Tarnstellung
No bio...
User ID: 553
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The assumptions are:
-
The marginalized groups really are marginalized. In your example, this would mean you have a significantly larger amount of money than me.
-
We're looking at this dispassionately, from behind a veil of ignorance. Of course the group that benefits from inequality would support inequality. I usually cringe at this saying because it's so frequently abused by the left, but it does apply in this case: when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Tarnstellung
11mo ago
My beer consumption in general is small enough to not be a real market for brewerys. But for those of you who do, I encourage you to continue with the boycott. I'm far from the most anti-trans poster here, but I'm excited to see a big company brought to its knees when it give into corporate woke.
Did they really "give in" to wokeism? Given that:
The WSJ states that: "[M]any people, including bar and store owners, wrongly came to believe that Ms. Mulvaney's video ad aired as a television commercial or that the can with her picture on it was stocked on store shelves, wholesalers said." Because the content did not appear to people organically, they really didn't know what it was, and people assumed it was so much bigger than it was because the usual suspects of CW flame fanning amplified it. A throwaway insta video became a TV ad, Bud Light making a custom can as a joke became people fearing that the beer they bought on a store shelf would have a trans woman on it.
Would you not say this is a major overreaction to what was, objectively, a minor screw-up, which they, if I recall correctly, quickly apologized for?
Tarnstellung
1mo ago
As a final note, in a sane society these remote Middle-Eastern squabbles should not have been a major issue in the domestic politics of various Western countries. But we are now well past that point in Europe.
The UK chose to get involved in this particular conflict a hundred years ago. Don't blame this on Muslim immigrants.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
How big is the harm overall? From an outside perspective, things seem to be working fine. Is there a possibility the field will converge on a smaller number of standard refrigerants?
It seems the replacement refrigerants are being replaced because they contribute to global warming. I would expect that once ozone depletion and global warming are dealt with, there won't be any reason to introduce new refrigerants any more.
Edit: Is the danger from hydrocarbons theoretical or are they actually regularly exploding or catching fire?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I would be worried about violence if I got into an altercation with Buck Angel.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Schools in other countries don't need armed security.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The cleavage site, important for how the disease develops, is unlikely to emerge naturally without other changes to the genome - yet this is what happened. It was probably done artificially by the Ecohealth people who were asking for money to do just that (the US turned them down for the initial grant a few years prior to COVID but they could've found another source of funds).
You go from "this is unlikely to happen naturally" to "it was probably artificial, and I know who did it!". That looks like a huge leap to me.
Are you an expert on molecular biology, epidemiology, etc.? I'm not. I'm getting most of my information from this Wikipedia article, checking out the references, googling. My impression is that the investigation of the lab-leak theory was initially hindered when Trump endorsed the theory, which made it part of the culture war, but now it's back on track: it's no longer a taboo topic, people are looking into it and there's a healthy discussion going on, which should eventually produce some kind of consensus.
Tarnstellung
11mo ago
On March 27th, A transgender shooter killed children and teachers at a Christian School, with direct political motivations.
What evidence do you have that the shooting was politically motivated? One article says:
Authorities have yet to release what was written publicly. But TBI director David Rausch did talk candidly about the contents of the manifesto at a Tennessee Sheriffs' Association meeting. Rausch said what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target but a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive.
Investigators searched the Nashville home of the Covenant School shooter leaving with among other things — a number or handwritten journals, some videos and computer hard drives. Rausch told sheriffs that the review so far of the material finds that the killer did not write about specific political, religious or social issues. In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings.
She appears to have followed their lead planning for months and acted alone.
And you can tell this media outlet isn't particularly dedicated to pushing the trans agenda by the fact that they're not using the shooter's preferred pronouns. The obvious explanation is that this particular school was targeted because the shooter once attended it.
