly lead to changes in female prisons to minimize this (e.g. more restrictive to provide more safety)

  7. Of course, as mentioned, there're far more men in prison than women so even a small transfer can have disproportionate impacts.

  8. Even worse than that: there are other practical considerations. The most obvious being the fewer men in female prisons the less the risk of pregnancies that the state will have to pay to take care of.

This situation seems like it makes women worse off for...minimal gain to say the least, while not helping the vast majority of men who do face more violence in prison. Women face increased threat from men. A few men get to transfer to women's jails while everyone else suffers. The more of them that do get to transfer, the more female jails simply resemble male jails and defeat the purpose.

I frankly see little to recommend this as a policy. If I had a metaphysical belief that TWAW then maybe I would feel differently. But I do not, and I think there's limits to how far people's self-making should go.

I'm not sure what Dreher's Law is

The Law Of Merited Impossibility

The Law Of Merited Impossibility is an epistemological construct governing the paradoxical way overclass opinion makers frame the discourse about the clash between religious liberty and gay civil rights. It is best summed up by the phrase, “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”

There are popular formulations that make it less specific to gay marriage like "that'll never happen but, when it does, you bigots will deserve it/it'll be good".

In this case, we've seen the absolute refusal to grant any potential downsides like this specific scenario, until it happened.

I wouldn't say it's completely out of the woods

Neither would I. To be frank: even having this discussion at all seems like a sign of vast confusion, in multiple domains.

But, while I did start to write a "Dreher's Law strikes again?" post I think it's fair to note that the worst didn't happen...yet. While pointing out that it still could.

Ah, that there is. Thank you.

Thanks but - side question- does Nitter just not ever work for anyone else?

Yes, the issue with drawing Prophet Mohammed is one of the more embarrassing things for secular Muslims.

Try as they might, there's really no pretending that this isn't an Islamic problem - Hindu nationalism is its own issue but no one kills Frenchmen over it - and one that can't be boiled down to economics or geopolitics (which amount to blaming America)

It's thus a place where Americans are less likely to be sympathetic.

It is interesting though; to see such pragmatism in activists. I guess it reflects more of a sense of vulnerability on Muslim activists compared to others.

I see him get called out for straw-manning & being a bad-faith actor, but his videos pretty much come across as a 'fight fire with fire' approach. The worst things people have to say about him, also apply to his ideological opponents.

It's funny that I see a lot of criticism of him from other people who also criticize wokeness in the same way.

I think significant portion of those critics* are those who broadly agree with his ideological opponents except on a few issues or tactics and therefore are obliged to hate Rufo for working with The Enemy, even though that's basically the only way to achieve anything when one of two political parties is totally opposed to your positions.

Truth be told, there's a class of homeless leftists who I think are a) jealous that he can have an impact, b) have been browbeaten into ineffectiveness by the constant leftist smear that they're further right than they are and, unlike Rufo, aren't willing to bite the bullet and c) scared that by doing so he's empowering the right wing to achieve their other ends (e.g. weakening public schooling)

Ultimately, they're politically irrelevant, clinging on to some self-serving, slave morality definition of "good faith" in spite of its inertness on a policy level. I can see why they're resentful; they can't work with Republicans cause that's a no-no in today's polarized world, but their own side has cast them out as witches. Meanwhile Rufo is using all of their critiques** and winning.

* We know why his direct opponents don't care for consistency.

** I remember Katie Herzog being furious when Rufo (rightly) responded to a trans-skeptical feminist's accusation that he was appropriating their arguments without giving respect by pointing out that the feminists had either totally failed to hold the line on gender identity issues or had actively abetted the problematization of their own hard-fought privileges and so didn't deserve much respect anyway. Having the argument means nothing if you constantly lose or fold; Rufo was going to have to come up with the central piece -winning- on his own anyway, so it's a bit much to demand laurels.

So how come they lost so hard?

