ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
I'm just talking number of steps here.
And I guess what I'm saying is that this is a flawed way of looking at it. People don't get convinced in steps, and no one makes this sort of calculus when reacting to someone's views.
Assuming the same level of ideological commitment in both then one of those will be easier than the other.
This has not been true either in my direct experience, or from observing others.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
To each their own, I suppose.
I figured stubbornness is a common enough trait, but treating the human body like it's Mr. Potato Head, with full knowledge of what that entails, freaks me out quite as bit.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I think there's another plausible explanation: they think, with reason, that Blanchard's autogynophilia theories seems factually wrong, in their common form and any form but their weakest, and that Blanchard (advocates, such as Bailey) seem unwilling to engage seriously with counterexamples
I have no issue with people rejecting Blanchard. To the extent I think there's something to it, it's probably fair to describe it as it's weakest form. It's the "knives out" attitude that bothers me, in my experience most opponents don't reallly respond to it.
Consider the ROGD example, there was valid criticism of Littman's study when it came out, but most responses seemed to encourage dismissing the hypothesis outright, rather than verifying it with a higher quality study.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Well thats because most people are not hard consequentialists.
Neither am I. None of my reasoning is based on consequences. At most, they're a signal that should have told you that you're going too far.
And if you think about that makes sense. If i just want to honestly help Jews then there is some set of information that can persuade me I am not helping. If i mean to kill the Jews then that avenue is closed.
Neither of those things is true. Plenty of "well-intentioned" people axiomatically reject the possibility of being wrong. They view everything through the lens of their ideology, and nothing you say to them will make them reconsider. OTOH there are people motivated by hate, who are open to changing their mind (see: that dude befriending KKK members).
The modal true believing Nazi is a hateful bigot, the modal true believing WPATH person is someone who cares a lot about trying to alleviate suffering even if circumstances tragically end up such that they are causing more suffering.
Yeah, I've been hearing that argument for years, with Nazis vs. Commies. I never quite bought it, but nowadays I'm buying it even less.
Take another example: should Christians take the excesses of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch trials as cautionary tales about what can happen with too much religious zeal, or just go "haha, I guess things got out of hand, but at least their heart was in the right place"?.
WPATH people didn't "tragically end up" causing harm, it was an inevetible consequence of their progressive zeal. They were literally warned about it, and they rejected those warnings over and over.
I suppose my entire point is that trying to alleviate suffering too much can be just as bad as being a hateful bigot, and progressives have a really hard time reckoning with that.
I feel like "Impressive" is a motte-and-bailey. Musk regularly makes entire series of predictions and promises, and people give him an amount of praise I'd consider valid, if he actually managed to fulfill said promises. But since he hasn't we retreat to acting like the things he accomplished are what earned him the amount of praise he's getting. I heard, on several occasions that "rapid reusability" means rockets turned around as fast, and as often as airplanes. When I see that, I'll be writing my apology letter to Daddy Musk.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
What does "evil" mean to you here, even?
I wish I could give you a cogent answer to that. Moral philosophy has always been a tough nut for me to crack, and whenever someone brings it up I usually head for the nearest exit. Still, I don't think it's as simple as "being opposed to my values". Many, many people are opposed to my values, and it's no skin off my nose. Like I indicated by saying "that's been a sticking point for me too", I think it's the deception that does it for me, combined with the raw amount of effort and coordination required to sustain their project.
The former is okay, but the latter surely is out of place in this forum, being somewhere in the space between "shaming" and recruiting for a cause (even if that cause is just to stand by and do nothing to interfere as you proceed to smite evil).
It's not quite that. I was hinting at a broader point that I should have probably made explicitly. I've been trying to come up with a way to bring this up without running into Godwin's Law, but so far it's the only analogy I have. Give or take a few posters here, we tend to have no issues with calling Nazis evil. The sheer scale of the horror they created is a bit much for most people (which is why even their sympathizers tend to deny or minimize it), no matter their reasons for going through with it, we tend to think they should have stopped and reassessed what they're doing before things got this far. By contrast we don't do that with progressive ideologies, even when they rack up a similar, or greater, body count. "Ho hum, things got out of hand, but their heart was in the right place", and I'm saying their heart being in the right place only makes the ordeal more horrifying.
WPATH is no Lenin or Stalin, they aren't even French revolutionaries, but they did fall into a failure mode common to progressive ideologies, and I'd like that failure mode acknowledged, and remembered next to examples of conservative failure modes, like various forms of chauvinism.
