domain:aporiamagazine.com
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
13hr ago
I think knowing what a woman is is pretty deeply rooted in our biology and no amount of gaslighting and enforced consensus can change that. 1984, famously about the Party's ability to make people say black is white and up is down and war is peace, spent a lot of time describing how much effort went into enforcing these edicts, and the implicit message there (though not the one Orwell was getting at) is that people actually knew the truth, even if they knew better than to say it. Even the most loyal enthusiasts might convince themselves they really believed war was peace and we had always been at war with Oceania, but people would slip because they couldn't actually turn off memory and reason entirely.
So it is even with the most devoted adherents of trans ideology. They tell themselves they really, truly believe trans women are women and "woman" is just an arbitrary socially constructed label. But they don't actually want to fuck a person who clocks as the wrong sex (it's more than just genitals, we all know this). On a deep, instinctual level they recognize the difference. To the degree that they are sincere, they may convince themselves TWAW but they have to work at it to keep their words and behavior in line with what they claim to believe or they will slip up. And I think actually a lot of them are insincere and will ditch TWAW as soon as it is no longer the thing all good progressives believe. You'll see then how attached they really were to this professed lack of difference.
That said, you are right about some things. A lot of unphysical guys who've never done sports or martial arts really don't understand just how significant the physical differences between men and women are. If their last time in physical competition was middle school, they probably knew some girls who were more athletic than a lot of boys and hadn't yet seen just how rapidly that changes once the T hits.
I have to admit to being a nerdy, awkward kid who hated sports in school, and I was one of those guys... until I took up martial arts as an adult. At first I was a little confused that a woman with a higher belt wasn't wiping the mat with me the way more experienced men did, and that in fact I had to be careful not to hurt her. This was, you might say, a little red-pill moment.
Which is, I observe, is exactly what it looks like when a pro-T prog guy tries to write women characters. They write women as men with some shallow "loli Dylan Mulanney" cuteness, because they don't actually have a mental model of "women" as having any differences in mentality, life experiences, preferences, traits, qualities or viewpoints compared to men. "A woman is a dude who spends 12 hours writing spreadsheets about Warhammer 40k battleships and then adds a heart emoji and a tee hee at the end. Don't deadname her, bigot."
You've read John Scalzi, I see.
And terfy ladies, you didn't just sow the seeds here. You plowed the fields, fertilized them, then set up aggressive arrangements of killbot scarecrows to fend off any threats to the seeds. I'm not sure how you can recover from that without rewriting a significant portion of third wave feminism, but maybe that's a me problem.
TERFs are mostly second wave feminists and very much want to rewrite third wave feminism. Second wavers largely believe that absent the patriarchy, men and women would behave the same, but physical differences are real. Third wavers are the ones who went post-modernist about gender categories.
LateMechanic
13hr ago
Ill note that you still havent explained why too much inflation is bad, or how we would know what "too much" is.
I assume you're not asking for the various downsides of inflation in general and why people find it annoying when it's above some small amount like 1-2%? My original statement was that people should have the properly oriented mindset, where the problem of 'too much government debt' is along the lines of 'too much of a good thing'. The 'good thing' here is the money in the private sector, not inflation, if that was the confusion. This is all in contrast to most peoples' gut notion that "deficit" and "debt" sound negative and bad and worth minimizing on their own.
I agree that the taxes give value to the IOUs, but I dont think the made up unit gives you all that much long-term
You don't think the US making up their own 'dollar' unit of measurement is too important? You must be on some kind of galactic time scale here for what long term means. This is surely one of the most important things about being a sovereign nation, creating and issuing your own currency.
Unless you can somehow inflate above expectations indefinitely, in the long term you need to tax back what you borrowed plus interest in real terms.
Again, maybe I'm not thinking long term enough. But in the US, we went into millions, then billions, now trillions. Should we find the tens of trillions a special number, such that we wouldn't expect to see quadrillions? When and why would they ever need to 'tax back' this amount? The IOUs just roll over indefinitely.
There is no reason to borrow unless your position as the government gives you investment opportunities above market returns, youd just pay interest for no good reason.
