WandererintheWilderness
No bio...
User ID: 3496
Again, I'm just not sure how his friends could take the mainstream left-wing view of e.g. race and remain his friends. The mainstream left-wing view of race demands that you cut off anyone who gives the time of day to race science. And defines anyone who does as right-leaning by definition. Anyone who goes to parties with Scott is either not paying attention, or a very heterodox leftist indeed. I think accepting the premise in the original Red Tribe Vs Blue Tribe post that the Grey Tribe is a third, neutral entity is the only real way to describe what Scott's friends are like. He might very well be living in a tighter bubble than before, but it's not a left-wing bubble, because no actual left-wing bubble would tolerate his presence within itself.
(It's not just race, either, though that's the most prominent Schelling point. A mainstream leftist does not tolerate a friend who is outspokenly well-disposed toward capitalism - or indeed, one who casually, openly criticizes "wokeness", by that name. As an actual heterodox. This isn't to say all leftists are actively anti-capitalist and pro-cancel-culture, but nevertheless they treat it as a point of etiquette that the reverse opinions should not be embraced in public, for fear of looking like Those People. Scott, as a good Grey Triber, happily takes potshots at wokeness's illiberalism while taking it as a given that Capitalism is Good.)
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
I'm not sure what follow-up to Radicalizing the Romanceless you're talking about, but from the summary I don't see the inconsistency. Recognizing that a problem is real, but disagreeing with its strongest activists' proposed solution and throwing your hands up helplessly, is a very common and coherent position on all sorts of controversial issues. (For example, I agree the plight of the Palestinians is worthy of sympathy, but have some pretty unsolvable disagreements with Hamas on what ought to be done about it. Surely I can express these two points even if I have no alternative miracle-solution to put forward?)
general political polarisation has continued to the extent that I doubt he ever meets any right wingers any more, even the weird kind.
I mean from where I'm standing the opposite has happened - he has been pretty resoundingly cancelled (mostly for the lukewarm HBD support) and is pretty permanently persona non grata in actual leftist spaces. I don't know what sort of people make up his social circles these days - other techie libertarians, probably - but it's very unlikely to be anyone actual leftists, let alone wokes, would recognize as allies they'd give the time of day to.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
My post was intended to be agnostic on the question of whether some people abstractly 'deserve' to be tortured. What I am sayng, what feel in my gut, is that the act of torturing is wrong. Not just "a power we shouldn't give to the state" - wrong. Torture is depraved, an act which stains anyone who commits it. "This sinner deserves Hell", even if it's true, is no excuse to become the Devil yourself.
(I am also against the death penalty for the same reason. But my moral sentiment that killing is wrong is nothing next to my burning certainty than torture is wrong, wrong, WRONG.)
If trans women would be segregated in either case, why then is it important for them to be housed in a women's prison?
I wouldn't necessarily call it important, within that hypothetical. It's a matter of optics. But it's preferable, because all else being equal, I think it is morally preferable for trans women to be treated as women by society unless there are compelling practical reasons otherwise. Putting the segregated section in the women's prison sends the message of "we recognize trans women as a special category of women, although there are caveats and sometimes we won't treat them exactly like biological women". Which is about right for how the state should treat trans women in general. In contrast, making the "trans women's prison" a section of men's prison sends the message that trans women are to be regarded as a special category of men.
I will argue that being (and presenting) as a woman is a choice for trans women
It's not exactly one they can walk back if they've already had breast implants, though, is it? So at the very least this wouldn't apply to post-op trans women. But I'm also skeptical that the average trans inmate could feasibly go stealth. A biological male who's been living in a female persona for years is going to have a very hard time passing for a macho man again. (This is, of course, the primary joke of The Birdcage.) She might stop broadcasting that she's a trans woman, but odds are the nearest rapist will still identify her as Some Sort Of Queer - assuming the wardens don't simply share that fact with him on purpose, see Wikipedia link in the previous message - and avail himself to her backside anyway. I guess this would dissolve the resulting rapes into the general male-on-male rape statistics, but I think that's pretty cold comfort.