Perhaps like the mainstream media: at the start of Fox News it did lean left, though not as heavily. Fox drew a lot of right-wing people which made the media be perceived as even more left-leaning, combined with the polemics against this which also drove conservatives away into their own networks because the rest of the media was seen as a leftist province. Polarization begets polarization.

There is a difference of course: conservatives didn't run away from school altogether. So why the rout? Well, I suspect that's where civil rights law and DEI initiatives come in. Cons could still go to schools, and still go to less "woke" subjects but the university's social policy had to be subject to Title IX and other "woke" laws (shaped by ideology in spaces dominated by the left and enforced by administrators who may have been woker than the median professor) and, especially, how the government du jour interprets them.

If anything, what makes Rufo and DeSantis effective is that they understand that part of the game is about the law and changing institutions, not just dispositional concerns that other, more left-wing critics of cancel culture raise which boil down to "just stand your ground if the cancellers come for your employees" or "maybe only cancel really bad people guys!"

Dreher's Law defied? Transgender rapist Isla Bryson moved to men's prison

After years of haranguing feminists and critics for suggesting that things like self-ID would lead to women being potentially at risk as unsafe males entered women's spaces, the topic has burst unto the scene as a rapist in Scotland sought movement into a female prison because he "transitioned" after being caught.

The basic economic logic of "if barriers are removed from socially deleterious activities people will do them" proven once again. Yet it somehow evades certain parts of the political spectrum.

Isla Bryson was remanded to Cornton Vale women's prison in Stirling after being convicted of the rapes when she was a man called Adam Graham. She has since been moved to HMP Edinburgh.

Bryson decided to transition from a man to a woman while awaiting trial.

She was taken to a male wing of HMP Edinburgh on Thursday afternoon.

It came after First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced that Bryson would not be allowed to serve her sentence at Cornton Vale.

This situation seems to have proven to be a boondoggle for the SNP. Sturgeon faced resistance in her own party to passing gender legislation already and the UK government even blocked it for equality concerns (leading to a -cynical imo - row on devolution as well, which I'm sure Sturgeon would prefer to be the issue).

Now this case came up and caused a bit of a stir. Sturgeon came out proactively and reassured everyone, saying that no rapists will be allowed into female prisons, making it clear where she stood & using the "risk assessment" argument to save face: every trans applicant will go through risk assessment therefore there's no problem unless they come to a wrong decision. Of course, the problem seems to be that a) these people are assessed at the female prison and b) maybe the best system is no system. All this effort won't change the fundamental reality of males vs. females so why not use the rule of thumb that works the vast majority of the time? Certainly, if the FM has to come out and reassure Scots that the right decision will be reached in each of these cases that says something about their confidence.

Of course, I've not seen even a hint of reflection on this from the very people who called it bigoted to suggest that weakening gender barriers and implementing self-ID would lead to these ludicrous situations. If anything, activists seem to be doubling down on the claim that anyone who raised the alarm about this was just being bigoted instead of letting the process play out.

Meanwhile, a second plane has struck the Towers

I think your boss may be the weirdo here.

Yes, unless the boss has received some feedback or has practical concerns that they're being diplomatic about this just amounts to "I don't like your personality, change it", but more ominous due to the power differential.

The only advice I can think of is to ask around and see if there's any complaints about your demeanor or some way it could have had an impact on actual work in a way that could have gotten back to her. Hopefully there is some constructive feedback here and you're not just trapped beneath a weirdo.

It certainly helped that Christianity was compatible with the existing Greco-Roman monogamous approach, but Christianity didn't introduce it.

I'm kind of sleepy and I feel like I'm going full circle from my original post so I've kind of lost the thread here on the bone of contention tbh. I never said it invented social monogamy, more that it did promulgate sexual monogamy as an ideal though. Men weren't expected to be monogamous or even necessarily exclusively focus on women* beforehand. That's why Paul uses a constructed phrase of something like "husband of one wife" or "one-man wife"

Islam has a more restrained version of the same thing; it is formally socially and sexually polygamous and men weren't expected to be monogamous. But it closes access to women who "your right hand does not possess".

