Tiber727
8d ago
I wasn't really into Gemergate itself at the time, but it was multiple things at a time.
-
Games journalism being untrusted (for instance, Jeff Gerstmann being fired because he gave a mediocre review score to a game heavily advertised on the site),
-
Zoe Quinn allegedly sleeping around (which wasn't a review but her game was covered by the site)
-
Anita Sarkeesian was promoted on multiple sites for feminist critiques of video games, despite knowing nothing about video games and using incredibly old and simplistic evidence.
When the journalists tried to disparage and stop discussion of the above, that just fanned the flames.
Trans people took a defined word rooted in biology and tried to redefine it.
Yes, and "American" is rooted in citizenship. Citizenship is pretty objective and unambiguous.
If you asked someone say 5 years to define an American how many would say
-
America itself keeps PR at arm's length with a half-assed quasi-status. Adding to that, we literally had a war to force to people who didn't want to call themselves American to do so anyway.
-
English speaking is recommended, but not a requirement.
-
"Routinely complains about America." So literally everyone on this forum?
But to really test your point, imagine two U.S. citizens have a baby and live in say Israel. And that baby grows up and married someone who similarly was born to two U.S. citizens yet lived in Israel his or her whole life. That new couple had a baby.
Let's test the opposite. Imagine a mother has a baby right before crossing the border. The baby grows up to be the most stereotypical American you can imagine. Loves hot dogs and football, and cries during the national anthem. Is that child American? Many here would say "I don't care about any of that, deport his ass immediately." Hell, even if he was born on this side of the border and legally a citizen, many here argue the law should be changed so he isn't.
This is a bit of a toy example but it is trying to separate out “Americanness” from “legal status.”
And "Americanness" is nothing but a vague and arbitrary touchy-feely crap. You're entitled to believe it, but it has no actual meaning outside your head.
Tiber727
10d ago
Nobody is misunderstanding you. You're just trying to argue why God says you should do X to an atheist. They reject the framework of the argument.
And for that matter, I reject it too. I think this is the right's equivalent of trans ideology. "You see, there's a literal meaning but also a spiritual meaning that involves conforming to a bunch of stereotypes."
Tiber727
10d ago
I don't think oats is saying he hates capitalism, more that he's saying that capitalism has seemingly learned that being partisan can also be profitable. The left is more likely to make purchasing decisions based on politics. Thus the "free market" party is ill-equipped to handle it, because the bean counters are telling everyone to charge full steam ahead.
Though as an aside, I think "What if we brought down wages and benefits so citizens can compete with immigrants" is on par with "What if we made all the farmers become factory workers?"
Tiber727
14d ago
RE: Body Cams
A couple articles does not a vibe-shift make. At the height of BLM Dems were more likely to support body cams than Reps (92 to 84%), but support was about as close to unanimous as any topic gets. I couldn't find any data newer than 2015 but it would take a massive vibe shift to put a dent in 92% support. Given the Dems are pushing for cameras, that seems unlikely.
Also, your ProPublica link isn't against body cameras. It's accusing the police of acting improperly with the footage they have.
Tiber727
14d ago
Gender theory itself isn't an argument, but just a way to view the world. And it definitely arose from wanting to be the opposite sex, as you described. But "I want to be a man/woman" is a totally coherent concept.
It's coherent in that there is a desire there, for whatever reason. Part of my frustration admittedly is switching arguments between "this is totally normal, gender roles are all made up" and "go along with it or kids will commit suicide." The "kids will commit suicide" aspect suggests something is very wrong (when this argument is not used as emotional manipulation) but "go along with it" does not follow. To me "going along with it" is like if society decided that the treatment for hearing voices in your head is to say the voices are real, for society to grant personhood to the voices, and to redefine sound from vibrations in the air to anything someone perceives as auditory sensation. It makes the sufferer feel better about having it, but nothing has actually changed about them having it and it all collapses when someone naturally points out the elephant in the room. The only way for this treatment to improve is to increasingly demand conformity to avoiding the topic.