And all of this is without going into the question of whether incentivizing a trans person to detrans against their will via a structural risk of rape would be a grossly unethical thing for the system to do, which I think it would be.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
"Worse" is a confusing term in this context. There is a sense in which being killed is "a worse fate" than being tortured - but torturing someone is a worse thing to do, and a worse thing for a society to condone. I can respect someone who's killed a man, even if I didn't approve of his actions. I couldn't really, fundamentally respect a torturer even if he'd committed torture as part of some trolley-problem with a terrorist and a ticking time-bomb with which I could find no logical fault. By the same logic, I do not want to be part of a society, or indeed, if at all possible, species, which condones torture as punishment, ever, for any reason.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Your first point isn't terribly persuasive to me, because I don't think most male prison rapists were put behind bars as sex-offenders. Relatedly, my answer to the second point is that male-on-male prison rape is still widespread to the point of being a punchline. And indeed, Wikipedia links to studies claiming to show that 70% of transfem inmates reported having been raped, with 60% claiming violent assault rather than "mere" coercion. Going by those numbers, even assuming all transfem sex offenders will attempt rape in prison, the average transfem prisoner is still more likely to be raped than to commit rape.
(I have no doubt the numbers are somewhat inflated, but you don't get this much smoke without a fair bit of fire.)
If we're talking about a violent trans offender that ended up in a high security prison, I'm less inclined to give a damn to begin with.
I can't condone that perspective - IMO rape is simply not acceptable; it's not appropriate karma for any crime no matter how depraved; it simply has no place in a civilized society. But if we grant the premise, then presumably a violent trans offender who gets sent to women's prison would only be able to prey on biologically-female violent offenders, too. If you don't care whether violent offenders get raped, then you have no reason to care which prison trans offenders go to either way, at least as far as the rape angle is concerned.
that trans activists consider the feelings and safety of men to always be more important than those of women.
With due respect, that's a caricature of my argument and I do not agree that I'm "practically" making it. I care equally about the feelings and safety of all human beings regardless of sex or gender. My concern here is based exclusively on the probability that more rapes would result from one policy over the other. It isn't remotely the same thing as saying I think a cis woman being raped is any better than a trans woman being raped.
Trans women can be put in protective segregation in a men's prison.
I agree this would solve the problem, but nobody seems keen to make it happen. As you say at the end of your post, however, this is ludicrously far from the Overton window. So long as this is a thing, I don't think you're going to get anywhere advocating for that. Hell, if we agree with the principle of putting trans inmates in a special segregated section for safety, couldn't you do the exact same thing at a women's prison? I have greater confidence that the wardens at a women's prison would keep a close eye on transfem inmates to make sure they aren't raping anyone, than I have that the wardens at a men's prison would look out to make sure that the trans woman inmate isn't being raped.
(But fundamentally, again as per the end of your post, any rape-mitigating policy on trans inmates is a flimsy bandaid on a huge festering gash. We simply need to end prison rape in general, which I wholly believe to be achievable, and then… well, and then progressives can say trans women should be sent to women's prison for normal dignity reasons, and conservatives can say trans women should be sent to men's prison for normal insisting-on-the-primacy-of-biological-sex reasons, without rape coming into it. Which will be a step in the right direction.)
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Well, yes. I am a queer theorist. (Not in the sense that I do it for a living, but this is what I was referring to as the coherent, morally-correct, but unacceptably-radical-if-you're-a-mainstream-politician position.)
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Regarding the trans-women-in-prison thing, I came up with a counterargument the last time this came up. Curious how you'd answer it. Some trans woman prisoners may try to rape biologically female inmates if put in women's prisons; but won't male inmates be even likelier to try to rape the trans woman if she's sent to the men's prison? If we assume that not all trans women are rapists, but all male prisons contain at least one rapist willing to rape a trans woman, it seems like sending trans women to female prisons will prevent more rapes than it will enable.