* Though you'd avoid well off Roman boys and other high class people if you knew what was good for you.

I remember reading something, and I don't remember whether it was here or elsewhere, about TRA groups saying their best strategy was to approach MPs or other people with power quietly, and try and keep what they were asking for out of the media and away from the spotlight. The public must not be told. They must not find out. Because the public will oppose them. But if they can convince these key people, they can bypass the public and force their will on them anyway.

It was Joyce's book.

And yes, it was exactly as you framed it.

This stealthy approach has been central to transactivism for quite some time. In a speech in 2013, Masen Davis, then the executive director of the American Transgender Law Center, told supporters that ‘we have largely achieved our successes by flying under the radar . . . We do a lot really quietly.

We have made some of our biggest gains that nobody has noticed. We are very quiet and thoughtful about what we do, because we want to make sure we have the win more than we want to have the publicity.’

The result is predictable. Even as one country after another introduces gender self-ID, very few voters know this is happening, let alone support it.

In 2018 research by Populus, an independent pollster, crowdfunded by British feminists, found that only fifteen percent of British adults agreed that legal sex change should be possible without a doctor’s sign-off. A majority classified a ‘person who was born male and has male genitalia but who identifies as a woman’ as a man, and only tiny minorities said that such people should be allowed into women’s sports or changing rooms, or be incarcerated in a women’s prison if they committed a crime.

Two years later, YouGov found that half of British voters thought people should be ‘able to self-identify as a different gender to the one they were born in’. But two-thirds said legal sex change should only be possible with a doctor’s sign-off, with just fifteen percent saying no sign-off should be needed. In other words, there is widespread support for people describing themselves as they wish, but not much for granting such self-descriptions legal status. The same poll also asked whether transwomen should be allowed in women’s sports and changing rooms, sometimes with a reminder that transwomen may have had no genital surgery, and sometimes without. The share saying yes was twenty percentage points lower with the reminder than without – again demonstrating widespread confusion about what being trans means, and that support for trans people does not imply support for self-declaration overriding reality.

How would you attribute increasing 'acceptance' of homosexuality and trans people in society to "a higher power imposing our will on our opponents"? One could argue media, or social media, are playing a significant role, but that's not exactly "executing your will", more persuasion.

Here's a very obvious way:

  1. The government passes a "anti-LGBT discrimination law" that allows workplaces to be sued if anything conceivably homophobic or transphobic (by its standards) happens and is not addressed.

  2. Companies don't want to be sued and face punitive damages so they start putting up courses against disliking homosexuality or trans and encouraging acceptance. They institute a pronoun policy to push trans acceptance. They make it clear punishment is the cost of non-participation or flouting the rules. They hire a HR department to watch over all of this.

  3. People care about their livelihoods so they have no choice but to go along. Some falsify their beliefs by acting like they agree, some have the good fortune to be able to believe the things they're forced to conform to. Many go along to get along with yet another tedious corporate mandate like putting pronouns in their bio or introducing themselves with them even when they don't believe in the concept.

This has been the playbook since the Civil Rights movement and explains the rapid acceptance of the trans activist line without anything like the debate over gay marriage; the system is much more refined and entrenched now and so it can pivot very fast - especially by leveraging past successes to create an aura of inevitability that discourages resistance and encourages elite adoption (elites themselves educated in institutions that accept a lot of these things)

"break our opponents" here means "convince our opponents our rights matter".

And break those we can't convince. That's always part of it no?

Look at the US government basically setting up a bounty system against people who don't want to do things like bake cakes for gays. Your business, but you could lose your life's work for your religious beliefs. That's breaking someone.

Your arguments depend on the idea that gay or gay marriage bad somehow

No, it depends on moral beliefs being sticky and having a normative quality: i.e. people who have them want to keep and instantiate them. Some people (in this case trad Sinagporeans) believe homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, when faced with an opponent that has clearly no interest in anything but tactical compromise on the road to utterly overturning your moral principles - the trads (who usually start out with an upper hand) have an incentive to not compromise at all, lest they succumb to salami tactics.