Lurker > joe40001

hockeybub89 posted...

I'm also on the spectrum and I think you're just heartless because this doesn't actually affect you. You can't muster empathy, so you'll pretend to show concern but with a hitch. "I understand you people believe you are having your rights restricted, but you can't go and be emotional about. That won't convince anyone to meet in the middle."

Recognize your own shortcomings instead of insisting everyone else is screwing up. You recognize that truly horrific things have happened throughout history, even in America! But, for some reason, you find it impossible that any pushback against poor LGBTQ people could come from a place of hatred. You came to a conclusion that it's confusion and lack of good communication and you're building backwards to justify your hypothesis.

(Thank you for the mostly civil response, I notice the effort and appreciate it. I know you aren't a fan of mine but I do think this kind of communication helps me understand your perspective better.)

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to be emotional, I validate basically everybody's feelings. I don't really think a person can have "wrong" feelings, just inaccurate thoughts. And even here, I'm not accusing people of being wrong in their thinking. I'm saying that from my perspective a large group of people are adopting unproductive stances/communication styles if their goal is what they suggest it is.

Let's think it through:
50% of U.S. adults identifying as political independents, which means that if you want to get people like them on your side, then it simply isn't effective to communicate in a way that's claiming something like "trans rights are human rights, anybody not 100% with us is a transphobic bigot who supports genocide."

Like really? If they are completely on your side but disagree on transwomen in competitive sports, are they still a bigot? What if all they want is strong safeguards for gender affirming care for children? Are they on the side of genocide, or is there some room for people who aren't wholly on your side but are mostly sympathetic?

Because even if there is some reasonable way that technically all the words in that above claim could be arguably be "true" I doubt the independent you are pre-emptively calling a bigot is going to see it that way or understand the specific subtext you might find implicit.

But if you say "There is a republican bill looking to block access to HRT for adults under 26" there are plenty of independents who are going to be like "yeah, that seems wrong. I want to vote against that bill/republican."

At the end of the day, people have to ask themselves the question of "do I want to enjoy the feeling of total moral superiority?" or "do I want to be effective in helping the people and causes I care about?"

Because it may feel good to be reductive and condemn those who disagree or even those who literally just have questions, but it's not at all effective. And while you may find me unsympathetic, I'd say my pragmatism is very sympathetic, because IMO it stands a much better chance of helping cause positive outcomes than ambiguous emotional rhetoric. (Which I'm not saying is inappropriate, just unproductive.)

I truly don't want anybody to suffer needlessly, and if that is my actual goal, IMO I'm more likely to help achieve that goal if I advocate for specificity and precision and civil discussion. Sure, I could join a political bubble and talk shit about the other side and feel self-righteous, but honestly that's selfish. That doesn't help, that just is an easy way for me to feel good doing nothing.

hockeybub89 posted...

If someone was denied blood pressure medication by the government and said "I am being denied healthcare by the government", Joe Numbers would go "that's imprecise language aimed to manipulate. You are not being denied healthcare as a concept. You are being denied certain medications for certain ailments. If you broke your arm, they would set it, cast it, and give you pain meds."

"I dropped my lunch on the floor"
Joe: "No, you dropped some of your lunch on the floor. It looks like half your sandwich and most of your drink are still on the table and edible. You lost half a sandwich and your whole salad, but not everything which constitutes your lunch"

It could be due to me being on the spectrum. But honestly kinda yes. I don't generally correct people IRL like this. And while the first two aren't wrong, the second two versions are much more clear. Also, I wouldn't regularly attribute manipulative motives to those who lean too hard on ambiguity. That being said, I do still strongly believe ambiguity hinders progress in important political domains, and thus specificity should be employed there.

For example, if a city council is allocating workers and resources to 3 schools, and all 3 schools say "our students don't have access to clean drinking water!" how do you think the city council should respond? Send them all the same workers and resources?

What if I told you that:
School 1 has access to water from the city, but it's dirty from bad plumbing.
School 2 has good plumbing, but isn't receiving any water flow from the city.
and
School 3 has good plumbing, and good access to the city's water, but inaccessible water fountains.

All 3 schools wouldn't be "wrong" in their statements, but the city council would be unable to effectively help them because while none of the schools were saying a wrong statement, they were not being sufficiently specific about the problem. And so 3 very different problems got treated as equivalent, and people suffer.

To address real problems in the real world you need to be specific, characterizing things with ambiguous and/or emotionally charged rhetoric IMO hurts and doesn't help.

Antifar posted...

Genocide doesn't have to entail murder. Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the term:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Here's a quote from the man who coined the term genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
More often it [Genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort.

Further down the page, from John Cox, Historian:
Genocide aims to not only eliminate individual members of the targeted group but to destroy the group's ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion and, thus, its existence as a group.
Because perpetrators very rarely provide explicit statements of genocidal intent, this intent can be uncovered by examining policies, actions, and outcomes, as well as the guiding ideology.

I understand that the term often evokes imagery of the Nazis, much like "concentration camp." But the Nazis weren't the only ones to have concentration camps, nor the only perpetrators of genocide. It doesn't always require ovens.