Whenever someone like Jesse Singal questions whether this treatment program is actually saving kids lives he's accused of wanting to kill kids. If you suggest that some kids might be autistic or struggling with adolescence, you get mobbed. Imagine if someone decided to research a drug to deal with dysphoria by suppressing the dysphoria and making them more comfortable in their own skin. And for that matter, if there have always been trans people, don't you find it a little odd that suicide is such a massive concern now as opposed to 100 years ago? If you think a trans kid was bullied 10 years ago, imagine 100. You'd think they'd have been killing themselves left and right and people would have noticed.
I am not denying this. Trans activism is trying to make wider society adopt the gender theory lens of viewing things, make it the "standard" as you say.
In reality they are doing this. From their own claims they are doing nothing, they are just living their lives and mean people are going out of their way to torment them. They act as if they have always been the standard.
-
Gender was always implicitly recognized throughout history because no one went around looking under women's skirts. Spend 5 seconds imagining what would probably happen if someone with a penis was identified dressing as a woman in the past (not counting theater).
-
Cherry picking niche societies with categories like "two spirit." Many of them were societies with strict gender roles that they wouldn't want to live in, and these gender roles were often a form of emasculation.
-
Salami slicing small changes in the name of acceptance, then framing the opposition as overreacting to nothing. Related anecdote: video games have quietly almost entirely changed character creators to say "Body Type A or B", "styles," or unnamed silhouettes, despite choosing the character's sex. They claim that this is no big deal. The right wing owner of the company behind Lords of the Fallen forced the devs to change it to Male/Female. Cue lefties saying they will no longer buy anything from the company. If asked about this discrepancy, Male/Female is appeasing right-wing chuds, Type A/B is "being a decent person" even when localizers changed it from the original Japanese.
-
Claims that non-experts should defer to experts, then denounce any experts/evidence as operating in bad faith and try to personally and professionally disqualify them. Experts that find evidence in their favor are of course neutral and professional.
I'm just pointing out that this is not something that can be objectively proven false, and is just a moral preference.
Moral preference cannot be proven false, this is true. But try comparing believing in gender identity to religious belief and watch the left howl.
Also, I can point out how their arguments in favor of their moral preference they conveniently discard when it leads to outcomes that don't support their moral preference. The "gender and sex are two different things" argument is presented as "I'm not trying to replace sex, I'm trying to add nuance." Then they repeatedly oppose any decision making based on sex, even matters where biology is a main factor. My favorite was another conversation where I also pointed out the discrepancy of it being called gender affirmation surgery despite gender being all in the mind, and was calmly told that breasts are also a gendered characteristic. And their definition of gender is nonsensical. Ask them to define a woman and it means anyone who identifies as a woman. Ask what woman-as-a-concept is, and all you will get is an endless runaround of what it is not.
Tiber727
16d ago
Personally, my objection to gender ideology is not the social aspect. I ultimately don't care if a man wants to wear a skirt. But I see the discrepancy between the arguments they make and the actions they take. For as much as they say they are simply separating gender from sex, their actions are consistent with wanting to eliminate the concept of sex in humans.
-
"Biological" man/woman? This is offensive terminology.
-
Saying bathrooms/changing room usage is determined by sex? Bigot.
-
Sports separated by sex? "Leave it to the committee" when the committee allows trans women to compete, but get mad if they change it. Simultaneously attempt to argue that letting trans individuals compete with women is no big deal.
-
Attracted to the opposite sex? Genital preference.
-
Surgically altering your body to imitate the sexed characteristics of the opposite sex? Gender Affirmation Surgery.
-
Choosing your sex in video games? Body Type A or B.
-
In the progressive lexicon, there is no single word for the male and female sex in humans. There are acronyms like AFAB, or references to bodily functions (menstruators, chestfeeding, etc.).
Any decision based on sex must be made on gender. Any references to sex that cannot be replaced with gender must be hinted at rather than stated. Sure there's the "charitable" reading of the TRAs confusing their own terminology, but it seems to happen a lot. The most straightforward conclusion I can draw is that the rhetorical separation between sex and gender only exists because they worked backwards from the conclusion that they wanted to be treated like the desired sex in every way possible, and invented an argument that they convinced themselves of in order to square the circle.