(By the way, this is unrelated, but AI could allow us to cut the Gordian knot on constant surveillance pretty soon. A 'dumb' AI can be constantly monitoring prisoners on video feeds human wardens can't access, and if it observes what appears to be rape, it rings an alarm. Slightly ahead of current technology, but IMO clearly achievable using the kind of tech that goes into self-driving cars. It wouldn't need to be foolproof, either, few positives have minimal cost.)
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
The definition has done no such thing. People who refuse to give a straight answer to the question are trying to avoid political backlash for endorsing the radical ideas which are the necessary bedrock of a coherent and non-evil definition of "woman" (perhaps because they don't believe it themselves and are trying to have it both ways); not because no such answer exists.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Stick around, new kid. Time in this community will thoroughly disabuse you of that notion
The existence of a niche forum whose membership selects for right-wing views and truth-seeking does not disprove the idea that all else being equal people who strongly value truth for its own sake will be more likely to be liberals.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
As an excuse for torture, "well, at least we haven't killed them" is not any kind of gotcha. Unless you think torture is never 'cruel' because at least it's not murder, it's a meaningless argument.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
I don't agree with much of meduka's perspective, but if it's true that the wife had "filed a restraining order against him" as claimed, then it's easier to see why you might not want to take her concern about Garcia's well-being at face value.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
I agree with you by and large, but to play Devil's Advocate - are gender-segregated showers mandated if you're running a swimming pool in England? The ruling only seems to ban trans women from showers designated for "women"; not to say that women-exclusive showers must exist. Presumably swimming pools can choose to bill showers for "biological women + transfeminine individuals" if they like, and that wouldn't violate the new law. (Not that I think they're likely to do so.)
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
You may be interested in TracingWoodgrains, lately of this parish, 's essay on a similar case. The problem is certainly not unique, though I wouldn't say it's universal either.
I do also want to say that, while this Lorenz person seems like a pretty tiresome outrage-bait-manufacturer, one has to laugh at "as reported by the Daily Mail", which it is perfectly sensible of Wikipedia to ignore as a source. It's tantamount to a tabloid.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Surely a critical mass of left-wing Twitter has moved to Bluesky now. There's no one left to tempt over to the Shiny New Guaranteed-Fascist-Free Twitter unless you find a way to kneecap Bluesky.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
What do you make of Scott's answer in God's Answer To Job, out of curiosity? It's the only one that's ever really convinced me, though it hasn't made me a believer.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
(see how he brought along his four year old son to the White House)
I mean, maybe he is, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that. It's a photo-op. You may as well conclude "Trump does seem to enjoy making burgers in his spare time".
As far as St Clair's motives, while I don't doubt money was involved, many women are sincerely sexually attracted to powerful, successful men, let alone geniuses. And, while no Hollywood star, he's not exactly ugly. I don't have difficulty believing a woman with a shot at him might genuinely have wanted a night with him in its own right, whatever came of it.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Yeah, this feels like an exaggeration. Tumblr was always its own wellspring of memes (though, of course, it might be dying too) and nowadays, TikTok and the like have a lion's share.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
That is not what has happened, and I believe that there is zero compelling reason to believe that it will happen.
That is perfectly fair, and I agree it's unlikely (though not quite out of the question for people who do more than post on Bluesky, on causes as sensitive as Israel/Palestine). But I am still uncomfortable with the MAGA base's unwillingness to denounce the scenario as beyond the pale. I think Trump - or Vance, or someone else who speaks for him - ought to be making the point clear. Ought to be actively pledging not to deport citizens. Instead, they're dodging the question. I think this is for PR reasons, to avoid looking soft, not because Trump actually intends to deport liberals by the plane-full. But it's still not a good look.