To me, the combination of:
* bans on gender affirming care, including for adults: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/health/transgender-adults-treatment-bans.html
* bans on the discussion of LGBT topics in school: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/book-bans-dont-say-gay-bill-lgbtq-kids-feel-erased-classroom-rcna15819
* bans on gender nonconformity in public: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160784530/tennessee-ban-public-drag-shows-transgender-health-care-youth
* bans on trans women competing in sports: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/20/trans-sports-ban-us-house-republicans-bill
* bans on people using the restroom they identify with: https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/3978481-kansas-enacts-sweeping-transgender-bathroom-bill/
* boycotts of brands who include trans people in their campaigns: https://www.vox.com/money/2023/4/12/23680135/bud-light-boycott-dylan-mulvaney-travis-tritt-trans
point to a the removal of trans people from public life, the forcing of trans people back into the closet. The destruction of trans people as a group.

What do you think they point to?

I'll admit, I've always understood genocide to mean "mass murder". I would be interested to see if at one time it specifically required mass murder. I do think it's moderately safe to say that many people will interpret it that way. (Yet another reason I'm always glad to remove ambiguity).

I'd have to go through each link, read the article, and the actual language of the proposed law to be able to say confidently if I believe those are accurate characterizations and if in aggregate that amounts to genocide. Skimming a few (from my perspective) I think you are being somewhat imprecise in your characterization as many of the things you call bans would likely be more accurately characterized as "limiting or restricting under specific contexts". Where as ban generally implies something more sweeping or universal.

That said, again just from skimming some of the articles, I do think in spirit you are characterizing things in good faith manner, even if you may be omitting what I think to be relevant context. So I appreciate that a lot, and honestly applaud you in that regard. Few people share sources or state their argument as calmly and precisely as you just have, and I sincerely think that's great and wish more people communicated exactly as you just did.

Perhaps later I'll go one by one and read the specifics (I try not to spend too much time per day on gamefaqs, and to do justice to those articles like I should before I finalize any response, it would require a fair amount of time). That being said, with regard to your question of genocide, if you define it as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" then while I wouldn't personally agree that "literal genocide" is an accurate characterization of what is going on, I would be comfortable saying that such a thing is an arguable (if perhaps rhetorically excessive) characterization.

That said, would you meet me at the point of acknowledging republicans are not literally tying to mass murder of LGBTQ+ people?

"Also be sure to pay for an additional service which will make sure the AI pairs you up with the best opportunities"

Next new feature:
"Hey, LinkedIn hiring managers! Let us handle all your applications! We'll sort through them using our new AI, also be sure to pay for an additional service which will make sure the AI pairs you up with the best applicants!"

Feature 2 years later:
"Tired of all those job applications clearly written by AI? Pay to use our new AI tool to filter out the AI generated job applications so you only get applicants who are truly motivated!"

Feature 2 years later:
"Tired of your AI job application being filtered out? Pay to use our new super AI application writer that's so convincing the filters can't event detect it!"

Feature 10 years later:
01000001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01001000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01000100 01100101 01100001 01100100 00101110 00100000 01010000 01100001 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101110 01100101 01110111 00100000 01100110 01100101 01100001 01110100 01110101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110010 01100101 01101101 01100101 01101101 01100010 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110111 01100101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00101110

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The issue is, that I often find people are like "X person is evil! Even if they don't come out right and say it!" but then you ask them how they came to that conclusion and it will be formed from like 2 headlines from authors who hate X person, and from a video essay from somebody who hates X person.

I don't think people are great at honestly representing themselves, but I tend to find a person (particularly if I listen to them with my bullshit detector up) to be better at characterizing themselves and their position, than I do find an angry mob of people who hate them at characterizing the person and their position.

You do understand, this same "you can read between the lines" logic is how bad faith republicans push the "groomer" narrative, right? I could probably find clips of Trump saying things like "Sure, democrats say they care about the working class, but look at how they act, they push woke agendas, they want to replace you all with illegal immigrants... (and other nonsense)"

One has to be very careful when inferring somebody's "true beliefs/motives" because most of modern political discourse being total shit comes from the fact that both sides are attributing false horrible motives to the other side.

Ignorant republicans: "Democrats literally want to seduce your children for sex."
Ignorant democrats: "Republicans literally want to mass murder the entire LGBTQ population."

Reality isn't like that. Reality comes from precision, nuance, and listening. Yes, you can't take everybody at their word, but you also can't take everybody against their word and in line with what feels good relative to your initial bias, and frankly I'm seeing a lot of the latter in this topic. And I'd say the same damn thing if this were a republican echo chamber dead set on insisting that gay people are groomers or whatever.

Antifar posted...

I mean this as literally as possible: Republican policies are aimed towards creating a state in which trans people are forced into hiding. Where they'd be prevented from openly being themselves. That is the aim of drag bans, of bans on gender affirming care, on banning the discussion of LGBT people in schools: to recreate a society in which trans people take no part.

There is nothing figurative about calling this genocide. There is nothing figurative about the claim that trans people are being denied healthcare. They are.

That you've chosen to fixate on whether these claims are exaggerations, rather than on the obvious falsehoods and lies in the Republican rhetoric being used to justify this campaign, is a signal to honest onlookers of this topic that your priorities are severely out of whack.

My claim that we are better served if people speak specifically and without needless ambiguity obviously applies to repulicans as well, all discourse IMO is better served without needless ambiguity and emotionally charge rhetoric. We should all be specific, be honest, and be clear. IMO

The only reason people around here get any idea that I am republican is that when others say "Republicans are literally monsters who literally want to commit genocide against the LGBTQ+ community." I am one of the only voices who says "well... surely you don't mean *literally*"

I'm not focusing on one issue and ignoring another. When emblem man asked: "What do you think about the language republicans use when talking about trans people and imply or outright say that they are groomers. Do you think their language is incendiary?" I said "Yes." and I would say the same thing if gamefaqs were a heavy-conservative bubble raging at me for not agreeing with them about liberals. Because it's true. They are using misleading and incendiary language to stir up hate and vitriol, which is bad and counter-productive.

