@ymeskhout's banner p
BANNED USER: on request

ymeskhout


				

				

				

					12 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 05 20:00:51 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 696


				
				
				
					
Banned by: @ZorbaTHut

				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
								
BANNED USER:
									
										on request
									
								

								
							
							

								
ymeskhout


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					12 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 20:00:51 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 696


					
					
					
						
Banned by: @ZorbaTHut

					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I explain in my other response here. I can't offer a theory for something I don't fully endorse. The purpose of questions is to gain answers, hence why I asked someone who did endorse the theory for an explanation.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


none of that justifies actual legal moves against Trump by Democrats in power.




Sure, I never said otherwise. Assuming the shift @ControlsFreak describes is real, I was curious about how it came about. Would you agree that the frequency of the chant contributed something to moving the overton window?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sorry, I don't know which part is confusing. You described a shift in norms about how seriously the prospect of prosecuting politicians used to be treated. I was asking about what you thought contributed to this shift, including asking what you thought the popularity of the "lock her up" chant indicated (e.g. did it contribute towards causing the shift or is it the symptom of something else? etc). Let me know if that makes sense.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Bailey Podcast E032: Information Goons
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I tackled that with the Facebook feed evolution which used to be plain vanilla chronology for a brief moment IIRC. But pretty much everyone (Twitter, FB, IG, Reddit, etc.) fully embraced algorithm feeds and it has been the de facto standard for a long time now. The only simple feeds that are still popular are podcasts, which are by far the most enduring RSS implementation. I guess email newsletters are another example of a successful simple feed (and somehow key to Substack's success) but I do not understand them and I'm horrified by the thought of cluttering my inbox with hot takes.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think I understand but not completely, what "contradictions" are you referring to? It seems that you're saying Trump's inevitable impeachment would be a good thing insofar as it would highlight how normally permissive the regime is about prosecuting politicians?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I generally agree with your characterization. With regards to which chants become reality, I wouldn't know either. I had a recent post about why some ideas become viral which might explain some of the circumstances.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Amazingly prescient, wow.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I understood this much better after reading the paragraph from your 2016 comment, which I actually agree with completely. I concur there is a glaring hypocrisy with how political leaders get a free pass, in line with a long-standing complaint of mine. That Trump could serve as the mirror to the system's hypocrisy is an incredibly prescient and astute observation of yours.


The only disagreement I have draws on a parallel from my work. I've said many times before that almost all my clients are not just guilty of doing the Thing, but spectacularly obvious about it. It doesn't take any effort from cops to crack the case if (HYPOTHETICALLY) it's a stabbing that occured in broad daylight in view of a dozen cameras, several dozen witnesses, and with the perpetrator yelling his own name. But despite that ridiculous advantage, I still see cops exercise little compunction about violating my clients' rights often for no real benefit, also a long-standing complaint of mine.


The two factors combined often put me in a bind where the cops may have violated my client's rights, but my client was such a dumbass in other ways that I can't do much about it. An illustrative example would be cops coaching a witness to make a false identification about an assault, but my client's well-documented alibi is that he was dealing drugs in another part of town.


That's how I feel about this Trump indictment, did he have to make it so comically easy for the system to go after him?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've been ruminating on a question about Trump's prosecution. One of the common arguments I've come across is that prosecuting Trump is improper because it's just political retaliation falsely disguised as a neutral and dispassionate application of the law. In support of this argument, you could cite the fact that the apparent mishandling of government records occurs fairly regularly by similarly-positioned politicians (Clinton, Biden, Pence, etc.) and yet its enforcement appears to be selectively doled out. This is potentially also supported by the fact that, speeding tickets notwithstanding, no other US president (former or sitting) has ever been charged for anything before. The fact that US institutions chose to break such a long-standing norm at this particular moment seems a bit too much of a coincidence to believe it was done with honest motivations.


Assuming all of the above is true, are there any limiting principles? Until something happens for the first time, it remains by definition "unprecedented", so if your rule is based solely on precedence then nothing would ever be allowed to happen unless it has already happened before which doesn't seem workable. Another consideration also is just because something hasn't happened for a very a long time, it doesn't mean it accidentally created an inviolable precedent that can never be broken now. For example, the crime of piracy is one of the few specifically mentioned in the Constitution and it used to be regularly prosecuted way back in the day but there was a very long lull before the feds dusted it off to go after some Somalis.


I don't think anyone would agree that a permanent bar was created, because that would bestow elected officials and political candidates the extra benefit of potentially perpetual & absolute immunity from all criminal liability, including for conduct that happens after they leave office. In its most absurd implementation, this hypothetical system would allow any criminal a "get out of jail" card just by declaring election candidacy.


So if the longstanding norm against prosecution can indeed be broken, then under which circumstances? For Trump's supporters, I suppose one possible answer is that he has been the target of such a relentless and unprecedented avalanche of (presumably bad faith) lawfare — Russiagate, impeachments, etc. — that trust in the system has been depleted to the point that all action against him should be assumed to be ill-disguised political retaliation as a rule. Assuming that's true, then what? Should the rule be that other politicians can be prosecuted but that Trump should have a carve-out in consideration of the unusually aggressive persecution he had to endure? If so, how serious of a crime would this cover? How long should this immunity last for? Should everyone who faces relentless persecution be afforded similar benefits?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I personally would be in favor of far less apprehension with prosecuting government officials. If we assume that Clinton, Biden, etc. all get prosecuted for mishandling records with a similar zeal, how much of an effect would it have in mollifying those that believe Trump is the victim of unwarranted legal action?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That being said, the selective enforcement argument does not seem to be very persuasive