On April 1st, LESS THAN A WEEK LATER, the Bud Light-Mulvaney partnership drops. (...) It was an EXTREME "insult to injury" moment. AB was inadvertently(???) sending the message "We do not give a shit that you, our main customer demographic, was just targeted for a politically motivated attack and we will in fact implicitly celebrate the shooter with this marketing campaign that basically claims your favored beer brand for the blue tribe."
Are trans people collectively guilty for a shooting committed by one trans person? And if they are, how long do they have to wait after the shooting before they can go out in public again without this being a provocation? How long does everyone else have to wait before it becomes acceptable to associate with trans people again?
In effect all of the powers that be ignored the victims of the shooting, provided some cover to the shooter, and essentially turned the entire thing into an opportunity to advance transgender issues.
The Wikipedia article on the shooting says:
In response to the shooting, U.S. President Joe Biden said, "We have to do more to stop gun violence. It's ripping our communities apart, ripping the soul of this nation, ripping at the very soul of the nation... we have to do more to protect our schools, so they aren't turned into prisons."[7] He ordered flags on all federal buildings to be flown at half-staff.[21][57] Tennessee state representative Bob Freeman, a Democrat from Nashville, called for gun reforms in the wake of the shooting.[58]
On March 30, thousands of protestors gathered at the Tennessee State Capitol to call for stricter gun control laws.[59][60] Some children held signs saying "I'm nine" in reference to the age of the children shot.[61] Within the chamber of the capitol, three state representatives, Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, and Gloria Johnson led the public gallery in chants of "no more silence", "we have to do better", and "gun reform now", demanding that lawmakers strengthen gun laws. This protest delayed a hearing on a bill which would expand gun access.[62][58] The next day the state legislature passed a law allowing private schools to hire school resource officers from police departments to help prevent shootings, effective immediately.[63]
The president ordering that flags on all federal buildings be flown at half-staff is certainly not ignoring the victims. It seems that they reacted the same way they react to other school shootings. Every remotely notable left-wing figure that publicly reacted to the shooting condemned it and called for more gun control. No one decided that guns and school shootings are fine now because sometimes a member of the ingroup will be shooting at the outgroup.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
A very important and representative organization, I am sure.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
You haven't provided an argument as to why civilians need easy access to guns for a society to be free. You are just asserting that this is the case.
Tarnstellung
1mo ago
I was not trying to create any kind of general debate about the history of the conflict. I was only making a very narrow point: that "remote Middle-Eastern squabbles" have been causing political controversy in the UK since long before any significant Muslim immigration.
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
Dishonest fearmongering is the order of the day, and as I alluded to previously, it is the prevailing philosophy of those with power and influence in America. Are you actually opposed to dishonest fearmongering, or do you simply object to the outgroup enjoying its benefits?
This website exists specifically to enable intellectually honest discussion. The fact that the rest of the world is full of dishonesty is irrelevant. It's not acceptable here.
If you're killed by someone that the government had the power and even the obligation to remove from the country, but decided not to, then the government has played a role in your murder. That's an element that simply doesn't exist for the Gacys.
This is irrelevant if your actual probability of getting murdered didn't increase.
Most groups in the world have lower violent crime rates than American natives, because the American native crime rate includes the absurdly large black crime rate. Disaggregation by race would tell a different story, albeit not one that people prefer to hear, since in the popular imagining an American "native" is just some cornfed Southern good-old-boy, and there's a great audience waiting to eagerly believe such people are more violent than one's cherished client groups.
The breakdown of the native crime rate is irrelevant. Letting in immigrants with a lower crime rate still makes the country safer overall.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I personally believe the US election was rigged. It's already been admitted by the media, they only use the word 'fortified' instead of rigged. I'm sure everyone is aware of that article.
I am not aware of that article. Could you link it, please?
What exactly were these people doing, if not projecting influence and power such that Biden would be elected? Is that not rigging?
Groups "projecting influence and power" to get someone elected is called an election campaign. It's part of every election. What is the dividing line between legitimate campaigning and "election rigging"?