The only reason we are talking about any of this is because I was talking about the Contrapoints video and brought up the one or two parts I slightly disagreed with her. Which means the other parts I did not significantly disagree.

So I don't understand why you think my comments about not liking ambiguity in political discussions come at the expense of any other stance. Just because I am critical of ambiguity (everywhere, but yes including on the left) doesn't mean I worship the right. That's not how life works.

Finally, if it wasn't clear, while I respect your feelings and emotions as valid, and would not argue against your right to have your perspective. Personally, I do believe "There is nothing figurative about calling this genocide." is pretty obviously false. Genocide means the mass murdering of people. Republicans, even if you really really really don't like them, are not mass murdering people.

LightningAce11 posted...

This is the problem. Youre convinced youve not done anything wrong and people are out to get you instead of taking a step back and reflecting on all your topics.

You get very argumentative and dismissive when people dont agree with you. You say you have changed but dont claim to have any regret over whatever misinformation you have have pushed in the past. You dont understand the nuances of a lot of these issues you want to talk about, its just the cold logical manner you want to conduct yourself in that fails to convince anybody.

I never said "people are out to get me". I will say that it's pretty clear that several people on here dislike me and filter most everything I say through a very uncharitable if not overtly bad faith lens. But I tend to ignore those people, because such treatment isn't unique to me.

I think text as a medium must do some kind of disservice, because I am not nor have I at all in this topic been writing in a foaming at the mouth furious rage. In fact there is effectively no emotion in anything I've written. Admittedly, It's somewhat difficult to not have a negative emotional reaction when people call you inflammatory names. But I feel I have done a great job not giving into any of that reactionaryness and instead remaining calm.

As far as "not admitting errors" I mean immediately when somebody pointed out there were laws pushed by republicans based around the trans issue but targeting adults I said: "Ok, I didn't know that, in this area I was mistaken. Thanks for sharing that info."

I guess I'm really stumped what the objection is. You seem calm and rational, which is why I'm putting you on the spot a bit by asking, but in your eyes what have I done wrong in this topic? I reflected on every response, but I don't agree with some of them. And I think that's the rational response. Hear everybody, but don't concede just because somebody is mad at you. It would be imprudent to validate some of the perspectives here, as some are overtly bad faith like this one:

UnholyMudcrab posted...

And joenumbers is misgendering trans people again.

...referring to me using the term "they" for somebody I literally don't know at all. I guess I dodged a bullet because there are very few people on this forum I know anything about personally, and often when I don't know who I'm talking to on the internet I assume it's a man and default to he. So the fact that I used "they" and UnholyMudcrab (not going to risk using a pronoun here because I don't know anything about UnholyMudcrab) still attributed bad motives to me represents the kinds of posts that I see, process, and then say "yeah, that's not a person acting in good faith towards me, so I won't take UnholyMudcrab's negativity personally or as valid.

Can you please elaborate what you specifically think I did wrong in the topic or am doing wrong overall? I genuinely don't know what specifically you are referring to when you suggest I have done something wrong but am blind to it.

emblem-man posted...

You can ask others, but you are the first I've talked to who thinks that. Sure it's better to be very clear, but this might be one of those issues where the implicit assumption is over your head. A transperson wants healthcare related to being trans and laws and unnecessary restrictions are put in place specifically for the healthcare they want and need. Hence, they are being denied healthcare. Context tells you what you need to know,

GrandConjuraton suggested that they believed it. And I think that belief stems from the social choice to routinely fall back on overly ambiguous statements to characterize this issue.

Respectfully, I think you must be able to acknowledge, particularly in the context of internet discussion, the premise of "basically every reader will infer the true specifics from the context the statement is presented in" is at best extremely unlikely.

Considering almost all topics/discussion about political articles I have seen on GameFAQs (a community more intelligent than Twitter IMO) make it clear that over 90% of the people in the topic did not read the article at all, I would say you are giving far far far too much credit to the ability of nuanced inference to people in emotional debates.

If somebody on the right says "All Lives Matter", are most people on the left going to spend the time and good faith to extract from context what they mean? Or are they going to assume they mean something inflammatory like "Black Lives Don't Matter".

And if somebody on the left says "'All Lives Matter' is horribly offensive", are most people on the right going to spend the time and good faith to extract from context what they mean? Or are they going to assume they mean something inflammatory like "Non-Black Lives Don't Matter."

IMO this is where almost all of the outrage comes from. People not being precise, and the other side inferring the worst based on their feelings. Removing ambiguity removes this problem.

When you hear "Republicans are denying trans people healthcare", you might be able to parse that from context and understand what that means specifically, but are you truly claiming that a 16yo teen in highschool who has never met a republican in their life, and has heard things like "Republicans want to commit genocide against LGBTQ+ people." will really not walk away from that thinking the "Republicans are denying all doctor visits and all medication to the LGBTQ+ people"?

I mean I have intelligent friends whom I respect who say things like "If Republicans had their way they would murder LGBTQ+ people, it is not safe for LGBTQ+ people in republican led states."

Even in context what am I supposed to infer from that? They mean things like "Trans genocide" figuratively? That they are using intense language but not a single person has any confusion that the proposals are around the specific trans related healthcare?

Why indulge the ambiguity? Is it really helping anybody? Are the left and the right misunderstanding each other and yelling past each other really leading us down a road to progress?

Personally I don't think so.