I think our other point of disagreement is that I see a much starker difference between someone with mere residency, and a naturalized citizen. I'm totally with you on temporary residents needing to abide by the rules of hospitality and remaining broadly apolitical. But as a matter of fact, I consider the most important part of citizenship to be that it's a license, and indeed an encouragement, to get involved in your country's politics. Involvement in the affairs of the polis isn't just a privilege, but also an expression of a citizen's civic duty. If we don't want an immigrant to get involve in politics then we shouldn't naturalize him in the first place.
And in a similar way, I think one of the things that go hand in hand with legal citizenship is the right to be tried and sentenced as a citizen. An immigrant who has earned American citizenship, then takes political action perceived to be against the American state and/or in the interest of a foreign power, is not a hostile alien. He is, instead, a member of the opposition so long as he abides by the law, an ordinary ciminal if he doesn't, and a traitor in extreme cases. But never again can these actions be judged as those an alien. (And of course, that's a double-edged sword! In many cases, actions which would be perfectly expected of a foreign national are despicable if they come from a traitor. But the difference is massive and meaningful.)
It's the difference between a babysitting gig and adoption. If you agree to babysit a kid and he's a bratty little hellion who breaks all your furniture, then with reasonable notice you get to send him home to his parents and refuse to take him in again. But if you've adopted the kid outright, however much he misbehaves, however much you regret your choice, that kid is now your son, and you would be culpable to treat him any differently from a biological child who misbehaved in the same way.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Trump actively liaised with El Salvador, and apparently paid it to imprison these people. This isn't a case where we flew the deportees to El Salvador, and El Salvador separately decided to indict them upon their arrival. It's not clear to me that Garcia has been formally charged with anything specific in El Salvador, and I would be astounded if he had gotten a fair trial there. Had America taken the handcuffs off him at the airport and let him go where he pleased from there, it's not clear to me that El Salvador would have any desire, let alone just cause, to arrest him unless he started committing crimes there. This is what I propose we do; it seems like a pretty clear middle ground between "refuse to deport anyone who might be imprisoned by their home country" and "actively ask for and facilitate their imprisonment once they're returned".
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
This doesn't assume that; in fact, it doesn't assume anything whatsoever about illegal immigrants because it's not talking about them. Please reread my post. I am very specifically talking about Democrats' fear, whether unfounded or otherwise, that Trump intends to start violating the rights of citizens if they happen to be his political opponents, and treat them like he's started treating illegal immigrants. This is not the only reason people are upset about the Garcia case - they also care about the rights of illegal immigrants qua illegal immigrants - but it is the one we are talking about right now.
You might be worried about a canary in a coalmine dropping dead because you care deeply about birds, and think it's terrible that a bird has been needlessly killed by poison gas. Equally, you might find concern for the bird secondary at best to the sudden fear that you, yes you, are at risk of choking to death. I am talking about the second thing, and saying that, at the very least, Trump's rhetoric has been less than reassuring.
WandererintheWilderness
3mo ago
Well, for example, you could minimize damage by not sending deportees to foreign prisons. Just fly them out and let them off at the airport and don't let them back in again. Whether the country to which they've been returned wants them locked up is its problem and they'll have to arrest them by their own means and prove a case against them within the local justice system to do that.
Regarding the listed contents, I do think it is inappropriate to be teaching four-year-olds about "leather" - in a sexual context - or even "drag queens", the attempted desexualization of which I find more than a little bemusing. I don't believe crossdressing itself is inherently sexualized, but drag as a subcultural tradition has always had a strong erotic element, and it's kind of bizarre to teach children about it when they quite possibly haven't even properly done the birds and the bees yet.
"Intersex flag" I would, however, strongly defend. Being intersex is an anatomical trait, not a sexual behavior. Four-year-olds can very well be intersex themselves. Teaching them to be at peace with it, and teaching their classmates that it would be wrong to bully people for being intersex, seems perfectly defensible. Indeed, viewed in this context, the intersex flag is just about the only pride flag which could apply to a four-year-old.
More options
Context Copy link