TheLoser
15d ago
It's a [transitioning] memetic something but I reject the term "hazard". I think it's a boon to human flourishing, and it needs to spread harder, so long as we can decouple it from dangerous medical procedures.
You are ignoring the fact that for many, many trans people, transitioning is inextricably coupled with "dangerous medical procedures". That is, its impossible to decouple the dangerous medical procedures, from the sense of purpose and fulfillment that a completed gender transition gives; that sense of purpose is fulfilled by those dangerous medical procedures.
I happen to think the world is considerably better for having trans people in it, and that most people are happier transitioning than they would have been in a counterfactual world where they didn't. (Not because it was written on their soul in golden ink from birth that they were the opposite gender; just because gender transition is a fun thing to do with your life and imbues the transitioner with a welcome sense of purpose and fulfillment, like any other arbitrary self-improvement project.)
And here is the crux of the issue. What if I believe that transitioning is not a good thing, and people who transition actually feel worse than they would be in the counterfactual world where they didn't transition? How do we resolve this tension? The only way is to actually analyze the relative happiness levels of transitioners, how and when they transition, and the relative psychological profiles of transitioners and trans people (those who don't transition) in general; in other words, medicalize the issue. And if we do this type of analysis, at best the benefits of transitioning, both for minors and adults, become unclear and murky. At worst, gender transitioning actually seems to make the quality of life for people to be worse; it appears that it actually causes harm in the transitioner - the evidence for which the commentators in this forum have showed to you at length.
TheLoser
22d ago
Right. Because Egypt has so much leverage with Libya, Europe and other Muslim states. It is not realistic to expect Egypt to be able to pass along the Palestinians to other areas. Other Muslim areas wouldn't accept them, and Libya quiet literally doesn't have the ability to keep Palestinians inside it.
I reiterate that war with Israel in the event of a Palestinian expulsion becomes the only viable choice, regardless of its downsides. It does not matter how much Egypt loses out in terms of money from the US or from the Suez canal; money is infinitely cheaper than wholesale civil breakdown. Plus, in the event of Palestinian expulsion, in terms of international law, there is nothing stopping rich Gulf states from funding Egypt themselves; that war would be both legal and justified.
If Egypt completely overthrows the state of Israel and risks the nuclear issue, that would still be preferable to keeping them in Egypt. Nukes can only do so much damage; over-population could feasibly destroy the entire country.
TheLoser
22d ago
Would the Egyptians or anyone else go to war to shove the gazans back into Gaza? Almost certainly not.
Almost certainly yes. Egypt's government and citizenry already detest the appearance of being pushed around. There isn't really a better casus belli then preventing having your countries territorial integrity flagrantly violated by an external state, and also preventing an ethnic cleansing.
Palestinians have proven themselves as a destabilizing population (just see Palestinian behavior in Jordan, Kuwait and Lebanon). Egypt is already over-populated and financially drowning trying to ensure an adequate quality of life for its citizens. If Palestinians are moved into the Sinai, the cost-benefit analysis would skew heavily towards open warfare, since such a population displacement would literally cause a life or death crisis in Egypt itself. At that point, its either war or state collapse.
TheLoser
1mo ago
She insists that the number of women who enjoy sex for sex's sake and will not be damaged by having sex without an emotional bond is nearly an empty set. I... have enough experience to believe that is not the case. I absolutely believe Women Are Different and that most women need/desire an emotional bond in a way men generally do not. But there totally are women who enjoy being sluts, and I don't think that number is so very small (though they may come to regret the physical and social costs of their behavior later).
This is unrelated to the broader discussion, but I have a feeling that the women who enjoy being sluts enjoy being sluts in the moment. I believe that overtime, they experience a sort of unconscious strain that builds up with each casual sexual encounter, that worsens their mental health, separately from the regret they feel due to the aforementioned physical and social costs. I'm curious to know your opinions on this view? I don't really have much of first-hand experience to verify it.
TheLoser
1mo ago
I mean, compared to the disasters and mismanagement that occurred pre-mao, the great leap forward really isn't that much worse. Regardless, Deng came to power right after and instituted his reforms; I'd say a prolonged period of mismanagement would have definitely sparked another revolution.
TheLoser
1mo ago
But it is a requirement for ruling China. The communist party knows that its mandate comes from being able to "Keep everyone at a reasonable standard of living" ; in fact, the mandate for anyone ruling China, communist or not, is to fulfill that need.
If they can't guarentee reasonable standards of living, then revolution and uprisings are on the table.
TheLoser
1mo ago
Honestly, your experience doesn't match mine at all. For context, I am a cradle Coptic Orthodox in Canada. From my experience, most converts are either converts through marriage or through outreach on the part of Orthodox parishioners. Maybe its because Canada is more catholic, but I do not think I have ever seen a, as you say, "intellectual, introverted, evangelical, college-educated man" convert.
