ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22m ago
In practice yes, but they don't think there's a good kind of American, that they're imitating, even though they clearly are. That's the contradiction.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
25m ago
But BLM itself kind of sees itself as going against "that kind of" America.
There isn't really a good kind of American to European libs, and BLM and all forms of wokeness was originally seen as weird and alien. There was even a common "it's just a couple of crazy kids on college campuses"-esque cope, that wokeness is just an American thing, and will never be relevant in Europe.
If they did believe that there's good Americans as well as bad, than the question would make some sense. They would recognize the parts of culture he's talking about as American, and as being imported, and they could justify it, but I'm pretty sure they ,think it's homegrown by now.
BLM in Europe is seen as a revolt against that racist America.
Nope, the criticism was also applied to European cultures, often in ways that make absolutely no sense. For example they apply anti-collonialist critique to Ireland, or try to claim that the descendants of Eastern European peasants, who just barely got out of communism, somehow inherited "white privilege".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7hr ago
but also from the other side by polluting stock image sites so badly that it’s becoming harder and harder to find suitable non-AI-slop images.
To be fair, stock images were AI-slop before there even was AI.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9hr ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9hr ago
If I ever meet my relatives over there I want to ask them why in the hell they seem so desperate to emulate the worst aspects of American society?
Let me know how it goes, but I doubt you'll get more than a bewildered look. European libs see themselves as entirely opposed to American culture, even as they make their way to a BLM march in a > 99% white country.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18hr ago
but the French have a lot more tools to make their displeasure known.
If Britain didn't make their displeasure with France known, why would it go the other way around? If the French are so displeased, they can stop letting these people into France to begin with.
The public does want something done, but balks if it's visibly violent or leads to deaths. So 1 and 2 are out.
I'd like to see some evidence that this is an organic property of "the public", rather than a media environment imposed top-down. Again it would be a bit odd if their reaction to it would be greater than the reaction to the rape gang scandal.
how do you get them on the planes, how do you make the planes carry them
The same way you do with every deported individual.
and how do you make the destination let the planes land / take them off the planes?
In the case of Afghans, the Taliban is perfectly happy to take their people back, it's the western governments that don't want to do it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Come on, you know it’s not that easy. I have no love for our current government but the Afghans are coming of their own accord.
They're coming "on their own accord" because they know they will be welcomed by the government.
The general public won’t stand for 1 and 2
If the general public can tolerate how the rape gangs were being handled, surely they can handle either of these two. At the very least it's worth a try.
the left and half the right won’t stand for 3
What's the logic here? Too expensive?
Also what happened to "send them back directly where they came from. Don't ask any questions, don't bother with process, just send them back"? There's no way a plane ticket costs more than these hotels.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
@RandomRanger's gloss was highly misleading: he made it sound as if it had been established beyond reasonable doubt
Given that the accusation is based on video evidence I think his portrayal of it is fairly accurate.
the investigation is still ongoing,
Again, anyone can deny an accusation. The people inviting him to their shows can claim he's innocent indefinitely.
and far from being widely admired, the soldier claims he decided to break his anonymity after being publicly shamed and criticised by an Israeli woman for what he allegedly did.
I'm not following. He is widely admired. He is being invited to TV shows and is being treated as a celebrity. The specific actions he is accused of (rather than his general conduct under the assumption of his innocence) are being explicitly defended by Israeli representatives. There are also other people who are criticizing him, but that does not detract from the large swathes of people circling the wagons around him.
The Criterion of Embarrassment is mostly used for Biblical apologetics to justify believing in the Crucifixion. It has very limited usefulness elsewhere; it's not some kind of general rule that historians use to evaluate the plausibility of historical narratives.
I'm pretty sure it is. In fact I'm pretty sure the biblical use is just a specific instantiation of a more general historical use. If one court's historian says "we really kicked their asses that day!", you have no way of telling whether they're bragging, coping, or of it even happened, but if that entry is corroborated by the other court's historian saying "damn, we sure got our asses whooped that day", it's likely the original statement was accurate.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
All depends on the dose and your tolerance. i got high precisely once in my life and refuse to touch the stuff based on that experience. It would never occur to me to drive in the state I was in.
Alcohol, on the other hand, as long as you didn't drink too much, seems relatively safe. I think there was even a Mythbuster's episode when they were comparing it to driving while sleep deprived, and the latter can easily be more dangerous.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Had a rough week at work, so no tinkering for me.
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
They would be, if EHCers were actual human capital, that happened to be elite. Sadly they're not. LKY is a basic right-wing authoritarian, and like I said, if EHCers want to claim him they better stop squirming at the policies that make his model even possible. As it stands, it looks like a desperate bid of a bunch of teacher's pets to look edgy,
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
"Known to" does a lot of heavy lifting, because you can always deny the accusation, and hide behind "it's just an allegation", but sources for claim are not hard to find.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
It's trickier then you'd think, particularly if you're using Apple hardware.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
He kinda did by quoting the parliamentarian in question. You think the rapist being invited to a TV show is so extraordinary and inflammatory? Or that some people might have the same opinions as an elected representative?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
should you follow them around with a sign that says 'you are wrong', and constantly wave it in front of them?