Yeah once you recognize that all money is just transferable credit, you will notice that there is basically no economic difference between central bank reserves and treasury securities. So rather than one being 'money' and the other being 'borrowing', they are actually not 'borrowing' at all. They are just creating money in different forms. This fact has dawned on people like Larry Summers a decade after central bank reserves started paying interest just like treasury securities.
As for paying interest, it's purely a policy choice to pay anything other than 0% on any of these IOUs. It's a government subsidy to savers: they will give you more money for having money. There are various macroeconomic effects for any chosen rate. Currently the policymakers in charge think choosing to pay a higher interest rate is on balance more constrictive than stimulative, and think that low rates are on balance more stimulative.
aqouta
13hr ago
The problem with this position taking is that the popular messaging and what most activists actually say is against you. So they're either cynically lying or you very transparently are on the outside.
No_one
13hr ago
The amount of research done beforehand by the actors in this case seems remarkably low.
It is worryingly low.
No_one
13hr ago
Said organised crime is getting away with it because it is 'patriotic' and not cooperating with foreign agents. The minute Russia would find some gangsters working for the CIA, that's the minute they'd get arrested in an excessively violent manner by the ministry of interior troops. (who, in Russia, operate attack helicopters, tanks and artillery)
LiberalRetvrn
13hr ago
Of course we do. The entire debate is meaningless semantics. Obviously there is such a thing as biological sex, obviously there are some differences in behavior of the two biological sexes on average. Obviously there is such a thing as a male brain and female brain. None of that is inconsistent with allowing people to transition. Transgenderism is a transhumanist technological development, not an ideology. The only people who are confused about what a woman is are feminists and christians who think there is some deep meaning to gender roles and gender identity.
On their side against whom? Transwomen? Do you think "I was trying to help B against C, but accidentally helped A against B instead" (with A=cis women, B=trans women, C=conservatives) is an easy mistake to make, even if your distinction between A and B is solely based on who is the target of C's enmity? Consensus men (men as defined by progressives \cap men as defined by conservatives)? I'm pretty sure they do side with cis women against consensus men much more than a few accidental times; let me know if you actually need examples.
(Are you in fact trying to make a serious argument there, or are you just attached to the snappy sound of this line of polemic for your side?)
hydroacetylene
13hr ago
That’s fine, but throwing a hissy fit about activating the national guard and then letting the feds commandeer his troops anyways makes him look like a pussy.
In the Texas border standoff Greg Abbott correctly calculated that the administration was too weak/indecisive to take over the army he’d assembled on the border and so he could continue taking over a core federal function while impeding the federal operation of the same. This made him look strong, because he got what he wanted. But Newsom won’t raise his own army, he won’t defy federalization orders, etc. He looks like he’s all bark, no bite- and already has that reputation.
hydroacetylene
14hr ago
I would agree with that assessment.
Rov_Scam
14hr ago
If you're trying to analogize based on yesterday's event's, it's unclear what crimes, if any, were committed, besides normal low-level protest crimes like failure to disperse and whatever charges you can levy against people throwing objects at police. Getting someone for interfering with an investigation or official duties would require showing both that the agent were actually engaged in official duties and that the person took a specific action to interfere. Realistically, this would look like ICE trying to make an arrest and the protestors physically impeding the officer from doing so. The reports I've read suggest that ICE was merely staging for a raid (which is itself just an interpolation from the authors; there's been no official word that I'm aware of) so there's no official duty at this point to interfere with. At this point it looks like there was a raid that was about to go down but got called off because of the protests. Charging everyone present because their protesting made it inconvenient to undertake a planned future action is already stretching the law beyond anything it's been used for in the past, but it comes with the additional complication that actions that you are claiming are obstruction are core First Amendment activities. So even if you could show that the elements of the crime were satisfied, you still might not be able to get a conviction due to constitutional issues.
Tanista
14hr ago
If transwomen and women were identical you'd imagine that progressives would at least be accidentally on the side of women a few times.