With regards to this specific case, I could at least buy the argument if Irish law treated adoptive and birth mother the same. But if this line is true:
“under Irish law, as applied to date, the mother of the child is the woman who gives birth to the child and therefore the child would derive their citizenship through that mother”
then it seems unambiguous that Ireland is not using "mother" as "feminine caregiver," it is using it as "person who carried the baby." The "sex is not gender" argument doesn't fly here because the real source of the conflict is that the state is specifying sex and the plaintiff wants gender to be the standard. The point TRAs don't mention is that when Gender got divorced from Sex, Sex was the breadwinner who named all the words for man/woman, but Gender got literally everything in the divorce. If TRAs had invented new terms for masculine/feminine gender roles, then there'd be no issue because it was clear Irish Law was specifying sex. The actual motivation for the lawsuit is over whether the law is allowed to use mother/father to refer to sex or whether Gender has stolen the word "mother" for all purposes.
Tiber727
23d ago
The "I don't believe this but you do" is a form of "If you believe premise A and premise B then behavior C doesn't fit." This forum often engages in this towards the left. And while often the person using this logic is bad at modeling the thoughts of the group they're applying it to, that's not inherently a problem with the form of argument.
"Arguments as soldiers" is a way to make attempts at persuasion sound nefarious. Of course they are attempting to persuade you! It isn't a secret. It's a nihilistic world view that frames the world as two sides, and one is pre-committed to always defect you no matter what you will do, but wants to see if you are a sucker who will cooperate. You can never earn their respect, never reach some sort of compromise, therefore the correct response is maximum fuck you. I won't say such a person would never possibly exist, but it treats the extreme as the norm. It's also self-fulfilling, because viewed from the opposite side you literally are playing defect bot.
The existence of people who have contradicting goals is not some new phenomenon, it's the norm of society. Regardless of what other people do, you should hold to your own values. This is the right's version of the left's "bad faith" exemption. The left loves this similar game - "We stand for tolerance but by having a limitless definition of harm we can shun you and still be tolerant!" Now it's "If the enemy tries to use our values against us that gives us license to never consider whether the accusation is correct!" The atheist vs Christian context of the meme is rather ironic - at the risk of being the atheist in the meme, I'm still fairly confident that Jesus' big thing was being so committed to his own values that he'd let the opponent "win" thereby convincing the opposition of his righteousness.
Tiber727
24d ago
I mean, look at this framing from NPR: "A Third of people arrested by ICE have no Criminal record". Are we for real here? ICE's track record is that even wildly dishonest, leftist institutions admit that 66% of them are criminals, and now we're talking about why we need to stop that activity?
This is also dishonest. Of that 66%, half of them are accused but have not yet gone to trial. Some number of them might end up being criminals, but you are not a criminal until you're convicted, ergo that was not admitted.
Second, this might be what NPR is referring to by saying "the majority of those criminal convictions tend to be traffic violations or lower-level offenses." This breaks it down into traffic violations, DUI, drug possession, and marijuana. Let me put it this way - as someone centrist but closer to the bleeding-heart type than the average mottizen, I'm far less sympathetic to an illegal immigrant who committed DUI or drug offenses, but I don't think marijuana or a single traffic violation really moves the needle on how sympathetic or unsympathetic I am towards a person (repeated traffic violations might though).
Tiber727
27d ago
I don't think the far left wants cops to also be therapists, I think they want to send therapists and protective services in instead of or in addition to cops. I think this is to some degree a stupid idea, but it is different from what you described.
Tiber727
29d ago
Regarding censorship, there was an old article I remember well but sadly never saved. It was about a western journalist in China who worked closely with censors. The most fascinating thing to him was how opaque the process was. One moment they'd censor something that seemed completely innocuous and another they had zero problem when he was sure they'd want some change. They would never explain the rules of what leads them to act.
Tiber727
30d ago
Trump's tariffs are based on trade deficits, Trade deficits can be a result of unfair trade, but given Trump talks about domestic manufacturing a lot, signs point to Trump simply thinking that exporting more than you are importing is an inherently good thing.