When republicans in their bubbles hear about this issue without specifics some of them infer something untrue like that dems want 8 year olds in blue states to be able to get sexual reassignment surgery even against the will of the parents, and with 0 need for any psychological screening beforehand.

When democrats in their bubbles hear about this issue without specifics some of them infer something untrue like that republicans want to literally deny any healthcare to a LGBTQ+ person. Like a trans person will get shot, rushed to the ER and then the doctors would say "nope, they're trans, the law says we can't provide any healthcare."

Both assumptions are completely bogus, and I'm sorry but IMO you are niave if you think that nobody on either side makes such confused inferences. If I had to guess I'd say at least 5-10 percent of people on each side has that warped a view of the other side's positions. And honestly that might be a conservative estimate.

That's why ambiguity is hurting our society and discourse, because nobody from either side should be walking around with such a delusion.

Kimberly posted...

To be as charitable as possible here...I think you misunderstood what the first half of the video was laying out and why to a catastrophic degree.

As an aside, there's a rich irony here in claiming her essay was reductive while then also reducing their entire essay into a statement of "oh well she just gave up on RaTioNaL DiScUsSiOn in order to justify shaming people she disagrees with."

I was not characterizing the essay that way, my point was that my only major objection to the essay what that element, not that said element represented the majority of the essay. There was obviously much more to it.

I apologize if that distinction was not clear.

Very very sorry to hear.

LightningAce11 posted...

Joe Ive seen a lot of your topics and they end up the same way every time. You have a preconceived notion that you want validated, and you view it as debate and changing minds.

What if people were to look at problems you were having and sealioned or trolled about them? How would that make you feel?

Something has to change dude. If this is the response you get every time you post you should understand that youre doing something wrong.

I don't understand what you are saying. What do you think I am doing wrong?

hockeybub89 posted...

I thought we had all agreed standardized testing was stupid like... 20 years ago. It's kinda news to me that you believe this is some recent "woke" push to eliminate merit. I didn't know anyone still thought they were a good indicator of intelligence. As a kid, I remember very not "woke" people hating them because it turns out teaching children to pass standardized tests doesn't really educate them. It just makes them good at tests, provided they are good test takers.

I haven't been keeping up with the conservative rhetoric on the tests, but I assume they love them these days just because the left doesn't, and have built an argument backwards from the "fuck the left" starting point

You'd really benefit yourself if you just stopped sharing opinions until you graduate high school.

So like, how many studies of SAT as clear predictor of college level performance would you need me to link before you retracted this?

Is your theory legitimately that things like AP Math tests have literally no correlation to ability in math?

How would that even work?

Antifar posted...

Do you think that's a correct assumption? Because I think we have a lot of evidence to say that this view is bullshit. People are more comfortable being openly trans now because some, just some, of the stifling transphobia of our society has dissipated. When you talk about 2010, you're talking about a time when gay marriage was still illegal in many states.

No one is obligated to respect views that aren't based in reality.

I never said anybody was obligated to respect how republicans see this issue. I was responding to somebody's request that I characterize what I thought republicans thought on the issue.

When it comes to me, I would have to do considerable more research before I was comfortable making any estimate about baseline rates of trans identification, and about how such things have or have not deviated with time.

emblem-man posted...

I honestly don't think many people think trans people are being denied non gender affirming care when they hear that. Your statement is the first time I've heard someone think that trans people are being denied non trans related healthcare.

Really?

I feel like characterizing it as "denying healthcare" encourages that interpretation.

I think it's much better to specifically say what the thing is. Being non-specific invites needless ambiguity IMO.

Antifar posted...

None of the laws they're putting into place, from bans on gender affirming care to bans on drag shows in public, was in place in 2010. This is flatly not true.

I mean there are laws requiring gender-affirming care created since 2010. There are other things like this like LGBTQ sex education standards and therapist guidelines that are certainly different than 2010. But more what I was saying is that a lot of these republicans seem to assume the rates of transpeople and people requiring HRT, etc back in 2010 were the "more accurate" rates, and that financial, political, or cultural incentives are what's pushing the increase in trans identification (particularly among the under 18). And they want to go back to how things were back then.

I don't know where this 18 month requirement is coming from, if that's closer to how long it used to take, or just something they are pulling out of their ass to be obstructionist.

But yeah, I do think most of them would just be happy if things like this went back to how they were in 2010.

Though I will acknowledge that they are trying to achieve that end through laws that do not seem to have been around back in 2010.

Truth be told I have no idea if the same kind and frequency of gender affirming interventions happened back in 2010. If not, or if it was much less common, then that would explain why they are creating laws now that weren't around then, because to achieve the outcome they wanted back then they didn't have to do anything at all.

Antifar posted...

Factually untrue:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/24/1171293057/missouri-attorney-general-transgender-adults-gender-affirming-health-care

https://thehill.com/homenews/3883279-florida-bill-targets-gender-affirming-health-care-for-trans-youth-adults/
https://news.yahoo.com/many-states-trying-restrict-gender-142818659.html

https://time.com/6260421/tennessee-limiting-drag-shows-status-of-anti-drag-bills-u-s/

Thank you for sharing. I really wish more people just had specifics like this. (particularly ones that contain the exact language/laws of the proposals). My understanding of what Republican politicians were pushing did not include adults, it would seem that was an error and I was mistaken in my estimation.

Gwynevere posted...