Blueberry
14hr ago
Trailer: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4yzcg2rtMnI
Netflix made a documentary about the dorky crypto couple who stole 4 billions in Bitcoin. They couldn’t figure out in 6 years (hack in 2016, in custody in 2022) how to wash the wealth.
Stellula
14hr ago
Trans women are trans women.
Your (correct) point highlights the biggest flaw in their arguments. "Trans women are women", well no they aren't because you already gave them a category called "trans women" which you can obviously identify, is obviously useful to you, and obviously has a meaning. That meaning is: men who are dressing like women, or in other words again: men.
Rov_Scam
14hr ago
Newsome is a clown whose chances of winning the presidential nomination are approximately zero. Ironically, he's generally making the same mistake you are wherein moderation is confused with accommodating and/or praising the Trump administration. While I believe that a moderate is going to win the nomination in 2028, it's going to be a real moderate like Shapiro or Beshear who has show that they can govern moderately and give pointed criticism toward the administration when it does something bad for the state, as opposed to governing like a lefty and trying to compensate for it by schmoozing with Republicans. That, and Newsome has no record of outperforming Biden/Harris is red districts.
4bpp
After January 20th, all orange flairs are considered political
14hr ago
We know that they do because they're able to distinguish between ciswomen and transwomen with 100% accuracy (or at least, they can achieve the same level of accuracy that everyone else does). They have to be able to do this, otherwise the trans movement would fall apart because no one would be able to consistently identify the trans people in the first place. This requires an implicit model of what a (real) woman is, because they need to be able to distinguish the real women (ciswomen) from the men who simply desire to be women (transwomen).
I don't follow this line of argument. Imagine a world in which progressives could not distinguish between ciswomen and transwomen at all, ever. In this world, what progressives would see is essentially that there is a subset of women that a large part of their outgroup inexplicably asserts are not real women, and wants to treat badly. Assuming that progressives have no issue adopting the term "trans" for this subset that the outgroup inexplicably discriminates against, how would this not be fertile ground for a "trans movement"?
4bpp
After January 20th, all orange flairs are considered political
14hr ago
I think your implicit line of argument/theory about the relationship between articulating differences and policing boundaries fails generalisation to the usual counterexamples. Take a boundary that is still policed by most Americans, progressive and traditionalist alike - how do you explain to the autist the difference between black people and white people? You can't take something silly like the one-drop rule, because everyone knows Donald Trump would not enjoy a late bestowal of the n-word pass if it now turned out some great grandmother of his was a castaway African slave, any more than in the discerning conservative's eye anything about the femininity of the serial West Coast testicle shaver would change if it turned out that he did actually have XX chromosomes plus some weird novel genetic abnormality producing the phenotype.
In other words, there is something going on in your post that is similar to "proving too much".
Thank you. That was exactly my thought. In my formative years I learned English from writings by Indians. I am well aware that many expressions I learned from them are unfortunately archaic or used only in India and not in the standard British or American English. I try to avoid them but it is not always easy in a second (actually my third) language.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν
15hr ago
;D
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν
15hr ago
Nope!
We did it the opposite way. You just didn't fight women. It was made clear that you were a bitch for even attempting it (let alone attempting it and losing). Do it enough and some men would step in. The implicit message was clear.
Then again, we hadn't ceded our entire teaching apparatus (if it even counted as one) to feminists and bureaucrats. There may be advantages to backwardness
Lizzardspawn
15hr ago
Is the art market in trouble? First I see Patrick Boyle's video https://youtube.com/watch?v=dvcg1ytmtVA and afterwards I start seeing youtube sponsorships everywhere for masterworks.com which is clearly a service in search of a greater fools.
GoofyGoose
16hr ago
There is no promised future real 'value', it is what it is, and if there's inflation, so be it (other than the inflation-indexed bonds).
Yes, there is. It made somewhat explicit by inflation targets. I don't understand at all what you mean by "if there is inflation, so be it."
If the federal reserve has no assets, then it cannot react to a lower demand for money by withdrawing the money from circulation so the value of money would be lower.