If you can quietly threaten that there'll be riots, suppression, endless legal warfare, against officials who don't use their leeway to come to the correct procedural/administrative conclusions, is that not rigging?
I doubt many people were going to vote for Trump but ended up voting for Biden because they were afraid of riots.
I'm not sure what you mean by "suppression".
Trump, having lost the election, is now the one engaging in "endless legal warfare".
What "career implications" would there be, for which officials, and for what kind of "procedural/administrative" decisions?
Rigging involves everything from stuffing votes, ballot harvesting, procedural manipulation to media manipulation.
My understanding of the word "rigging" only includes ballot stuffing and similar practices such as destroying or just not counting certain ballots. I believe this is the common understanding of the word, and broadening it as you do is a motte-and-bailey.
I hadn't heard of "ballot harvesting" before. Having looked up an explanation, it doesn't seem to be inherently fraudulent, but it probably does make certain kinds of "rigging" as described above easier. Do you have any reason to believe ballot harvesting had a significant effect on the outcome of the 2020 election?
I'm not sure what you mean by "procedural manipulation".
If by "media manipulation", you mean biased media coverage, then yes, that clearly did happen, but I don't think many people would classify it as "rigging". If biased media coverage is a form rigging, has there ever been an election that wasn't rigged?
A more expansive definition would include education and demographic policies, which do not favor the right.
Wouldn't that encompass literally all of politics, given that obtaining votes is ultimately a politician's biggest concern and any policy they implement or support is designed to increase their chance of re-election?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I was going to say that candidate 2's poor hygiene makes him less qualified, in the broad sense, but then you did it for me! Our disagreement here seems to be on how bad not bathing is as compared to wearing unconventional clothing.
I think the convention that men mustn't wear dresses is arbitrary and pointless and a man should be allowed to wear a dress if he so wishes. Very dress-like garments have been normal for men to wear in many cultures, so there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Even if you consider it ugly, that's just a personal preference; I consider leather jackets ugly, yet I don't think this justifies discrimination against people who like wearing them. Brinton is only inconveniencing people if they let themselves be inconvenienced, like a wokeist who chooses to be offended at everything.
Poor hygiene, however, should not be socially accepted, in my opinion. Of course that depends on what "poor hygiene" is: someone may say that, yes, poor hygiene should be unacceptable but only bathing once a month isn't poor hygiene. For the purpose of this discussion, I am using "poor hygiene" to refer specifically to what candidate 2 is doing.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The hormones they're being given at least exist naturally in humans. All humans have both estrogen and testosterone. It's just the levels of each being altered in trans people. This is apparently unnatural. But giving people synthetic chemicals that don't exist anywhere in nature is apparently "natural". This is absurd.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
What is objectionable about that book? A boy dressing up as a princess doesn't seem any worse than other make-believe that children engage in.
Tarnstellung
9mo ago
So they were all secretly pro-paedophilia but kept it a secret for 30 years? You would think with such an enormous conspiracy there'd be a whistleblower at some point. Surely there are people in LGBT circles who are high-ranking enough that they would be in on it but who don't actually support paedophilia.
There's generally a clue when the shooter leaves behind a 'manifesto', but until it is released it's hard to be certain.
The shooter didn't call it a manifesto and some of the people who've read it have also objected to the term. It may well turn out to be an explicit call for violence against Christians in the name of trans rights, but it may also turn out to be the incoherent ramblings of a crazy person. Public statements from police officers who've read it imply that it's the latter.
But the entire message coming from the media in the wake of every other mass shooting is that white people/gun owners/right wingers are in some way responsible for the actions of one violent person.
So it's quite noticeable when the message differs from that.