So you're either uninformed, or a liar

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-gender-affirming-care-restrictions-missouri-4def2189dac9979a00d298efb3baf12a

Thanks for sharing this.
"The rule, which incudes a required 18 months of therapy before receiving gender-affirming health care"

People will talk for a long time, and often nobody gives the specifics. That part does seem to be about adults and it was the first I had heard of them trying to pass laws relative to adults on limiting such things. And I think the whole discussion gets easier when people talk in specifics rather than ambiguous and/or emotionally charged terms.

Specifics make things clear, which makes the ethics clear, which IMO makes progress towards the positive outcome quicker.

Which is it?

Uninformed I guess. I was not aware there were any laws being pushed looking to change requirements for HRT for adults.

Funny that you thought this would be a gotcha, but HRT is predominantly given to cis women who have had hysterectomies or are going through menopause, or cis men experiencing hypogonadism/low testosterone. A treatment for low sex hormone production give to cis people, but denied to trans people. Interesting.

Denied under the same circumstances?

Don't get me wrong, I see the valid comparison of "gender affirming care is allowed if the care matches your biological sex, but denied if you are trans." and I can see that argument.

I just wanted to remove the ambiguity that there aren't like republicans denying insulin or cancer drugs to transpeople. All the denials are related to gender affirming care, yes?

I'm not saying that's ok, but that is the specifics of what is being proposed. Correct?

PS: If it helps anybody, just a reminder I am mildly on the spectrum. Some people apparently find specifics frustrating, but honestly I find ambiguity so needlessly unproductive which is why I wish we were all speaking more precisely and with less emotion. That's my preference, but I'm not requiring that of others, just thought I'd bring that info about me up if it helps make things more clear.

emblem-man posted...

Would making it increasingly difficult for adults to access gender affirming care count as denying healthcare to you?

I think by saying "denying healthcare" it is being softly implied that like insulin, ER visits, and cancer drugs are being denied to transpeople just because they are trans. Not that everybody will think that, but "denying healthcare" paints with a very broad brush, a brush that allows for that interpretation. And honestly I do think there are TONS of people who just read headlines and are bombarded with non-specific very short statements like "Republicans are fighting to deny LGBTQ people healthcare!"

Some of those people are going to take that statement an interpret it in the most obvious way possible. And IMO that's unhelpful. There are probably some LGBTQ people out there who hear some statements like that, live in a red state, and genuinely fear their ability to get medical care if they get injured.

And I don't think that ambiguity is useful. I don't think that LGBTQ person carrying around that inaccurate dread helps them or the general LGBTQ cause.

I think "Republicans are pushing laws requiring 18 months of therapy before receiving gender-affirming health care." is more clear, more accurate, and thus more useful. It's probably even better if we say which therapies, interventions, etc are being proposed to require 18 months.

What do you think about the language republicans use when talking about trans people and imply or outright say that they are groomers. Do you think their language is incendiary?

Yes.

LightningAce11 posted...

It just seems like joenumbers doesnt want to hear or empathise with anyone, he just wants people to listen to him without pushing back.

You see this issue with a lot of posters, especially the one who defended Joe a page ago. They make disingenuous remarks and pretend to want to learn about minority issues.

I know I said I'd limit myself to people directly asking me questions, but you seem reasonable and like you are trying to understand me.

Who do you think I don't want to hear or empathize with? Also earlier you suggested that maybe I needed to grow/change and that too is something I would like more clarity on your meaning?

I value hearing everybody, that doesn't mean that me and everybody are going to agree.

That is not what I think or claim.

Those things you said are my opinions, are not my opinions.

What you just said was false

Good advice

Shadow_Don posted...

This isn't the own you think it is chief. There is a lot of very compelling evidence to suggest that standardized tests have a lot of problems.

So? My car has a lot of problems, but it's a hell of a lot better than having no car.

For the "Abolish standardized tests" crowd to have any argument, they'd have to demonstrate that the absence of standardized tests is better than having them. And it's not even close on that regard.

By all means, make the standardized tests even better. But pretending like the SAT is not a good test of academic merit is just on it's face absurd.

hockeybub89 posted...

"Hey can you help us to the top of the wall? We don't have ladders like those people"

Joe Numbers: "Oh so we should just abolish the concept of merit? It's kinda bad that those already at the top took away your ladders, but we can't just help you get up there when you need to earn it on your own. I'm a compassionate person who thinks you'll appreciate it much more you fight your way to the top. Making it easier for people like you is just going to hurt you and society in the long run. You can have a nuanced, respectful debate with those that were keeping you down once you get there. You'll realize they were probably just misguided and confused and you can both learn from a dialogue. Life is too nuanced to believe conservatives are keeping people down out of malice. The woke liberals need to learn that you catch more flies with honey."

That is an inaccurate representation of my stance. If I was trying to apply my actual stance to your metaphor, and the implication seems to be the top of the wall is "success" then I would be super pro-ladder. Particularly for people who started with very short ladders or no ladders. What I wouldn't be in support of is redefining so that for people who start at the bottom of the wall, we just redefine the bottom as the top for them.

Abolishing merit hurts these people, maintain tests of merit but provided added assistance to those who were disadvantaged. If somebody wants to succeed in basketball, society should help them become better at basketball, but you don't make them better by lowering the hoop and saying they are just as good now as the people who play with the normal hoop height.

On this, hbub, I'm going to be more emphatic, and I really hope you consider it:
You are hurting the people you think you are helping if you try to abolish the concept of merit. You help the people disadvantaged people by giving them the means and services they need to achieve the things they want to achieve.

If somebody grew up in a terrible environment for learning, and is getting an F on their math test, you aren't going to help them by changing the F into an A, you will help them by getting them tutors to learn how to get the A themselves. I think even you'd acknowledge this.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Both are "the establishment as it stands is totally failing me." votes.

