distic
1yr ago
It seems to me you are assuming that the main goal of a secret document is to remain secret, while it is actually to be read by some people (else, there are better ways to avoid leaks, like not having any secret document). So there is some kind of trade off between the security measures, and who will be able to read the document. At some point, you have to decide if it's worse that sometimes documents leak, or that someone doesn't get the information he should get. It seems to me that the incentives are strong enough to avoid leaks most of the time (the guy will spend his life in prison because he wanted to brag on discord...).
What's more worrying in my view is the time spent between the leak and the guy getting caught. If it takes one year to detect a leak from a dumb soldier unable to cover his tracks, you can guess that china has access to most us secret document.
distic
1yr ago
If society has to live a lie, it certainly is at a higher cost than if it is telling the truth. You cannot train everyone to lie everyday and expect no consequences. (1984 is often presented as a book about mass surveillance, it is actually about truth and lies. "Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two make four, everything else follows".)
So it seems that both questions (the truth of the gender theory and the damages to society) are related.
Personaly, I would comply with anyone's desire to be treated as a woman, a man or anything else. I don't see the point in bothering these people about their personal choices. But if someone asks me out of context, what I think about gender theory, it seems to me it is my duty to say that I don't believe in it (or at least in some of its main points).
And I have no problem with society enforcing more kindness toward trans people, but at some point there must be spaces where we forget any kindness requirements and look coldly at the truth.
distic
1yr ago
The transgender being "apoplectic when people question their metaphysics" is purely the result of their requests to be treated as the "gender" they identify with. Society is not discussing whether cis-women are women, so the only way to treat trans-women equally would be to not discuss it either for them. It is a ridiculous expectation, obviously, but it explains why the truth question is so important.
distic
1yr ago
Their productivity per hour is low because they work a lot. It's expected that the hours when you are awake and do the most important part of your job are more productive than those when you are tired and do something less useful. You should do a comparison ceteris paribus, but it is more difficult.
distic
1yr ago
Italy and Greece are not the most feminist countries in the world. The US are much more feminist, I think.
distic
1yr ago
But belonging to a country is a matter of allegiance more than of ethnicity. Would you argue that someone who has never lived in France, doesn't speak french and hates France is actually french just because his biological parents are? And anyway the person is french if society declares her french ( e g with an id or a passport), not if she self identifies as a french person. She can self identify as much as she wants, it won't change anything. The same is true for parenthood : your are the parent of a child if he declares you as his parent, not if you self identify as his parent. It means society expects you to take care of the child. When we think about parent, we think about that more than about the sexual act to make the child.
Transgender identity, on the other side, is meaningless because when we think about women, we think about people with a vagina, two tits, a menstrual cycle, who experienced that from their young age and can bear children. Men are free to wear make up if they want, a lot of men have, it won't make them women. Thinking you can become a woman is like thinking you can become King Charles: either you are born the first son of Elisabeth, or you're not. There is nothing we can do about it, even if you self identify as Charles.
distic
1yr ago
First thing. I'm not arguing against the fact that you should be polite and kind with trans people. If someone wants to be treated as a woman, I would use "her" and "she" if this is this person's preference. At least when the person is there (but it's exactly the same thing as being polite with someone by calling him Caius Julius, because he thinks he is Caesar). The problem with the transgender activism is that it requires a lot more than that. It requires that I never say what I think to be the truth, even on the internet, and as a general comment (not to offend anyone, but just to state that I don't believe transwomen to be actual women if it's relevant to the conversation). It seems to me that if you transpose your sentence "in my mind I certainly perceive that family as not a real family." to trans people, you would get in trouble in some places (e g reddit). And that is what I call enforcing a lie, and that is what I think is an important issue. Would you comply with your own requirement that "it would be forbidden for anyone to mention the way in which you differ from a native or a biological parent", your entire post could not exist. You need to be able to mention the fact that both differ to build your argument.
By the way, I don't think nationality is a "social version" of ethnicity. It's not in the US, it's not in France, and it's not in most countries. Sure, some countries might decide that their nationality is about ethnicity, just like they can make it about religion. Would you say that someone is or is not "ethnically vaticanese"? Both parenthood and nationality are about law more than about identity. Your nationality gives you some rights, being recognized as a parent gives you some rights. From the political viewpoint, "nationality" and "parenthood" is just those set of rights (anyone who has them is a citizen or a parent). Being a woman gives you no special rights. The only special rights of women are actually rights of females, related to biology, like being accepted in a maternity hospital or competing with people with less testosterone in sports (female sports has never been about gender, but only about biological sex). All the rights that could relate to your gender (like the right to vote) have been extended to women, at least in the West, so being a "legal woman" is not a thing, because a "legal woman" is exactly the same thing as a legal man, as men and women have the same rights.
distic
1yr ago
Some people have done it for millenia, but it doesn't mean that most have. Actually, if you take account of those who died as children, most people ever born have never got any children. You are the result of those who chose to have children, but it does not mean that most people have done it in the past.
distic
1yr ago
Would you comply with your own requirement that "it would be forbidden for anyone to mention the way in which you differ from a native or a biological parent", your entire post could not exist. You need to be able to mention the fact that both differ to build your argument.
This feels like a straw man. Throughout the conversation we have implicitly been referring to saying these ideas in general society (in person, reddit, etc).
I can also say that trans women are not women here without facing any repercussions (as can you)
The issue is that you are advocating for some rule, such that enforcing the rule would weaken (or void) the case for the rule. And it wouldn't weaken it because it makes it less necessary, but because it forbids some arguments about it. It seems to me it is weird.