My understanding is that the blame is not placed on gun owners as such, but on gun ownership as a phenomenon and, indirectly, on those who support it, who, yes, tend to be mostly gun owners and right wingers. The view of people advocating gun control is that reducing access to guns reduces mass shootings, hence those who support easy access to guns are actively preventing the prevention of mass shootings. It's not just a vague tribal association between them. In contrast, how does an ad featuring Dylan Mulvaney actively promote mass shootings by trans people?
Yes, because they want gun control. Which is a position that the right would not agree to and, likewise, is unlikely to solve the problem.
You see the problem here?
In the wake of a mass casualty event, if it is perpetrated by a white male, or anyone with possible right wing affiliation, then the message is "white males and/or right wingers are a dangerous threat that must be curbed, and we can do that by banning guns." They demonize outgroup, and demand gun control.
If it's perpetrated by a nonwhite person or someone who has lefty affiliations, it gets buried immediately, and then they demand gun control.
The message always demonizes one side, and the proffered solution is always a policy the right opposes fervently. There is no acknowledgement that the problem runs deeper than guns or that whites, males, and righties are not the main driving factors of violence in the U.S.
But they're made to bear all the stigma.
The right has noticed this for a long time. But in this event, it was a lefty shooting up a bunch of Christians.
And oh boy seems like we don't get to have any discussion on this issue because that would cloud the waters on who the bad guys and good guys are.
So the disagreement is on whether gun control will reduce mass shootings. As I said above, the reasoning is "we want gun control" -> "gun owners oppose gun control" -> "gun owners are bad", not, as you are suggesting, "gun owners are bad" -> "gun owners oppose gun control" -> "we want gun control". This means that, if you could, theoretically, convince them to oppose gun control, they would no longer believe gun owners are bad. (The major assumption here is that politicians are sincerely trying to make the world a better place and aren't just playing tribal signalling games.)
The position of gun control advocates is consistent with the above. They're not trying to ban guns for their outgroup, they're trying to ban them for everyone, because removing access to guns prevents mass shootings, and then the discussion of who is to blame for mass shootings is moot because, even if the outgroup are violent neo-Nazis who want to massacre minorities, they can't access guns and are therefore unable to do so.
I don't know if you're really missing the context here but consider the following:
Biden didn't visit the town, he didn't talk to any of the victims' families, and as far as I know has not actually condemned the shooter.
Kamala Harris visited... but didn't meet the victims or their family, and instead met with the expelled legislators.
MEANWHILE, those same three Nashville legislators GOT INVITED TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
Please, can you possibly explain the difference in messaging and treatment between the victims of the shooting and the legislators, other than the victims being red-tribe coded and the legislators blue-tribe coded?
Do sitting presidents usually visit the site of a mass shooting and meet the victims' families? (Two randomly selected examples: in 2018 Trump visited the victims, in 2021 Biden didn't, even though the shooter was in the outgroup and apparently personally disliked Biden.) Do presidents usually explicitly condemn mass shooters, or is their belief that mass shootings are bad and the shooter is a bad person implicit in their order to fly flags at half-staff, their expressions of condolences, etc.?
Honestly, meeting the victims and their families seems like a pointless PR move. He'll say how sad he is, thoughts and prayers and all that, take a few photos, but will anything useful come out of the meeting? (This applies in general, not just in this particular incident.)
In contrast, from the Democrats' point of view (I'm trying to steelman here), the legislators are heroes who are trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening again and who are being persecuted for it. A meeting with them won't be used just to express condolences, it can be used to discuss political matters, to further their cause, to facilitate the enactment of policies that would prevent mass shootings. This is real, meaningful action, not just a PR stunt.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
OK, pacemakers are the only good argument against the ban I've seen so far. The only research paper that I can find is this one from 2006:
Conclusion: Patients are at risk if the implant is unipolar and left-sided, if they stand as close as possible to the induction cooktop, and if the pot is not concentric with the induction coil. Unipolar pacing systems can sense interference generated by leakage currents if the patient touches the pot for a long period of time. The most likely response to interference is switching to an asynchronous interference mode. Patients with unipolar pacemakers are at risk only if they are not pacemaker-dependent.