While I don't think voting for Trump was at all a good idea, I can understand the psychology for somebody who is living in oppressive poverty pushing the big red "vote for Trump" button, just out of spite towards all the people in power who don't care about them and insisted that they couldn't.

Heineken14 posted...

What fucking planet do you live on that this is the case? Republicans across the country are doing nothing but attacking trans individuals, trying to erase history, banning books, wondering about the genitals of teenagers, stripping away rights from millions, giving more power to corporations, and literally voting AGAINST healthcare and better wages.

THAT is why I said you are misguided and misinformed.

I was saying they were worse than people with a classical liberal mindset. NOT that they were worse than republicans.

It is effectively accurate to say that almost all republican politicians are worse than almost all democratic politicians when it comes to caring about better healthcare and better wages, and if we are talking about the house/senate it's likely fine to remove the word "almost" from that statement.

I'm am saying though, among non-republicans, I have more faith in a person who isn't backing the woke nonsense actually delivering on those types of policies, than one who makes that kind of thing a priority.

legendary_zell posted...

Also, it's literally woke people/the left doing 100% of the work to push for worker power, healthcare etc. All of it. Classical liberals, libertarians, moderates, conservatives, do nothing but sabotage those efforts or belatedly join them once they've picked up irresistible momentum or the force of law. Every lawmaker that votes for it is woke. Every organizer who pushes a union campaign or a march or call ban is woke. The members of the interest groups that pressure lawmakers are all woke.

I disagree with this, particularly if we are referring to non-politicians.

But even among politicians, I'd say Bernie isn't woke and he the best when it comes to these kinds of policies.

I'm glad somebody followed a dream and succeeded.

Robot2600 posted...

What do u really want, Joe? I don't think u are a bigot, but you need to see that things like LGBTQ rights don't have an "other" side.

Since this was directed at me, I'll answer. In the context of this discussion, I do think it would help to define what we mean by LGBTQ rights. I think anytime anybody is discussing important issues they should be detailed and specific about what they mean.

If by rights you mean "the exact same rights as anybody else", I don't think anybody including republicans disagree. I certainly don't disagree. Everybody deserves basic human rights.

I do get frustrated by the ambiguity. So if you are asking "what I want", I would say at this time:
---
Please give an example of a specific basic human right a cisperson does receive that a republican would want to deny a transperson.

And if your answer is "healthcare", please give an example of a specific healthcare service a cisperson does receive that a republican would want to deny a transperson.
---
As far as what I want overall, I want calm and precise discussion, not inflamed by emotion, or confused by ambiguous rhetoric. I do think that will help everybody, including transpeople get positive outcomes quicker.

All the outrage and yelling and fighting IMO doesn't help anybody get to a better place.

emblem-man posted...

What would you say is your best good faith interpretation of what republican politicians think about trans people. Specifically adults. In terms of society and policy

They have no policy issue with adult transpeople except for sports, bathroom usage, and how it relates to children.

Lots of them probably don't they themselves recognize the transperson as the gender the transperson identifies as. But I don't think they would want to deny them any basic rights.

I don't think they hate them, but I do think some will have this "they're icky" sense. I think Jonathan Haidt (IIRC?) had some research that found people more likely to feel feelings of "moral disgust" were much more likely to be conservative.

The very very religious of them, will secretly think they are going to rot in hell, but even they I don't think would ever advocate for violence.

Also some republican politicians are going to have literally no issue with transpeople at all but are going to say they do to appeal to their base.

That's what I think they think.

Another way to frame it is that basically every republican politician wants the rules, standards, and laws to be how they were in 2010.

---

And people keep bringing up "denying healthcare" but as far as I know there is no push from anybody to deny any adult any standard healthcare just for being trans. That seems to be the main crux of "they are trying to kill trans people", but like I don't know where that's coming from.

Like if there are stories of like republicans even bringing up the idea of like denying somebody's cancer meds,because they are trans let me know. I definitely want to know about that.

Anyway, I said I'd try to only respond to people asking me things directly, and that's what I'll continue to do, though I gotta admit some of these posts make that difficult.

4-6,1-3, Rogue One, then stop

Skankhair posted...

Maher *is* the dumb part of the left. He protects the dumb left while attacking the future of the party. He attacks inclusiveness, empathy, social progress, and socioeconomic mobility, while protecting the donor class and entrenched oligarchs. He protects the status quo.

Yeah that doesn't gel with what I've seen of him at all.

Aside from the OT, Rogue One is my favorite.

Prequels are fun from a campy point of view.

Fin_Dawg_004 posted...

Political correctness -> SJWs -> Wokeness -> ???

It's probably a word that doesn't even exist yet.

Gwynevere posted...

So you don't think that the people legislating trans rights out of existence hate us? You think all the accusations of pedophilia and grooming children are coming from a place of love? People that engage in verbal and physical violence against queer people don't hate us?

An observation of how hateful these people are doesn't come from a place of emotion, it comes from living in fucking reality.

Again, I see statements like these as painting with too broad a brush.

Like what specifically do you mean by "trans rights"? The right to live? The right to not be victims of violence?

Because I don't know of a single politician anywhere who is disagreeing with that.

When you put it all in one big bucket IMO it's not helpful. Most people who commit acts of violence are clearly hateful, most people who calmly raise concerns about HRT for children are probably not hateful.