You characterize Orthodox parishioners as "odd" or "hippies", and priests as "intellectuals". This does not match my experience at all. Are there one or two crackpots? Sure, but what organization doesn't? The vast majority of parishioners where I'm from are perfectly normal members of society. The young people in Orthodox churches are even more approachable; they go to the same universities, work the same jobs, go to the same parties, do the same things for fun. The priests are nice, welcoming, and secularly educated. I feel that you've approached orthodoxy from an intellectual paradigm, and that's coloured your perception of the orthodox community. From my perspective, most Orthodox are normal western people, who just happen to be Orthodox. The median introduction to Orthodoxy is from an average young adult introducing their partner/friends to the Church, who play up the history and "connectedness" of the church to society and history in general.
You've mentioned that Orthodox communities seem like social clubs. I'd like to point out that it seems like that because Orthodox churches in the homeland actually are social clubs. They basically operate as NGOs that offer social services, and act as community centers.
Also, you've mentioned that joining an Orthodox church often feels like you're giving up your own culture. Sadly, I agree. Preferably, an indigenous Orthodox Church of America would be established that represents the culture, history and ethos of America. Unfortunately, establishing such a church is a centuries endeavor.
TheLoser
1mo ago
I have no idea what type of orthodoxy you guys are dealing with. The type I'm familiar with (immigrants and such) encourages women to get degrees and high-powered jobs.
TheLoser
1mo ago
especially considering how famously repulsive Orthodoxy is to non-Orthodox women, something I've observed personally.
I have not observed this personally. Do you mind giving us some examples? I'm struggling to envision how orthodox christianity would be particularly repulsive to secular women, compared to any other conservative religious belief, such as islam.
TheLoser
1mo ago
You are afraid I'd be okay with exposing children to bestiality; I am afraid you'd like to censor anything that would raise a maiden aunt's eyebrows in 1890. You're right that this is where the battlefield is, however much I personally find Gender Queer offputting (and inappropriate for pre-teens).
I actually agree with you on this. It seems that, if I'm interpreting @BreakerofHorsesandMen correctly, anything outside of the most saccharine, banal works would be banned. Does description of child abuse warrant censure? How about descriptions of warfare or violence? Where does the line stop exactly? It seems that trying to ban things based off on their "appropriateness" to different age ranges is an inherently moral/political question.
Likewise, your arguments are toothless to me, because I don't know anyone who turned into a degenerate because they read spicy genre fiction as a kid.
However, I have to disagree with you here. It's well documented that watching too much porn can induce transsexuality or autogynephilia at least. I'd also argue that in terms of how well slippery-scope applies, sexuality is one context in which it best applies. Reading spicy genre fiction can easily lead to reading more hardcore fiction, which can in turn lead to joining adjacent online circles/forums/tumblrs that if not encourage, at least implicitly validate non-standard sexual behaviors and identities. Just see cracking-the-egg in trans spaces, or the public and shameless speculation on and encouragement for identifying as gay for anyone who even seems to be gay; see the anger when it comes to "queer-baiting".
Really, I believe the above is the crux of the argument. On one side, you have people who rightly believe that these works of art encourage or at least lower the activation energy of acceptance, so to speak, for sexual identities and behaviors that they perceive to be disordered or morally incorrect. On the other side, you have people who believe that not only are those sexual identifies and behaviors not disordered or morally incorrect, but should actively be accepted and encouraged in society; so, those works of art that can help to either cause people to tolerate those sexual identities or incorporate them into their person should be, in their view, not only permitted, but disseminated.
In Thomas Sowell terms, it's a conflict of visions.
I'd argue that you could actually make an empirical decision on which specific sexual identities are disordered or not based on empirical material outcomes, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.
TheLoser
1mo ago
I blame our collective forgetting about it all on Franz Fanon. Who made it clear that ethnic hate wasn't a coincidence, it was the point. He would regard modern Singapore as a failure and modern Zimbabwe as success.
Could you elaborate more on this point?
TheLoser
2mo ago
Despite having individually quite radical policy prescriptions, I still call myself a "centrist."
Can you explain what those radical policy prescriptions are? I feel that depending on how radical those prescriptions, the revolutionists might have a point when claiming that only revolution can bring them about.
TheLoser
2mo ago
I suspect that what he wanted to say, but shied away from, is that there are ultimately two camps: those who believe in the Christian God, and those who don't. This is undoubtedly the conclusion that one should draw if one starts from Christian priors. But since I reject Christian priors, I unsurprisingly reject the conclusion as well
But the distinction between those who believe in God and those who don't, and the consequences of those beliefs, are trivial to make. I think its axiomatic to say that non-belief in God fundamentally shapes the ideology and worldview that you adopt, and the inverse if you do believe in God; whether you specify if the God is Christian or not is irrelevant. You don't believe in God, so that puts in the non-God-believing camp, which is currently, as described, going though a civil war.
But this ignores the diversity of views about human nature you find on both the far right and the far left. The dissident right already has an essentially Hobbesian view of human nature, as far as I understand it. And even on the far left, things are not so clear. Followers of the more psychoanalytically-inflected strains of Marxism stress that there can be no final end to history, no ultimate reconciliation of the individual with the collective.
