prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This claim (hypothetical male rapist becomes trans, is transferred to women's prison without care or thought, then commences raping other defenseless women inmates who are all smaller and weaker than her) suggests a whole host of hypothetical realities without evidence, and then you go on to suggest something vague about trans people in general.
An uncharitable reading of your post is that rapists being put in with any prison population is worse than trans people being put in with their corresponding prison population. That's a wild claim and not at all reasonable. Trans people won't become trans to switch prisons.
I am actually curious though-- is there any evidence for your line of thinking? How many trans rapists are there? I've heard of one case, and I haven't heard any of the details (like it's super important to our discussion to know if the rapist continued raping people or if they became a model inmate). One case (or even a hundred) doesn't rise to the level of being able to generalize about trans people.
I also would like to know more about how inmates in various contexts perceive the option of becoming trans. Is it really as simple as wearing a wig?
Also, should we be incarcerating criminals based on their powerlifting totals (sum of bench press, squat, deadlift maximums) or based on reasoned analyses of their expected behavior? People raping each other in prisons is a solvable problem, and if any inmate thinks becoming trans confers an advantage, that's a solvable problem as well.
At best the rapist argument brings up a logistical issue for prison operators.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
So, I appreciate the case you've made (and the story), but I got to thinking:
That dangerous tendency was brutally stamped out by saner members of those communities, not by civil discourse, but by relentless, cruel "dead unvaxxed kid" memes.
Are you sure the memes and shaming are what caused the change in behavior? Wouldn't the simpler, more likely reality be that when kids started dying and getting really sick, enough people changed their minds and herd immunity got better and the status race around anti-vaxxing waned in popularity?
Like, I vaguely recall hearing that the DARE (anti-drug-use-amongst-kids program in the United States a few decades ago) initiative, despite its intention had no effect or the opposite of its intended effect. Isn't that true of many of those public awareness campaigns (and today many of them use coopted memes?) Are you sure that isn't the case with the SoCal anti-vax stuff?
I'm open to the idea that civil arguments aren't always the right approach. I do want to at least have a rationalization for my position, then I can start making convincing arguments and poking fun (ridiculing?).
Do you have any particularly good zingers you would use to ridicule someone who is complaining about the harry potter stuff? (I realize this sounds insensitive, but I would imagine there are some good ones, and the likelihood that I will use them against my friend(s) is low. It's possible that some of the zingers might have kernels of interesting arguments)
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
What it isn't however is "threatening". Just stop abusing language this way. Existence of Harry Potter games is not "threatening" anybody, and being upset is not the same as being attacked. At best, it's self-harmful, since living in constant panic over things that aren't threatening you is bad for you mental health. At worst, it is a cynical manipulation, trying to weaponize everybody's sense of fairness and protectiveness to aim it at attacking somebody you disagree with.
I'm okay if you read my use of the word "threatening" as "upsetting," that gets my point across, even though it's not quite the same. You could argue that I'm a rhetorical charlatan for using the word and I would see how you got there. But it's fair to assume that someone who feels vulnerable about their trans identity could feel threatened by some of the stuff J.K. Rowling says, and be reminded of it when they get served Harry Potter content on the internet, thereby feeling threatened. But I'd be willing to compromise and use the word "upsetting" if you're okay with that, either one serves to help illustrate the problem I'm having.
why you are so upset by a prospect of somebody encountering a mention of a game and not upset at all and in fact completely dismissive of a prospect of somebody being raped.
This is getting off track-- I made this post because I didn't come clean to my friend about my feelings and beliefs, and I want to be sensitive to their feelings and beliefs. I am seeking advice for how to handle the issue. What's a contentious issue between you and your friends? How would you handle it if it came up in conversation? Would you avoid it?
I am dismissive of the rapist tweet because:
-
Most trans people don't become trans because they want to rape people (I believe the numbers of fradulent trans people are on the order of 1 per 1 million, but even if it's 1 per 1000 how many fraudulent trans people are also rapists?).