I should've made it more obvious that I don't find the selective prosecution arguments at all persuasive (Trump's case can be entirely distinguished with his inexplicable refusal to return the documents and the comically inept manner he tried to hide stuff from his own lawyers). I was trying to steelman the argument and assumed it was true in order to discuss the other question.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The law on Reporter's Privilege is inconsistent, and it's weakest when it comes to criminal investigations. Some journalists vow to fight any subpoena they receive for their secret records, but not every subpoena is going to be worth the headache and legal jeopardy.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I too believe Clinton's conduct was abysmal and would've been thrilled to have seen a prosecution on the very obviously sketchy private server affair but Trump's absurdly hilarious comically ham-fisted obstruction attempts are the only aspect you need to draw a distinction.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree, his inexplicable refusal to return the documents and the comically inept ways he tried to hoodwink his own lawyers are the only distinction anyone really needs.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The other explanation for why they took so long to get the documents back is precisely because they wanted to proceed as gingerly as possible. They escalated only after the year-long tactic of "please please please give back the documents" didn't work.


I assumed the issue away for purpose of this post, but I would love to see someone try and defend Trump's obstructionary maneuvering here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not seeing what's illogical. If they moved too quickly or too aggressively, that would've garnered understandable outrage. But it's also true that they severely undercut their claims of emergency by taking so long. Given those constraints there was no obvious right and wrong decision, they were going to face flak no matter what.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I acknowledge I elided the distinction between a simple preference versus something that interferes with normal living but I don't see why that matters here. All I'm saying is that we have a bunch of conditions that are broadly categorized under the same "unhappiness with one's body" umbrella and there's a wide variance with how much they interfere with everyday living. My argument doesn't hinge on putting "gender identity" in one bucket versus another.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As I said a few days ago, the transgender philosophy begins wherever they are and ends wherever they want to be. Applying it to uses outside that scope throws up unanswered questions and contradictions because it wasn't made for more general uses and so it fails in other applications. It was constructed to serve their immediate ends and no more.




Your post describes an extreme level of cynicism that I also happen to share. Very well put. You've established a coherent and plausible explanation for the constant...weirdness in this discourse. But even if I share your cynicism, I still find it worthwhile to take the high-road approach and assume the very very best before I knock it down.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I never understood why anyone finds Ozy's post in any way illuminating:




I think you could probably tell them apart by asking them the old “what would you do if you suddenly woke up as a cis woman/cis man?” If they instantly understand why you’d need to transition in that circumstance, they’re regular old cis; if they are like “I’d probably be fine with it actually,” they might be cis by default. (Of course, the problem is that they might be a cis person with a gender identity who just can’t imagine what gender dysphoria would feel like. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to stick random cis men with estrogen and find out how many of them get dysphoric.)










(I’m noticing some similarities, as I write this, to what I’ve read about what being agender feels like– although of course agender people are not cis. If my agender readers could confirm or deny the similarity, that’d be helpful.)




Ozy doesn't break stride when coming across this apparent contradiction. If you're not ok with the hypothetical, you're "plain old cis". If you are, you are "cis by default". Or maybe you are agender? Who knows let's move on. This is what I meant by "argument by assertion".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Historically, male or female would be a genuinely meaningful category that placed certain rights and obligations on you. I'm not sure that the elimination of that has been psychologically good.




I think the nuance here is drawing the meaning more from the specific relevant traits rather than assuming the entire category. I've been involved in fairly tepid scenarios where an amount of physical violence was about to become very necessary and the people you'd want to step up (read: those physically capable of doling out the violence) generally meet their obligation.


You can observe this even in an ideal citizenship scenario. We're not going to expect equal obligations from everyone just because they're a citizen. Rather, we do indeed take into account each citizen's capabilities for what they can contribute (e.g. only men are drafted into military service, but even within the broad 'men' category, we make exceptions for the very young and the very old).


So the distinction I would offer would be "I am stepping up to potentially dole out violence, because I have the physical traits capable of doling out violence" rather than "...because I am a man."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


A trans person is someone whose mental traits break from this typical correlation, i.e., their mental traits fall in the opposite mode of the bimodal sexual distribution.




Rebecca Reilly Cooper addressed this in her presentation and I agree with her arguments. The analogy is that while the average man is much taller than the average woman, this doesn't mean that very tall women are therefore men. The logic with this model is so illogical and convoluted that I don't know how to describe it, maybe question begging? It doesn't make sense to create a category on one thing (sex) only to then question someone's membership within that category because they happen to be an outlier on a secondary characteristic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree. I think it's coherent to use "gender" to refer to a role or set of expectations, but that necessarily only exists in other people's perception of you. You can certainly change perceptions, but that's something that needs to be demonstrated, not demanded.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As an aside, I find the idea of being unwillingly born into a sex that defines so much of your life, socially and physically, with no choice to opt out or change or try other options, to be morally abhorrent and the equivalent to a dystopian caste system.




I addressed this in my post at length. It sounds like the issue you have is with the societal expectations so I don't understand how transition "solves" the issue. How is your position distinguished from how Iran deals with gender noncomformity?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
None of these scenarios need to be thought of as unique to the trans experience. What if someone wants you to call them a specific nickname and you don't? What if someone wants you to refer to them as Doctor and you don't? What if you go home with someone thinking you're about to have sex but they introduce their husband and try to rope you into a threesome? What if you meet someone from an online dating app and they look nothing like their photos? Etc etc.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I saw the note that you were not arguing at the object level, I was addressing whether the framework was coherent on its face or even if it's distinguishable from the gender stereotype framework. I don't believe that gender stereotypes are arbitrary or unmoored from reality (they actually tend to be very accurate). So for the same reasons you'd encounter bimodal distribution in mental traits, you'd encounter one for gender stereotypes as well. I don't see how it's possible for either framework to be "objective"; you have to make some discretionary decision about which mental traits to consider and then make some decision about how far of an outlier you need before the category can flip.