I don't know what that means TBH.
Having exhausted the scientific literature, I tried the next best thing: Reddit. There are anecdotal reports from people with pacemakers cooking with induction and people with pacemakers who were told by their doctors not to cook with induction. No reports from people with pacemakers who tried cooking with induction and died.
Edit: And what about people who have embedded metal fragments that can't be removed? I guess my ban isn't a very good idea after all.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
This is not about the shooter's feelings. Calling a Black criminal "nigger" is offensive to all Black people because it denigrates the Black criminal for being Black, not for being a criminal. Likewise, misgendering a transgender criminal is offensive to all trans people because it denigrates the trans criminal for being trans, not for being a criminal.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
You'd have to rewire the parts of the brain that do sexual pleasure so you're not hooking up a vagina to the penis-pleasure part of the brain. There'd probably still be some male part of you that wants to penetrate women, you'd have to change that too.
Do all (cisgender) men want to penetrate women?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
A plumber, police officer or teacher can't easily switch to a different employer and get twice the pay. Many people probably do decide to become police officers or teachers (not sure about plumbers) because they care, but once they do, they're locked in, unless they want to start an entirely different career from scratch.
I don't know what "status offerings" are, but I don't think working in academia is much higher-status than working for a biotech company, especially given the difference in pay. Isn't income the primary determinant of status?
Tarnstellung
9mo ago
Medical transitions are a form of genital mutilation which cause massive harm similar in kind but greater in magnitude to rape. I would rather a child be groomed into sex with a pedo than groomed into undergoing medical transition, because the former would leave fewer long term irreversible trauma and could hopefully eventually be healed and recovered from.
-
Medical transition involves HRT and not just surgery. There are trans people who choose to only get HRT and to never have genital surgery.
-
There are many trans people who voluntarily have genital surgery and are happier afterwards. There are no (or negligibly few) children who voluntarily have sex with adults and are happier afterwards.
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
This is an extremely uncharitable strawman. No utilitarian believes murder is justified if the murderer enjoys it very much. Among people who do endorse euthanasia in certain cases, none consider any pleasure derived from administering euthanasia to be a relevant factor in the moral calculus.
Dear "revisionists", where are all the Jews?
A couple of months ago, I had a discussion with the self-proclaimed "revisionist" @SecureSignals concerning the veracity of the Holocaust, always a fun topic.
There was a bit of back-and-forth on the archaeological evidence and witness testimony, which I eventually gave up on because SS (very subtle username, by the way) clearly knew much more about the subject than me, and could thus, as the saying goes, drag me down to his level and beat me with experience. Calculating the number of corpses that can fit in a given volume definitely felt like I was being dragged down a few levels.
A more fruitful line of questioning is that of where millions of Jews disappeared to. In response to SS's accusation that:
I said:
SS replied with arguments as to why the "official narrative" on Treblinka is implausible, which I was unable to argue against because, as I said, I'm not familiar with all the details of every Nazi camp. It is possible that the consensus figures for a single camp are wrong. As in the Jasenovac example, this has already happened (though it should be noted that most of the victims at Jasenovac were not Jewish). Even if true, this is at most evidence that the consensus on Treblinka is incorrect. It says nothing about the other camps, where the vast majority of the murders happened. In my reply, I said:
As far as I can tell, SS never addressed any of this. It seems some of the comments in the thread have since been deleted, which apparently hides all child comments when viewing the thread directly, though they are still visible on the profile page. This makes it hard to reconstruct the exchange, but looking at SS's profile, I can't find anything where he addressed my argument. From his post below on Holocaust education, we can infer that he does indeed believe that not just Treblinka but the entire Holocaust is fake, a position for which he has not provided any evidence.
So, to SS and any other "revisionists" who may be lurking: Where are all the Jews?
More options
Context Copy link