-
The tiny minority of fraudulent trans people (like, for example, rapists who want to go to a women's prison) will get extra scrutiny and be dealt with accordingly.
-
If the rapist who became trans wants to rape people, they shouldn't be allowed to do so in any prison, let alone a women's prison.
-
It's a tweet, and it's ridiculous
Try to explain to them that people have different opinions
I think the argument that people have different opinions (and that sometimes their opinions are dumb and/or offensive, or in the case of J.K. Rowling driven by their life experiences) is a good one to use. I may incorporate this into how I handle the topic if it comes up in conversation again.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This is exactly what the linked twitter post is pointing at: thinking it not just funny, but hilarious, to have another political tribe turn up and run roughshod over existing members and culture.
Right, right, it's obviously offensive, but you have to admit there's a joke there, the stereotype of ham radio is super-nerdy/technical which is a stark contrast to the (stereotypical) queer propoganda.
Sure, to be fair to you it sounds like you have had some bad experiences before, and that sucks, honestly. And it sounds like the strategy you used was to withdraw from those communities. If you had a second chance, would you do the same thing again?
What would you say to my trans friends if you were having lunch with them and they brought up the Harry Potter issue?
edit: clarification
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I think you need to rethink what you are saying here. If you mean that literally, then obviously Harry Potter and JK Rowling (just for a start) would have to be scrubbed off the Internet.
Wait, that doesn't necessarily follow-- the idea is that we can tailor our media experiences to see the content that we want to see right? And filter out content that we don't? This could be through features on our social media or regular media websites or by choosing what content delivery channels to consume, right?
I would also ask if anyone else should be able to browse the Internet without seeing content they deem hateful/disturbing. Radical feminists? Muslims? White nationalists? Surely you can see the problem here.
Same idea here, isn't that what we do already by choosing where to spend our time on the internet and with human and automated moderation?
No offense, but you very much sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be a good ally to all your trans friends who are telling you that anyone who plays the Harry Potter game or watches Dave Chappelle is hurting them, but you also want to play the Harry Potter game and watch Dave Chappelle.
None taken, and I don't think ally is what I'm going for here, just a good friend. Like, what would you do in my position? Do you have any advice? Based on your reply, I would guess you might try to talk through the issue with them? Try to convince them to play the Harry Potter game? Thus far I have just avoided the subject.
For the record, I would like to watch Dave Chappelle again, don't care if I play the Harry Potter game.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate your points. All I have is my intuitive sense of why people choose honors classes. It sounds like my intuitive model of those people is different than yours. That's fine.
Edit: actually this wasn't your initial post, it was someone else. Apologies.
I went and re-read your initial post. My claim was that:
it’s okay to allow students to self-select (or students and whoever is telling them what to do) and decide how much schoolwork they want to do.
I went to American (US) public high school, and my recollection is that the main differentiator for the honors classes was that there was more schoolwork (more note-taking in english, more books to read) and the kids who took the classes were "better." Maybe that's not true across all high schools. I think that maybe International Baccalaureate (IB) or Advanced Placement (AP) would be better examples of places where true high-performers go.
I'm just saying that, due to the filtering effect of honors classes, they're generally going to consist of students who are higher in general intelligence than the broader student population at the given school and grade.
I'm inclined to agree, as long as you're saying that the average intelligence is higher. Maybe that's too much of a nitpick, but certainly there would be overlap in the distributions of general intelligence in honors and regular classes.
Teachers aren't perfect at gauging a student's potential ability to make use of honors classes, but I believe they're better than chance.
I'd rather use standardized tests for this, wouldn't you? Or a combination of standardized tests and nomination by teachers of students with merit? Teachers have all kinds of biases, and some teachers are terrible (many teachers awesome).
Edit: clarification in last paragraph
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
If the target metric is racial makeup of classes relative to baseline, integrating honors and regular classes seems like an effective strategy, no?
From that frame of reference it being bad for the high-performing kids would be a side-effect, right?