Now, it could be you're just a very consistent moral relativist, and you'd say the same thing, if someone hinted at, say, the people running the Tuskagee experiments being evil. If so, I guess I'd have to approach the argument from a completely different angle, but I'll need to see receipts to believe you are actually this consistent.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Time. If this goes on for the coming years, and investors are satisfied with whatever they're getting out of SpaceX, that will prove me wrong about Elon's unsustainability. If they go on to build a moon base, like they're contracted to, that will BTFO everything I said, and I will write a massive self-flagellating apology. If they pull of Mars, I'll go on one of those Catholic pilgrimage hiking trails, and actually self-flagellate, as an act of contrition for ever doubting daddy Elon.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
These doctors are lying to cover up their ideologically-driven confusion
Yeah, that's been a bit of a sticking point for me too. I think they're aware of not being perfectly honest, but if you see your opponents as even worse, what's a little white lie to ensure the ultimate victory of the cause? I think they can plausibly call themselves well-intentioned, but I also agree with your "both" answer. Is a mass-suiciding cult not-evil just because they really honestly believe that this is the road to paradise?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I did notice they're making progress between launches a while ago, so the checkbook has long been ready. I doubt I'm wrong about my broader point about SpaceX collapsing, and the revolutionary impact of reusability being a house of cards.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
They genuinely believe that if someone say they're trans there is a special sense that definitely have in their head that is providing them total proof and that it can't possibly be imagined.
Believe it or not, that's already a toned-down version of that worldview. The more hardcore version of Queer Theory would assert that there's nothing to prove. It's like asking for proof of you liking chocolate ice cream. Like I mentioned - not all trans people have dysphoria, not everyone wants to be binary, not everyone even wants to medically transition. The idea is it to enable self-expression, even if that involves hacking off body parts.
The WPATH To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
Things are starting to move fast in Genderland, or at least faster than I can cover them with while giving any sort of justice to the topic. I haven't even gone through the entire WPATH Files, when the Daily Caller (...News Foundation - an important distinction if you're searching for the source materials) released the WPATH Tapes. By spamming FOIAs they were able to get a hold of over 30 hours of video from the 2022 WPATH summit in Montreal. A lot of it is the same old same old that I brought while covering the Files (you can see the short clip playlist here) - there's a public face of gender specialists where the science is settled, you can either have a happy daughter or a dead son, puberty blockers are reversible, etc., etc... and a private face, where they discuss amongst each other the very same concerns they dismissed, when they were brought up by skeptics of Gender Affirming Care. What's new is that the raw amount of footage allowed me to confidently reach a conclusion about a question that's been bugging for a while - what is these people's deal? Are doctors trying to do what's best for their patients, or are they a bunch of ideologically captured fanatics, blind to the harm they are doing? The answer seems to simply be: yes.
I already remarked how a lot of these clinicians come off as quite sympathetic back when I covered the Files. When you listen to their talks you hear them openly expressing uncertainty about many aspects of Gender Affirming care, discussing the limits of their patients' (and their parents') understanding of some of the interventions, and the importance of bringing them up to speed, or you hear them bringing up known and potential side effects, and ways of mitigating them. With things like this, they almost come off as urging caution... the problem is that if you keep listening you get the distinct impression you're on a train with no breaks.
The Introduction to Trans Health talk is a good example of the good and the bad of that WPATH conference. It opens with a pull-at-your-heart-strings story, of Dr. Ren Massey's FTM transition and the struggle to find acceptance in society and from his parents. I ended up being quite moved by the story myself, and yet, in the fastest "Oh god, oh no, baby, what is you doing?" I have experienced to date, he drops this slide, where he proclaims everything from non-binaries to eunuchs is hecking valid.
I try to be honest about these things - I am biased, I pretty much already reached my conclusion on the subject, and it's going to be a hell of process to change my mind again, but no matter how certain I am of something there's always the possibility of being wrong. The thing is, "being wrong" to me means it turning out that people like Jack Turban were right, that gender dysphoria is a valid diagnosis, that doctors can reliably tell people who have it from people who don't, and they have treatments that are proven to alleviate their suffering.
Well, fuck me then, I guess. It turns out that the "medicalized narrative" may have been used in the past, but it's outdated now. Not all trans people have dysphoria, and not everyone wants to transition from one side of the binary to the other. The doctor's empashis needs to be on removing barriers, and on patient autonomy. Between several name drops of "intersectionality", "power and privilege", or "minority stress", as best as I can gather these folks are certified Queer Theorists, tirelessly working to deconstruct the idea that (cis)heterosexuality is normal. Sure, they'll take into account the consequences of gender treatments, and they'll try to make sure that patient's "transition goals" are within the realm of physical possibility, but there should be no other limits placed otherwise. It feels like they flipped the table. What I thought was a conversation about the state of medical science turns out to be a fight over who's worldview should prevail.
This seems to be the only explanation that can make sense out of the whole thing, and tie up the loose ends of the WPATH clinicians genuine concern for their patients, with wild off-the-wall stuff like the Eunuch Archive, or why they pull the knives out for Lisa Littman and the ROGD hypothesis or Blanchard's categorization of trans people, while remaining unbothered by Dianne Ehrensaft's gender angels and gender Tootsie Roll Pops.