You can disagree with them strongly, and you have that right. But just in general I don't think it's helpful to paint with an overly broad brush, and act like there's this monolith of people literally looking to commit genocide.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Send me to a Republican's page who is putting "mass genocide of LGBTQ+ people" on their policies page and I'll certainly retract my claim.

...

I don't know if I want to keep talking about this. It's an emotional issue for some people, and while I do believe in the productive value of calm discussion and engagement with those we disagree with, idk if I want to risk causing somebody too much upset by trying to unpack it all.

I guess what I'll do is only respond if somebody explicitly wants to talk to me about this. Otherwise I think I've said my piece about this video. It is an interesting an thought provoking video, and definitely an interesting discussion.

I hope we as a society land on the solution that is most helpful and least harmful to the most people.

mustachedmystic posted...

I dont give a damn about all this political grandstanding, no matter what side it comes from. All I want is for people to be able to live their lives as they wish, and fuck whom ever they want. Anyone that goes around acting as if what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms has any effect on their own lives can go to hell. Live your own life in peace, and let everybody else do the same!

I think most people around here would agree with that.

Heineken14 posted...

No, you're just entirely misguided by lazy right wing propaganda precisely because you don't see the actual problem of the bolded coming from the right.

What do you mean here?

Are you saying that certain parts of the far left aren't doing things like advocating for the removal of standardized tests?

Or are you saying I'm blind to the ways in which the right does censorship? Because if it's the latter, I'm not and I condemn censorship when anybody does it.

legendary_zell posted...

Who do you think is more associated with and active in supporting those things? Woke people and the left or "classical liberals"?

I would say woke people and the modern left are worse at working towards the important things, because they prioritize the woke nonsense stuff over the important things like healthcare, better wages, etc. Classical liberals want to not waste time, energy, and political capital on stuff 70+% of the country finds stupid and obnoxious.

The entire Republican Party is primarily an engine for turning overblown "concerns" about "woke" stuff into opposition to things like higher wages, healthcare, and benefits. And Bill Maher is a great example of the effectiveness of that strategy, he used to talk about some real things, but now he's primarily focused on anti-woke hysteria.

He still regularly talks about those things.

Those Trump supporters are supportive of those things only in theory. In fact, they supported a party and a President that gutted any and all attempts or pathways to actually achieving those goals. As they said they would from the outset.

Um, the ones who supported Bernie before Trump sure as shit didn't say any of that from the outset. Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning here.

That "corrupted capitalism" you're complaining about is simply capitalism. Not having higher wages, benefits, and affordable/public healthcare is a direct and exclusive result of that benefitting capital. They used the economic and political power that capitalism brings to capital to bring that about.

Capitalism is really good at one thing: Producing capital. When producing capital is tied to providing value to people, capitalism can be a pretty solid system. But these days most of capitalism gets its money just from exploiting people, and then using monopolistic power to rig the game.

If you want to stop that, you're gonna have to ally with the woke people, not those with "concerns" about corrupted capitalism.

I will work with anybody to achieve goals I care about, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to push back on that person having bad ideas. I can "ally" with anybody if we have a common cause, but I'm not going to support bad ideas, or people whose primary goal is to push them.

A non trivial amount of the modern left says things that amounts to "if you aren't 100% with us on everything, then you are my enemy!" And then gets shocked when later they look around they have less "allies".

Most of what people characterize as censorship is simply adding context or criticism to things that are not banned or removed, and viewpoints that you can find in the editorial board of every newspaper of record.

I simply disagree here. We have different perspectives.

And the perceived backlash to the concept of merit is simply a recognition that our current structure of society is far more due to a concentration of power than of merit and how the idea of merit is inherently flawed and limited.

By devaluing merit, I am speaking of things like pushes to not want or require standardize tests. Things like that. Merit really isn't that flawed. Merit is not able to be perfectly measured, but assessments that strive to be merit based are way better than like any alternative (particularly ones based on group identity characteristics).

Removing merit based standards hurts everybody, including (if not especially) those it purports to help.

Medussa posted...

you don't think the people trying to legislate her out of existence (or worse) are as hateful as she says they are? you think a calm rational discussion is the best approach to people engaging in genocide?

Who is engaging in genocide?

LightningAce11 posted...

But who are the people that TC has convinced like he claims? You bring up Daryl Davis a lot, do you see yourself as him and users here as the people you must talk to?

I do think his mindset and approach is the best, but I certainly would not attribute badness of character to the people I try to talk to like the types of people he has dealt with.

I do think it is productive when people with differing perspectives can engage in good faith discussion. But such occurrence is can be unfortunately rare on the internet.

WrestlinFan posted...

Dude's a grifter, all he's doing is playing people like you. There's nothing at all genuine about Bill.

Do you believe he genuinely likes pot at least?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Wasn't there something recently where they were going to alter a book in an annoying woke way, but then announced that due to the backlash they wouldn't, and then people were happy and the book sales went up but some people wondered if the whole thing was an advertising strategy from the start?

legendary_zell posted...

This is never the point some think it is. Because the same people attacking corporations, or anyone/anything else for being woke are the same people who oppose healthcare, benefits, and raises. Conservatives and moderates. And when they criticize, it's not to get companies to stop being PC and hand over the means of production instead. It's to cheer on corporations when they go full gunmetal grey capitalism rather than rainbow capitalism. Only leftists/progressives rationally critique rainbow capitalism as a smokescreen.

I oppose corporations for being woke in dumb ways, but I support healthcare, benefits, and raises.

And I know I'm not alone.

Pretty sure Bill Maher is like that too. That's the large demographic of people some here have referred to as "classical liberal". They support rights and human decency, but push back on excesses of woke nonsense.