Couldn't you argue that the high-performing kids would be incentivized to move towards private education, which would lead to more market forces being present in education? Could policy changes like this bring public school closer to its socialist roots and accelerate the adoption of private, market-driven education?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Right, I am imagining that rather than having an explicit inequality (honors classes vs non-honors classes) you end up with a gray area where some teachers are better than others and then skillful/determined parents are the only ones that can get their kids in the right classes.
Love the koan, thanks for the thoughts.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I apologize since you asked us to >be nice
No need to apologize, appreciate the criticism.
Not trying to troll, just looking to flesh out my own knowledge. Seems reasonable to expect more effort out of top-level posts, but what does that look like?
A timebox for research beforehand (you must spend 10 min researching and 10 min writing about the topic before posting)?
What are the characteristics of a good top-level post? Do you have some examples of your favorite top-level posts?
DSL seems to have a much >broader number of topics to >discuss.
What is DSL?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Step 1: be best human chess player ever born
Step 2: retire and have fun
It’s easy, we should all do it!
In all seriousness have you considered the possibility that Anish was playing up the drama because he’s commentating? It is possible (some would say likely) that Ding was just unable to find a continuation that wouldn’t lose him the game anyways.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Sorry, to be clear I thought what you had to say was interesting and relevant. It had to be said though, I was hoping it would just be one of many comments and wouldn’t be disruptive
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Small scale, huh?
Fair point, I looked it up, and the Vietnam war is much bigger in scale (so far).
If I recall correctly, NATO estimates casualties in the hundreds of thousands for either side in the Ukraine war (to be fair these claims aren’t necessarily accurate because there is an ongoing conflict)
On the other hand, the sum total of the American casualties for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (including 1991) are far lower than for either side in Ukraine.
Seems like materiel losses in those conflicts (excluding Vietnam) are similarly much lower. This indicates to me that whatever benefits were gleaned from those conflicts had a lower cost than whatever Russia will get out of invading Ukraine.
(Civilian casualties are another matter, I’m mostly interested in the military cost/benefit here)
I used this resource to estimate American casualties in all of the Middle East conflicts: https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Interesting series on the Falklands War, thanks for that. One of the comments on the glossary mentions a book with the approximate title “A Citizen’s Guide to Stupid Wars” which sounds about like what I’m looking for.
It seems like what you’re suggesting is that:
-
The expected result of the invasion for Russia was a short conflict (days or weeks) followed by the installation of a pro-Russian regime (Belarus II?), somewhat like the US invasion of Iraq
-
This turned out to be wrong, and the question for Russia became “What now?”
-
The new reality has become an attritional conflict to maintain control of the captured territory in the east while the Russian government figures out how to unfuck everything?
I guess the next question is what does Russia do now? It’s more isolated from the global economy than before (and my understanding is that it was already isolated). Does Russia just fade into obscurity as its economy and power wither?
Edit: @rov_scam said essentially the same thing here with additional context about the expected behavior of the west/Germany
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Oooh, nice-- are there some examples of badness that stand out to you? Or do you have a link to a critique? I would not be surprised if there are some critiques out there, but I'm also wary of the elitist "she's not an academic so she can't do anything of value." On the other hand it seems like the number of responses she gets are sometimes huge, so presumably there are some tricks you can do with a big dataset?
To be fair, she has a unique perspective and is really weird. That on its own is enough to be interesting, but she's also (arguably) hot and talks about sex things, which I imagine is what you're referring to.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This does relate to story I told though. You could argue that because black people in the U.S. are statistically more likely to be criminals or have been convicted of a crime the extra scrutiny was warranted. While that may be true, that wasn't relevant in this case, and I believe that none of the passengers should have received extra scrutiny.
Can you provide examples of stereotypes that are "more reflective of reality than individual bias?" I'm especially interested in stereotypes that are accurate enough that individuals should be treated differently based on the stereotype.
Like one stereotype that comes to mind is "Tiger moms" or asian parents that are super invested in their kids' success. It's a good stereotype to make jokes about, but should communities/governments make specific policies around it other than just enforcing existing child-welfare policies?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
One problem is that all the current (human-rated) vehicles aren’t designed for affordable trips to space— they’re designed around constraints that will make them prohibitively expensive.