The diversity of views about human nature is reflected in the utter and complete factionalism that we see in the culture war today. That's why Hlynka's specifies "core". I'd even argue that even if people don't see or acknowledge similarities in belief between themselves and their ideological opponents, those similarities still exist. Even in your example Marxists, they still focus on the irreconcilability of the self and the collective, which is an external loci of control.
To use an example, fascism and communism are as opposite as they can be, but they are still, fundamentally, illiberal; both in practice and ideologically. Likewise, while the modern culture war might be filled with people who hold seemingly contradictorily views, they might still have common ground ideologically and in practice.
TheLoser
2mo ago
Excellent analysis. However, if I recall correctly, Hlynka never claimed that the far-left or the far-right are exactly the same; Hlynka only claimed that the implementation of their politics ended up being nearly identical. Isn't that claim compatible with your analysis? Both the far-left and the far-right, on a fundamental level, want to re-order society to elevate either the lower, middle or upper class, with moderates being agnostic or wanting to help everybody.
TheLoser
2mo ago
Is your goal to doom us to cycles of repression?
Thus has it ever been. Thus is how it always will be.
TheLoser
2mo ago
My top issues are immigration, DEI, crime, and housing prices and the Liberal failure on those files is so complete that a rational people would electorally annihilate whosoever did it to them forever. Carney's ideas on these files are either non-existent or the same the previous government.
My top issues are basically identical to yours, but wouldn't it be fair to levy this criticism at Poilievre as well? From what I can tell, Poilievre is as wishy washy as Carney. Really, only Bernier is serious about tackling immigration, although I wonder if people can pressure Carney to get tough on immigration.
TheLoser
2mo ago
Children also like to rebel against the status quo. Zoomer's increased relative conservatism compared to millennials is partially explained by the dominant culture being progressive. You're not completely wrong, but you're not completely right either.
TheLoser
3mo ago
You underestimate exactly how incompetent Qatar and UAE are. The Khaleejis couldn't win against the houthis, and they literally share a land border with them. Khaleejis themselves are not very competent; the vast majority of state capacity is in the hands of foreigners, such as arabs or westerners.
A rebellion doesn't occur because the guest-workers do not have a mind for rebellion, and their inferiority is constantly reinforced. No khaleeji even pretends that they owe rights to them, unlike in the west.
TheLoser
3mo ago
Is it all just downstream from an extreme mix of chauvinism and anti-intellectualism?
Right on the money. I'd also add an immense amount of entitlement, but whether that comes before or after the chauvinism is a chicken and egg scenario.
Arabs aren't liberals; they're best modeled after WW1 era nationalists. Completely convinced of the superiority of their country and culture.
TheLoser
3mo ago
Fruck is partially correct, but more so incorrect. I will be speaking on a personal level, because I come from MENA. Fruck is correct, in the sense that some of the lashing out stems from a sense of inferiority or ennui; however, Fruck attributes this to a fundamentally incorrect cause.
First of all, it is trivially true that Arab culture in general do not value hard work or being a provider. Is being a provider expected? Yes, especially in the upper classes. But in the lower classes, all manners of mediocrity, laziness, corruption and sloth are generally accepted; hard-work is not an arab virtue. It would be incorrect to say that these men feel insulted because they are being denied the opportunity to provide for themselves.
They are, however, insulted by their perceived inferiority. Arabs, and arab men especially, are driven by a need to have "face". They need to appear rich, and powerful. Women need to love them, men need to obey and respect them. It's also important to note that many arabs believe that they are culturally and genetically superior to everyone else. So, when an arab refugee ends up in Europe, the cognitive dissonance between how he perceives himself (strong, virile, powerful), and what he actually is, which is a ward of the state, produces these incoherent and violent actions. In fact, their presence in Europe might actually strengthen this tension. In the Middle East, arabs can at least be ignorant of their station, but once exposed to European standards, in an ironic twist, it might drive them to further extremes of supremacy.
Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the inferiority psycho-sexual complex arabs have towards whites. Can be seen in these reddit threads: here, here, and here. For reference, /r/muslimcorner is a place where young muslims talk and discuss islam. Notice the weird comparisons towards white people? Notice the subtexual resentment?
TheLoser
3mo ago
Both men and women now have more sexual partners over the course of a lifetime than they did a hundred years ago
How true is this actually though? Is it average amount of sex partners? Because i can definetlry think of some sub-cultures 100 years ago who probably have orders of magnitude more sex partners than people today.
TheLoser
3mo ago
By food i mean in general. Increased population leads to an increase in food demand, driving up prices.
Kowloon walled city WAS real neoliberalism and it was a GOOD THING.
We've reached a terminal end in values here. There's no point in arguing this further, since I consider Kowloon walled city (and situations like it) to be the closest thing to hell that humanity has voluntarily created.
I'm sorry but being a better writer than literal redditors on /r/WritingPrompts is not a high bar to pass.
More options
Context Copy link