You mean like with the flags they're covering the entire cities with, the marketing materials and children's cartoons with mastectomy scars, and school curricula with gender ideology?
I do not condone these.
I appreciate the sentiment, but the argument was that contrary to your claim that trans people are the oppressed minority who are just trying to lay the controversy to rest, and are being fallowed around and harassed, they are actually the oppressor minority following people around and harassing them.
Some people identify very strongly with their biological sex, and in that hypothetical, would be very motivated to restore it; these people have a gender identity that aligns with their biological sex.
Like I said, given the lack of evidence, or even a coherent definition, I have no reason to believe that, any more than I do people who claim they engage in recreational Astral Travel.
Some of us don't consider Minority Report or Psycho Pass to be an aspirational ideal.
Being told to go to the other bathroom is hardly belongs to the same category as getting sent to mandatory therapy because your hue was a bit too cloudy today.
Offer accepted. Gender neutral WCs for everyone!
Well, then you'll have to reformulate all the arguments we've been through. Why are we even redefining "man" and "woman" to take "gender identity" into account now? It doesn't matter, there's no segregation.
I mean that it is not a single definition.
'Biologically female' can refer to
Right, so that's "the" vs. "a", the former implying there's a single definition, while the latter implies there are many. Also why are you bringing up "biologically female" here? We were talking about "woman". You said that for some purposes like sports, "woman" could be defined to not include trans women, and you said that it would be compromise. I said if something is a compromise, then it's not a definition. A definition is used to communicate concepts, so that you can later settle through discussion, on whatever set of social rules you deem reasonable. Using definitions to predetermine a conclusion doesn't strike me as a fair way of approaching a conversation.
WRT human beings, 'female' is the adjectival form of 'woman'; using it as a noun is rather impolite.
Now, hold on there. I was specifically told in many conversations with people who believe in "gender identity" that "man" / "woman" are the terms for gender, and "male" / "female" are the words for sex. This would be consistent with the usage of "male" / "female" for other life forms on this planet. Also, demanding that I accept your proposed changed to the definition of "woman" while preventing me from using "female" to refer to sex is a blatant double standard. If I can accept your definition of "woman", you can accept my definition of "female" is not impolite.
This is just starting to look like you're trying to prevent me from arguing for my ideas, rather than honestly trying to come to an understanding.
thus 'genetically female' excluding both trans-women and those with androgen insensitivity syndrome
That's just "female". There's no reason to specify "genetically", because it is understood it's our genes that determine our sex.
It should be enough to demonstrate that the proposed changes are an improvement over the status quo.
If you're already changing something, you might as well make sure you won't have to do it again soon, because it turned out that someone else's idea was even better.
But also: you haven't even cleared the "better than the status quo" standard.
If it has been working perfectly well, yes, but usually when people demand change, it's because the previous ways weren't working for them.
That's not necessarily true. It's been a common pattern in the Social Justice movement to demand change, not because the new way of doing things would work better for them, but because they wanted to take control of the thing. The people who made the all-female Ghostbusters didn't do so because the old ones weren't working for them, and judging by the new one's popularity, it didn't work for them either.
...which not everyone has
You said you don't know how to enforce bathroom segregation without resorting to genital checks, my explanation should be sufficient. Yes, it would require certain states to reform how they do their IDs, but it definitely is possible.
and doesn't expect to need a special document just to empty her bladder in a red state.
In most cases she wouldn't need that. Like I said, on first pass it would work on an honor system, the ID would only be used to resolve disputes.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
Recently-ish, a bunch of Elite Human Capitals started acting like he's Their Guy.
The amount of Singaporean life that is controlled by the state is much higher than the western right-wingers who stan the place for the strong law enforcement and lack of redistribution would accept.
Maybe it's some other right-wingers you're talking about, but it all looks alright to me, mate.
If anything it's the neoliberals who seem like LARPers to me. They're all like "look at all the meritocracy and race-mixing", but have no stomach for the death penalty and corporal punishment. Like please, the same people who pearl-clutch over Bukele want to play Lee Kuan Yew stans?
Do we think he's really so wrecked by 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' that he'd flush his whole ideology down the toilet and humiliate himself just to stick it to Trump?
I think this war is a terrible mistake, so I'm pretty sympathetic to the thesis you're putting forward, but I consider myself unqualified to tell how well it's going, and with that in mind I'd go with: yes. All these neocons suddenly turning into doves strikes me as a particularly bad case of sour grapes, they're salty because they're not the ones who get to do it.
Would he "flush his whole ideology"? I don't see why not, a few years later they can flush what he's saying now - see also, as you pointed out yourself, his description of the Iraq war.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7d ago
I can't help but notice that it's never people on the receiving end of these tactics that make these sort of arguments, only people like watching it being done to others. For the good of the forum, of course.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7d ago
Also, sigh, just to put this to rest so we don't have to hear about it forever: are you Darwin?
Just to wanted to pre-register: I'm pretty sure he isn't. Similar tactics, but different style.