Door in the Face doesn't really have much to do with this. That's a negotiation technique, and you were talking about negotiation outcomes. Maybe it'd be better if I asked what you refer to by "cooperative outcomes for all involved parties." Greenland seems very much only for the benefit of America. His trade negotiations seem solely for the benefit of American domestic manufacturing. His Russia policy seems to be to cut off aid to Ukraine and alternative threatening either of them. He renegotiated NAFTA to increase American production, then negotiated again.
I do want to check my biases. I tried to find bills passed by Trump with bipartisan support. I couldn't find a listicle, so AI will have to do.
-
First Step Act (2018)
-
SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (2018)
-
VA Mission Act (2018)
-
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act Reauthorization (2018)
-
Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act (2019)
-
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill)
Tiber727
1mo ago
maybe a little, he sure does seem to despise Obama
And Biden, and Clinton, and Comey, and CBS... He spent Christmas ranting about the Democrats!
generally prefers cooperative outcomes for all involved parties.
He put tariffs on the entire rest of the world based the ratio of imports vs exports. And is currently threatening to annex Greenland from our allies and is using tariffs to force them to negotiate.
Tiber727
1mo ago
The thing about stackoverflow is most of the time I'm doing a web search and that brings me to a Stackoverflow link. I check the link and it's not the same question I have, it's something superficially similar. That's the same thing AI tends to do, so it's a wash anyway.
Tiber727
1mo ago
This argument goes both ways. By all rights, what makes modern immigrants special, in that they should be allowed access to America? Access to America isn't some human right, after all.
Access to America is not a human right. I tend to more pro-immigration in that more people means more work gets done, more work being done meets more prosperity, etc. I think that we can help people, and maybe a few generations down the line many of them will become at least middle class and pay taxes. But that's a mix of utilitarianism and charity, not a moral imperative. Should, not must. But I oppose opening the floodgates because even if you believe in charity, charity must be measured. Spread yourself too thin, too fast and everything gets neglected.
But in either case I mostly despise the people who say "I deserve to be here because my ancestors were born here." There are two connotations of deserve, moral and procedural.
Procedurally, the rules say that people who are born here are citizens. So they are correct. But by the rules, it is equally correct that if if an illegal immigrant crosses over the border and has a kid, the child is a citizen.
However, there's a moral/cultural definition, that there's an inherent social credit to one's family being in a country for a long time. That you own more shares in the stock that is American culture by virtue of inheritance. The Heritage Americans are appealing to that. That I think is nonsense, because the circumstances of one's birth are a matter of luck.
That's a moral condemnation, not an argument.
Yes and no. Why should I respect their viewpoint if they preach one set of values but practice another? If enough of a group says A but does B at what point should I feel entitled to say that their real beliefs are B? And note that I would say that contradictions can come in two flavors: vice and hypocrisy. The man who cheats on his wife once and hides it out of shame is one thing. The man who has been carefully arranging rendezvous behind his wife's back for two years does not believe in marital fidelity.
Bringing it back, my observation of Heritage Americans is that in practice they seem less interested in how long one's family has lived in what is now America and more interested in the superiority of those of European descent. I don't see vice being a factor here, so what should I conclude?
Tiber727
1mo ago
Personally, I have respect for the people in the past who risked their lives to settle. The modern-day descendants of those people deserve no special accolades. You didn't do shit except get popped out in the right place from the right hole. You're not special because of what they did.
And I can't help but notice that the Heritage Americans seem to have little to no problem with white people who have only recently migrated, or that they seem to have little interest in the contributions of people who are not white but have also been here a long time.
Tiber727
1mo ago
Yes and no. There's still a strong social stigma against adopted/step siblings getting into a relationship.
Tiber727
1mo ago
This is a fascinating example of using creative language to frame war as peace and weakness as strength. Of all of the things that could be argued to be negatives of lax immigration policy, arguing that it's bad for the migrant is certainly a choice. With an offhand parenthesis that intent to escape is irrelevant, you casually steer away from the tiny detail that one of the defining concepts of slavery is the slave's lack of choice in the matter.
And uh, A KDR is a useful tool to measure the effectiveness of a military operation, but an odd standard to use for measuring enforcement of what is normally a misdemeanor. I'd argue that any number of deaths starts to make me ask questions.