Back when I covered the Eunuch Archive it was declared that I am a bad, bad boy, because in a forum with explicit rules about not booing the outgroup, I limited myself to providing evidence that child castration fetishists have an influential role in setting standards for transgender care, and are using it to promote their fetish, but refused to speculate on their motivation, and wouldn't declare them evil or insane. Other than it not mattering, and me not knowing, there was something unsatisfying about the two explanations that were offered. They were a too lucid to plead insanity, and haven't expressed a callous disregard for the well being of others, or a singular obsession with their own self-gratification, that people straight-forwardly associate with evil. What they do appear to be is completely ideologically captured. They view everything through the lens of Queer Theory and intersectionality, and are simply doing what is considered good in the light of that ideology, that this might involve affirming eunuchs, or transitioning schizophrenics doesn't phase them in the slightest.
All this seems to show the limits of analyzing motivations, and has implications on what it means to "boo the outgroup". That the road to hell is paved with good intentions is not a new lesson, but it seems that it's rarely understood as something more than "sometimes people get carried away trying to do good, and go too far", when some cases are probably better understood as "sometimes ideologies can make you commit obviously grievous harm, with a smile on your face". Perhaps the evil/insane dichotomy was the real Boo Outgroup all along?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
The information in that case is that the value system of the subreddit has heavily diverged from your value system and you should leave.
I thought people with heavily diverged value systems leaving, is exactly what we want to avoid?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
If we are talking about the execrable Star Wars sequel trilogy, capitalism isn't telling Disney to knock it off. All three movies made money hand over fist, and The Farce Awakens set US box office records.
No one knew what was coming during the Force Awakens, and they were cashing in on nostalgia, not on putting a chick in it, and making her gay and lame. If capitalism wasn't telling Disney to knock it off, they wouldn't be whinging about their precious franchises falling off a cliff.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
Of course, the problem is that they were hardly neutral arbiters but heavy ideologues themselves
Right, that would be the issue with their analysis, rather than their immigrant status, or aspects of the American culture that they supposedly missed. If you're going to compare someone to the Frankfurt School, I'd guess most people are going to assume that this is what you're trying to say about the group you're comparing them to, which is why these sort of quippy "you know who this reminds me of? winkwinknudgenudge" comments aren't helpful.
And am I missing something or did your extended reply confirm you're only comparing them on superficial things like their region of origin, and complaining about authoritarianism? I don't see you making claims about their analysis, or mistakes they're making being similar.
Come on, give us some substance so we can actually discuss it, if you find the comparison interesting.
Do they remind you of them in any substantial way or just in being from Eastern Europe, and claiming to be fearful about totalitarianism?
Mental Outlaw - Based and FOSS-pilled IT news (may contain farming).
Whose Body Is It - A hippie, new-age, conspiracy-theorist feminist podcast. It might be the very anti-thesis of our forum, now that I think about it, so perhaps some of you will run away screaming. Still, lot's of interesting interviews, and I feel it's the kind of anti-thesis that, unlike the more mainstream / elite forms of feminism, could lead to a synthesis.
Transparency Podcast - Trans dudes discussing the trans-mania. I especially recommend the National Transgender Health Summit series.
EveryBodyShook - A documentary series about the totally schizo, not at all actually happening as we speak, depopulation conspiracy theory.
I'm sure anybody who's gone against that consensus has experienced this - you yourself describe an experience that I've had as well, where low-effort posts that agree with a majority view are heavily rewarded, whereas high-effort posts that I'm quite proud of are probably found under 'sort by controversial' or even 'most downvoted.
Some time ago someone asked me if I think votes should be public, and the more I think about it the more I like the idea.
I always have to roll my eyes at Downdoot Complainers. My first question to them always is: why do you care? Personally I remove the sign of each votr before adding them up into a single metric called "engagement".
But fine, no one likes a dogpile I guess. So second question is: what do you want me to do about it? I can vote the other way, and that might add up to an entire fart in a hurricane, so then what?
OTOH if people see high-profile users vote against the grain, maybe that will take the sting out of the flood of downdoots? Maybe it will even make people reconsider their boo-outgroup / yay-ingroup votes?
Then again, it might backfire. The voting record from the BLM era could probably be mined for salt for generations to come.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
Policy wonks? I hate policy wonks. I meant stuff like Dr. Manhattan's Battle of Midway posts, Dase's AI posts, or whoever-it-was's post about heatpumps.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
So... Anyone wants to sue Google for their search results, ads they serve, videos they recommend, etc?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
You think it's a coincidence that this is when that "man vs. bear" meme popped up?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7d ago
Personally, I think the focus on moderation is a cargo cult. It's how I felt when some people were saying that good moderation was "the secret sauce" that made the subreddit a success, and how I feel now when people are attributing stagnation to it as well.
I think a better approach is to focus on content generation. Stop commenting on happenings, and start geeking out. It's a thankless task, but I think if enough people did it, it would do more for the sustainability of this place than anything you could do with moderation.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8d ago
It's a part of it, but it's not the whole story. You need commonality of opinion/values in order to "coordinate meanness".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8d ago
Half Jewish half Italian, from what I remember.
I don't think this is true. Religious people don't treat cults and fanatics as "accidental harm". Progressives reframe harm caused by the excesses of their ideology as accidental, and my whole argument is that this is based on flawed reasoning.
More options
Context Copy link