If society were built to tell anyone who believed themself capable of astral projection, constantly, day-in, day-out, "You aren't really capable of astral projection, that isn't a thing, you are Delusional and Wrong.", and never let the matter rest, I think that that would justify 'demanding a sweeping reform of society'.
a) I don't see how. People are perfectly within their rights to tell anyone day-in, day-out that they are delusional and wrong. Christians, vax-skeptics, climate change deniers, opponents of Critical Race Theory, and indeed people with gender critical views... take your pick, people are being told their beliefs are delusional and wrong, and as far as I can tell, that's exactly the way things should be.
b) Please do go on and tell me how the people who're draping entire cities in their flags, inserting mastectomy scars into marketing materials and children's cartoons, adding genderwang into school curricula, getting people fired from jobs, and terrorizing venues into cancelling events, are that one's being followed around, and who just want to let the matter rest.
If you, as a result of some preternatural phenomenon, woke up to-morrow in a body of the opposite biological sex, how motivated would you be to reverse the change?
Not at all.
Precisely what benefits are those, and why ought we not extend them to identity!men?
The benefits vary, anything from an earlier retirement age, lower physical test requirements, scholarships, carveouts for seats on various boards. Rather than extending them to men, I'd be in favor of removing them from women.
Another benefit is safety from people of the male sex, who are disproportionately more dangerous. You can't extend that to men, because we've found no way to as easily and accurately corral the individuals, as separating males from females does.
That depends on whether he is harming anyone with the latitude given him.
He'd be doing the exact same thing your examplary trans woman would be doing, except twirling his mustache villainously as he does so.
I was referring to the oft-invoked spectre of 'cis-man claims to be trans-woman, goes into women's toilet, does Harvey Weinstein impression', which is equally bad if the perpetrator is a cis-woman.
Yeah, but females are far less likely to engage in that sort of behavior, which is one of the reasons we give them their own spaces.
And? If they aren't harming anyone....
The only way this argument makes sense is if you are arguing for abolishing segregation. It makes no sense in the context of keeping segregation, but allowing "trans women" in. And if you're in favor of desegregation, then there's no need to modify the definition of "woman" to begin with.
It's not a definition.
There are multiple pairs of categories into which human beings can be divided
Don't you mean it's not the definition? Either way, it's not a definition either, and that's my point. Like I said, the point of definitions is communicate concepts between people, not to pre-define the kind of categorization schemas you'd prefer for people to use. Your categorization schema may be better than mine, but you have to provide an argument for it being so, and to do that, we need some definitions for the basic concepts we are discussing. Trying to tell me we should use your categorization schema without defining these concepts is absurd.
...and yet demands that they buy into its beliefs.
I see no reason why it is more justified for the latter group to demand assent to their beliefs by the former than vice versa
And who is demanding assent to their beliefs? Go ahead and believe in "gender identity". If you want to change the definition of "woman", I can step over that and use another word, like "female" for the concept I'm referring to. You're free to believe what you want, and I'm still making the argument I wanted to.
'it's always been this way' strikes me as a very flimsy premise, given how many times it has been used to support things which are now widely considered indefensible.
The possibility space for different ways of doing things is nearly infinite, so if you want to change things, you need to show how your way is better than all the other possible ways. On the other hand "it's been working fine all this time" is a perfectly valid reason for keeping things the way they are, because change requires energy, and that energy could be spent on more important things.
That would last about five minutes before a woman with PCOS or endometriosis and a Maine or Minnesota driver license
...which is why I explicitly postulated a sex-based marker.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8d ago
Just because no super genius on an abandoned island can build a plane by themselves
They also can't build it in certain densely populated, resource-rich, parts of the world either.
doesn't erase their immense and overwhelming power when given opportunities. Society works by depending on each other
Yes, that's my argument. You'll note that at no point have I denied their contribution, literally said "no amount of Jensen Huangs, can compensate for the social erosion caused by mass immigration from incompatible cultures" , a point which you are deliberately avoiding now.
It's obviously not actually that simple,but valuation is the easy quick way to determine a person's value to society. What Huang has created is worth trillions of dollars. Because you can earn a billion dollars if you do things that people really really want.
You'll again note that at no point have I denied Huang's contribution to society. What I did deny was his ability to compensate for mass migration from incompatible cultures. The argument for him possessing that ability clearly rests on it being that simple.
You're right, unfortunately despite the grinder culture selection effect of immigration, it's not enough to overcome the growing problem of victimhood natives who instead of embracing freedom and opportunity.
- Doctor, I think I have a cold.
- Here, have some arsenic. Feel any better?
- No, I feel a lot worse...
- You're right, unfortunately despite the healing effect of arsenic, it's not enough to overcome the growing common cold infection in your body...
There's absolutely no reason to believe the "grinder culture" culture of (some) immigrants in any way positively contributes to hosts cultures. On the other hand, the part of the native culture that is the most into victimhood narratives is also the most fanatically pro-immigration.
I don't think this would apply to "half of the right" like he said.
Afghanistan is willing, from what I understand.
There's always genetic analysis, I suppose.
More options
Context Copy link