Dragon is for NASA (nuff said), New Shephard is boring (probably the closest to scaling into the vicinity of affordable though), and from my armchair virgin galactic seems like an expensive deathtrap (no in-flight abort? Manual controls?). Realistically, Starship won’t carry humans to orbit for many years (if ever) because of launch abort feasibility issues.
Maybe the next iteration of tourism vehicles will be more promising (for the less-wealthy among us). Something like a V2 of Dragon but built for tourism and cost from the beginning maybe. Flying humans reliably is wicked hard.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I also did not like him handwaving away the social construction model for race but allowing it for gender. He needed to make a much stronger case for that to make any sense.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
You can notice my absence there; I've estimated that the expected marginal value of my input is below the cost of adding to the apparent dogpile, distressing OP and probably diminishing his willingness to read the already provided object-level advice charitably.
I don't blame you for not jumping on the dogpile, but it would be a shame if your views on the matter differ substantially from the other posters (or if you have ideas that haven't been expressed already). Please don't let your estimation of my feelings keep you from being critical in this case, though I can understand how a bias towards caution is warranted.
Loyalty, in my opinion, is among the greatest virtues a human can hold, and I personally feel it acts as something like the metaphysical cousin to a sacrament the more irrational and unconditional it becomes. I believe that a person's relationship with his friends and family regardless of who they are should be treated as unimpeachable. The person in question may be in fact quite impeachable, as a matter of law or what have you, but the actual relationship itself should be held as sacrosanct. We, as a species, are way too messed up in the head to be able to either afford or justify easy dismissal of one another. Glass houses, and such.
I do worry a little bit about outing my friend(s) to this community, as in some sense I used our shared experience as fodder for internet clout. Hopefully I can make it up to them by having a great conversation about J.K. Rowling/Harry Potter.
Edit: plurality
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This is great advice, thanks for the suggestions and the story.
I’ll consider this approach.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
My main complaint about Picard (aside from the departures from tradition, which aren’t a dealbreaker for me) was that it turned into bland, mediocre sci-fi TV. Not high-effort enough for me, so I petered out after a couple episodes (maybe a season?).
Star Trek Discovery was pretty good (if you lower your expectations appropriately and ignore/skip most of the main character’s monologues and emotionally-focused dialogues).
The Halo adaptation sets me off though, I was upset about it for a while. I’ve cooled off now though, and have found equilibrium around the position “many people who didn’t have any attachment to the franchise beforehand probably enjoy the nice, mass-market TV show that doesn’t really capture the best parts of Halo except for a few fight scenes.”
Needless to say I haven’t watched past the first 3-5 episodes of Halo, and that includes skipping scenes from the non-master chief plot lines entirely.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This is cool, I will keep it in mind and recommend it if the opportunity arises. Thanks!
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I should have done this to begin with, but I read through some of the stuff that J.K. Rowling is being pilloried for (by some). I didn't really care all that much beforehand, just saw the memes, etc.
I read this article which summarizes her essay, includes some tweets, and includes quotes from a few of celebrities.
I read her essay from 2020
There's not that much in there that I take all that much issue with. I think fearmongering about people fraudulently changing gender to predate women isn't much of a real concern (though I can see how survivors/victims of assault, etc would feel that way). It probably happens but not often. Prisons and shelters already have systems in place already for preventing inmate-on-inmate violence/assault, and clear cases of fraud can be caught (isn't there still tons of inmate-on-inmate violence in prisons anyways? Is the sex of inmates really the issue there?). Could probably make a utilitarian argument that allowing gender change is good enough and improves lives for enough people that 1-in-a-million (this number isn't really fair, maybe it's one in 10,000 or 1 in 1000) cases of fraud are fine.
But I think what you're saying is that even if you don't believe that the trans-in-women's-spaces issue matters, that's the worst of what J.K. Rowling has said, and this can't be construed in good faith as transphobic. Is that right? I don't think transphobic is a good word to describe J.K. Rowling, but I think some of what she said can easily be construed as offensive or threatening.