Tiber727
1mo ago
A country simply doesn't work when everyone feels entitled to have an opinion on matters over their pay grade
I would say that the entirety of America's history has operated on this principle, and it has endured. It came close to failing during the civil war, but Motte pessimism aside, I don't think we're near that level yet. I would argue that the Civil Rights protests is an example of people manipulating the levers of public opinion through civil disruption and some intentional lawbreaking, and not it only did it not tear society apart, it was a pretty significant success.
I would say that your view inherently holds that the state is just, and by just I mean that your highest ideal is order. This represents an inherent trust in authority, which let's say a Russian wouldn't share. America is inherently founded on a certain distrust in authority.
I also have a question about "matters over their pay grade." Right now the scientific consensus is that gender affirmation is good and life saving. Now the general view of the Motte, and one I to some degree with, is that the doctors are ideologically captured. But some places have gone to the level that not affirming your child is legally considered child abuse. So whose pay grade is it to make these decisions? The doctors? The legislators? The parents? And to what degree does the parent have the right to not comply if they believe this is unjust?
Tiber727
1mo ago
In all honesty, I'd say the line between appropriate and inappropriate depends entirely against the injustice being fought. Revolution against the government/terrorism is murder, but justifiable against if the government in question is Hitler's Germany. During the civil rights era, sit ins were technically trespassing by refusing to leave. The Underground Railroad was abetting the escape of slaves. I guess I'd like to know what your thoughts are on those illegal activities.
The American Constitution was written by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules. The thing about standing in the town square waving a sign is that most of the time it doesn't work. I think that you know that, based on your comments about getting into politics or accepting that you've lost. So to what extent do you believe citizens are enabled to seek effective political change outside of an election cycle?
According to the latest political poll, 52% of the public disapprove of ICE, 39% approve, and 10% have no opinion. To what extent is the government obligated to respect the wishes of the people? Is there some level of unpopularity to which Trump should change course? Does a citizen have any recourse if he doesn't?
Tiber727
1mo ago
Nothing convoluted about it. It was a mob intent on reaching people whom they know they are not allowed to meet (thus the barricades). The police by virtue of their job have to speculate on bad outcomes because that's their job. A gallows had been put up by someone. A state rep and staff were right there. The shooter was pointing his gun at the wall directly in front of the window and it had been shouted out that a gun was drawn. If someone was willing to still try to get in I'd call it reasonable fear that someone is determined to do something at the cost of their life.
Do you think if a mob of lefties is breaking down a door to get to where they think Trump is, that the Secret Service is engaging in convoluted speculation about their motives? No, they're thinking "My job is to protect someone. They are close to someone I am trying to protect and behaving in an aggressive manner." The speculation that matters is they are willing to commit a crime (breaking down a barricade in a government building) in furtherance of another goal that involves getting close to a VIP.
Tiber727
1mo ago
As much as I dislike Trump, if Trump can make a deal that all parties are happy with to buy Greenland (including not bankrupting America) I'll give him credit.
But thus far I am not seeing any serious attempt to convince Denmark and Greenland to want to make that deal. From the Deal Maker in Chief I mostly hear complain, complain, insist that it's going to happen so they should just get with the program, complain, and make something that could vaguely be interpreted as a threat. I know he's serious about wanting it, but it would take a lot of effort for it to happen and I am seeing very little from Trump to explain his confidence. I know there's long odds that Trump will use force, but with Trump I can never rule anything out and I see more breadcrumbs of evidence that he might use force than I see evidence he's going to charm them into agreeing.
Tiber727
1mo ago
Babbitt was shot at 2:44 PM. At 2:42 some House members were walking through the tunnels. I couldn't find exactly how many people were not evacuated, but Markwayne Mullin saw the shot and says that there was still staff there.
I don't know how much a random redditor counts, but I have literally seen a conversation where the person "misgenders" a trans criminal, someone tries to lecture him, and he straight up says (paraphrased), "I use preferred pronouns because I am asked to, but criminals are not owed politeness." Which does square with the argument frequently made (if not necessarily believed) that pronouns are like titles and using them is "just being polite."
More options
Context Copy link