They are the monopoly issuer of the currency, and thus can either control price or quantity.
Sure, they set a price but how is that implemented? It is implemented by changes in the quantities. Yes, the rule says adjust the quantity as much as needed to get to the price. But to do that quantity adjustment sometimes you need to reduce the quantity in the market (OMOs sometimes require 'buying back' money) and for that you need assets that the market values.
This is my point about budget constraints. The central bank supplies money which, to think clearly, we should measure in real terms. The amount of money in real terms that a central bank can supply is limited by the assets that they hold because otherwise the bank cannot maintain the real value of money in the face of demand shocks. Demand matters because it is obviously easier to maintain the value of your currency when its demand is growing than when its demand is declining. I don't see how this point is hard to understand, but it is easy to show in a very simple model.
Whose concern? The government doesn't care. And no one else's opinion matters. They are not beholden to the market. If inflation ticks up, that is definitely not the same as defaulting on the debt. We still need the government's IOUs to pay taxes, so they will perpetually be valuable to that extent.
The difference between defaulting on debt and defaulting on money (inflation) is who gets to bear the losses of the default. This is easy to see if you think of money as an infinite-maturity bond with zero coupon (for currency) or some coupon (for reserves). Your argument proves too much: if it were true, there would be no issues with the monetary crises in the late 20th century. Taxes are set in nominal terms, but they are set with a delay so the government will lose in real terms with inflation (after we are all bumped up to higher brackets).
Bitcoin has no issuer offering a redemption value, and thus is a commodity rather than money. As an economic instrument, the fair value is $0. Any valuation above that might be a small amount for the utility of making transactions (would work if each btc were 1 cent or something), and otherwise just speculative (don't get caught holding the bag).
If you're saying that bitcoin has no 'backing', but US dollars have 'backing', maybe you're using that term for what I'm calling IOU 'redemption'? (returning an IOU to its issuer, to get what is 'owed')
In monetary economics, commodity money means an asset or durable good that has intrinsic value. That is, value for non-monetary uses. In this sense, Bitcoin is not commodity money. Backing need not be about redemption. Think of stock buybacks, stocks are backed by the companies cash flows. You can't show up with one share and demand a payment from the company, but there is an implicit expected future value of the stock and the buybacks help maintain it. Bitcoin doesn't have that and the dollar could work without that, but it would mean a low aggregate stock of money in real terms which is bad because we need money valuable in real terms to make transactions.
Tanista
16hr ago
Newsom is the last person I expect to put himself in legal jeopardy because he got carried away defending left-wing sacred values.
How do you teach them to actually understand the difference?
The same way it was managed before the revolution: you tell people the truth that men and women differ , and then you impose social costs on the males who can't behave appropriately . No focus on sympathetically explaining this, no "uplifting as Simone Biles demands even as she calls for transmen to be exiled to their own league. That implies ambivalence and people can sniff it out.
Start with unbelieving denial - of course you're not a woman, don't be ridiculous. Then mockery, contempt, maybe informal punishment from their fellow men when they step out of line by doing things like demanding to enter female washrooms (when administrations turn a blind eye men can rectify even the most stubborn)
I'm not convinced that most people are legitimately as clueless as they claim, I think many are just entitled and coddled (hand-wringing about how to get them to see this is,imo, part of the same coddling instinct). Jessica Yaniv knows what he's doing, he's outright malicious imo. Artemis at the very least knows that he makes women feel uncomfortable. He just knows he can get away with it.
But the lawyers are in charge of things now and you live in an age of "zero tolerance" for bullying. These sorts of men are harder to convince because they know they have the option of filing a lawsuit or complaining to some administrator or finding some advocacy group. That's most of it. It's not a matter of rational debate or education if one side can win by tattling to the teacher. It's just about power.
I dont think thats a good analogy. While people do try to police race boundaries sometimes, there is not in fact a consensus sorting everyone into white and black. I would tell our autist about definitely white and definitely black people, and the ones in between will depend on whos making the judgement and whats convenient for them at the time. I dont think progressives are happy with this a model for how transgender should work.
More options
Context Copy link