Sex-segregated spaces like prisons or women's shelters have historically been sex-segregated for good reason--because women are characteristically vulnerable to men in certain specific ways. You can't say "that's a cherry-picked case" while also maintaining that Rowling is somehow transphobic; her opposition to the statement "trans women are women" extends only and exactly to the cases that are so obvious, your instinct is to call them "cherry-picked."
The reason I say this is cherry-picked is because it's not relevant to the reality of the debate-- it's such a rare example that it's mostly useful for rabble-rousing.
If you're looking for ways to "destroy her with facts and logic" then you're being a pretty shitty friend.
This doesn't necessarily follow. Sometimes a good debate amongst friends is fun. I'll admit that in this instance I was being flippant and making a cultural reference, and that "destroying her with facts and logic" would not be a good approach. What I meant by this was "One approach I am considering is disclosing my true position to her and laying out a reasoned, rational case for why I feel that way."
And really--if she's a decent friend, you saying "I think you're great and I like your company, but I just disagree with you about some of these things and I'm worried that our friendship might not survive our disagreement,"
This is good advice, I am thankful for your responses here. I might try something like "I support you in any of your efforts to boycott the new Harry Potter game. Someone recommended me this cool adblocker that can do keyword filtering on YouTube. [provide reference to uBlocker]. I need to confess that I am not personally offended by Harry Potter content and won't be filtering it out of my own internet experience. I understand that this might offend you, but I value our friendship and want to be honest about my personal and political views. [hopefully this leads to a good discussion about why she feels so offended by J.K. Rowling and the new Harry Potter game and I can further refine my position].
In hindsight this approach would have been preferable to avoiding the subject, if the opportunity presents itself I will give it a try and report back.
Part of the problem is that some of my trans friends have expressed that they don't feel like pushing their views on other people, they would just rather avoid the issue entirely. So I want to be careful about bringing it up to be sensitive to their expressed desires (back to that filtering out offensive shit idea).
Would hindus and muslims object to content creators eating beef/pork? I don't know from experience if this is true or not, I will defer to you here. My guess is that they wouldn't mind, based on my Jewish friends not caring if the content creators they watch eat kosher.
I think a better analogy would be something like if J.K. Rowling were to depict the prophet Mohommad like Charlie Hebdo did. I personally am okay with Charlie Hebdo publishing pictures of the prophet, but I understand that this offended and upset many muslims (I don't condone any of the violent responses).
To Muslims (I gather this from media, etc, I am not muslim), depictions of the prophet Mohommad without the proper ritual are super offensive, to trans people, some of the shit that J.K. Rowling (and Dave Chappelle) say is super offensive. Like, that seems okay (that they are offended), right? Are trans people suggesting that they will feel an anxiety-filled death if they see harry potter content? I think that's not fair. In my experience trans people fought for a boycott (valid choice for activist action) and criticized people who didn't boycott (also a valid choice for activists), is that crazy?
Edit: forgot pork
This seems reasonable, but do you believe this because of some moral or religious principle? Why is that the criteria for which prison to put people in?
Like what if we could contrive a scenario where a prison operator puts their trans (MtF) women prisoners in female prisons and then some metrics that the prison operator cares about get better? Like total number of rapes goes down. Or violent assaults go down. Wouldn’t allowing that policy be better than clinging to the idea that prisons should be separated by gender/sex because [insert principle here, or just status quo?].
I’m not a prison expert, so I can’t say that this contrived example in any way reflects reality, but the point I’m trying to make is that the reflexive, intuitive “trans women shouldn’t go in men’s prisons” might not reflect the complexities of the real world (Like for example a more common issue is trans women who commit crimes {after becoming trans} and then are imprisoned. Where do they go? Prison operators don’t want them raped or assaulted (they’re on hormones, so physically weaker on average and may present as more feminine).
I’m not saying that the contrived scenario matches reality, but I am curious what your response is to that idea.
More options
Context Copy link