What I am trying to say, is that while there is a need for nationality even without ethnicity (even in a world where everyone has exactly the same DNA, there would still be different nations due to cultural and geographical differences), and there is a need for parenthood in a sexless world (assume children are fabricated, they still need people taking care of them), there is no need for genders in a world without biological sex. Genders are all about sex, and that is why transgenderism is a lie. You might say, look, genders are unrelated to sex, they have started to invent other genders than men and women (e.g. non-binary). You are right, but then this path leads absolutely nowhere, excepted in a place where everyone has his own gender because everyone has his own identity. And it is so because gender, outside of biological sex, is absolutely nothing.
distic
1yr ago
The fact that they use sma and ema does not mean that it is what makes them earn money. If I use both astrology and science for agriculture, I will make money (astrology is useless, thus it is harmless) but it won't prove anything about astrology.
And what he is saying is that there are strictly more informations in the order book than in the price.
distic
1yr ago
What if they developped their own indicators? Would it count as special knowledge or as proving EMH incorrect? Genuinely asking
distic
1yr ago
May it be that intraday trayding is profitable because the market is overall bullish? Are they still profitable in a bear market? Or do you have any kind of proof that they are beating the market? To reuse this comparison, in a bull market you can trade with astrology and still make money. Still genuinely asking, I'm seriously interested to know.
distic
1yr ago
Anecdotally, I feel like even in the tech industry I am seeing a lower quality of college graduates the last few years, though it's hard to say how much of that is them being put through too many woke hoops and how much was Covid laying waste to academic rigor and accountability.
Have you considered that you might have become more competent yourself, and thus those student look more ignorant in comparison? It could explain the phenomenon at least partly.
distic
1yr ago
I mean, isn't it clear that mediocrity is at the origin of this activism? Havard can't afford to much mediocrity, at some point they have a reputation to hold. BAU, on the other hand...
distic
1yr ago
The catholic dogma was interpreted this way at the time of the Council of Florence (see also Dante), but it stopped to be long before Vatican II. For example:
To be in the communion of the Catholic Church and to be a member of the Church are two different things. They are in the communion of profession of her faith and participation of her sacraments, through the ministry and government of her lawful pastors. The members of the Catholic Church are all those who with a sincere heart seek the true religion and are in unfeigned disposition to embrace the truth wherever they find it. It never was our doctrine that salvation can be obtained only by the former.
John Carroll, first bishop of the US.
For the protestant, I don't get it. I was taught that they believe in fate, so that your salvation was decided by God before your birth and your actions don't matter, but I'm no expert.
distic
1yr ago
But you'd think that the reading of scripture specifically is something that ought to be done by a Christian, or at least by a person who believes it.
I've been at some catholic weddings where the readers were atheists that were never christened. And there was no political pressure to be inclusive or progressive. So I don't think most people care about that.
distic
1yr ago
Yes, erasing people from history is a typical communist move. That's why you shouldn't do it, even to communists.
distic
1yr ago
I'm pretty sure Luther did not believe in free will, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will
It seems to me that for the catholics God knows (before your birth) if you will be saved, while for the protestants (at least those who don't believe in free will), God decides it.
distic
1yr ago
Then I know why EMH is not correct: it's because it's information-theoretical, it does not take the computation costs into account. The information might be present, but in such a way that you have to use a huge amount of computation to use it.
distic
1yr ago
Everything is genetic at some point. Without arms, it is more difficult to steal. Having arms is genetic. Do you deduce that stealing is genetic? Then everything will be genetic. But everything will also be social, political, physical, economical, sexual...
Drinking might be partly genetic, but a woman who has the drinking genes and does not drink (for example because she can't, as there is no alcohol in her country) will have healthier children than a women who drinks even though she has no drinking genes (say someone forces her to drink). So the gene is only relevant as a factor in the drinking behavior. The behavior is everything.
On the other side, if there is an intelligence gene, no circumstance will change the final result: she can live her life however she wishes, it won't change the result. The only important element is whether the children get the gene or not. The behavior is not relevant.
distic
1yr ago
Well it was also the opinion of vatican II that everyone could be saved on his own merits, if they did not reject jesus. So it seems that you can actually reinterpret dogma, because that's what vatican II did. Just like the catholic church always had a dogma that you could not make money from money, yet there are catholic bankers now.
distic
1yr ago
It depends how you define catholicism, but it seems to me that there is in practice only one type of catholicism. They recognize the same pope, they go to the same churches. That is why you can actually reinterpret dogmas, even if you said you couldn't. Because the dogmas are defined by the catholic community, not the other way.
distic
1yr ago
The catholic community is the set of people that go the the same churches, that recognize the same pope, that have the same theology courses (be it catechism or university courses). Obviously you can ask whether south america catholics are really in the same community as rome catholics, but catholicism is heavily centralized and ultimately it's the pope who chooses the priests everywhere (through the bishops and the cardinals). If you recognize the priest the pope has chosen for you, you are a member of the community.
It allows reinterpretation because in practice it does not change the community to reinterpret. People won't leave the churches, they won't stop recognizing the priests. In fact, some might: some communities do not recognize vatican II, but they are very small minorities that do not matter much. Most catholics aren't theology nerds and the point of catholicism is that they don't have to. Knowing the dogmas and reading the bible is good for the priests, but the people just have to follow what the priests say. So why would they care if the dogmas change?
You might be right (I don't know). The main point of my post was to give historical data.
More options
Context Copy link