Hell, a lot of Trump supporters are pretty sympathetic to the idea that "a man shouldn't go bankrupt paying for healthcare".

Why do you think there was a moderate amount of people who went from supporting Bernie to Trump? Because the world isn't this clean binary you seem to be acting like it is. In your world, I apparently don't exist, because I think almost all of the world's biggest problems stem from corrupted capitalism, but I also think there are dangerous trends on the far left around things like censorship and abandoning the idea of merit.

Illuminoius posted...

she basically said "try to convince regular people with calm reasoning, but don't give the people who are in the power to invalidate your life any sort of respect because they're too rich to care and don't want to engage in good-faith arguments and will not change their stance"

and yeah, why should the queer community be quiet and respectful towards the people who want us silenced and call us pedophiles? why should we respect the loud, angry politicians that are scum and are creating so many terrible bills? you can reasonably change the mind of a common person but those people are lost causes

And I certainly recognize that as a valid position. I personally disagreed slightly because I felt that "bad people" brush was applied a bit too strongly. I don't think these people are as hateful as Contrapoints or you seem to think. But I can understand, particularly from how an emotional point of view one might feel that way.

I also disagreed with the idea that calmness with them was effectively a lost cause. I think calm rational discussion is almost always going to be the best approach.

But hopefully it goes without saying that just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean I don't recognize the opinion being discussed as valid.

Turbam posted...

Covid misinformation and pushing horse paste

@LightningAce11

You tell me, do you think the above statement by Turbam is a fair, accurate, and good faith representation of the truth which was:
"I shared and discussed early peer reviewed research into the possible benefits of the off-label usage of the human drug ivermectin (which is given in pill form) for use in fighting COVID19."

Keeping in mind I didn't tell people to take it, I didn't say it worked, I don't currently say it does work, but I did share peer-reviewed research* from medical journals which investigated it at the time.

*Some of the research was later corrected to become more accurate, something I shared and acknowledged at the time.

Do you think: "Covid misinformation and pushing horse paste"
Is a fair, accurate, and good faith representation of the actual reality?

hockeybub89 posted...

You were dressed down over and over with regards to your ivermectin bullshit for like years and you just kept sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Oh when will anyone engage in logical debate with me and convince me with facts rather than emotional arguments just like the side they claim to be better then?" You can't even talk about LGBTQ issues without "both sidesing" it! You know what? I don't give a fuck what the other side thinks! They're wrong and I'm not debasing myself by justifying the truth or my existence to people that have no interest in learning, no matter how much enlightened centrists like you try to shame me for "being the same way".

You'd start a debate over whether vegetables are a food if you felt the "pro-vegetable" movement was getting too stubborn and religious-like in their "beliefs".

It's clear you simply fundamentally don't understand me. You are talking to somebody, but that somebody is a strawman who is not and has never been me.

I really can't help you if you are just going to have an argument against your strawman version of me, a version you get to attribute beliefs and motives to that are not mine.

Why even talk to me? You are basically talking to some creation in your head at that point.

I think there is a reasonable person in you, a person who could have a calm discussion about sensitive issues, I feel like some part of the internet bubble has worked you up into a very emotional state, and honestly I don't think it's helpful or constructive for your well being or even your goals. And I do feel bad about it. I don't want you to feel as much intense emotional distress as it seems you are feeling. But I'm not sure if there is anything I could say or do to even help you in that regard. Because I think the version of me that exists in your head is some empathyless monster.

And so I'm open to any suggestions to how I can better communicate with you. But if your only goal is to hate me or convince me to hate myself because you are so sure I am the monster you think I must be, I'm sorry I do that, because I'm not that monster. You and I are simply people who disagree over some political issues, neither of us are bad, neither of us should hate the other. IMO.

HornyLevel posted...

Idk, I think as time goes on, especially during and after this recession, corporations are gonna be facing more and more scrutiny because of their ruthless behavior.

The "woke" stuff is just basic pink/rainbow capitalism, so it will likely be looked upon poorly as it is ultimately perfunctory and isn't usually done with care and respect.

Yeah, some of it is pretty transparent.

Company: "Black Lives Matter!"
Employees who are poor and often PoC: "Can we have a raise, basic benefits, and healthcare?"
Same Company: "No."

LightningAce11 posted...

Its kinda sad that for all the talk about free speech and convincing people rationally and talking to people it seems that Joe hasnt gotten through to any people on this website.

Many users dislike him and dont care for his arguments. What did he do to poison the well so much against himself?

I've got through to some.

And it's clear to me that a decent amount of the most vocal people here just read headlines, usually from the same kind of sources, and take it as gospel truth. There was just a topic about something, and people were overtly saying "X person should be imprisoned" based on the headline, but if you looked at the article it was clear that how it was being interpreted was not in alignment with what actually happened.

But after I pointed that out there were no responses.

There's a good Obama quote I like, which was "If I watched Fox News all day, I'd hate me too."

A lot of people, and this is a very much "both sides" thing, just read headlines that validate their perspective, take the headlines as gospel truth and react accordingly. And well, basically, if I took all the same headlines as gospel truth, I'd hate me too.

So even if I think such people are wrong, I at least can kind of understand it.

But what I can't do is get through to people who legitimately say "I ain't reading that" to anything more than a few sentences. If somebody is completely not operating in good faith or even reading anything that challenges them, you by definition can't get through to them.

I'd be open to calmly talking to just about anybody here, and I think we could make some progress, and both learn from each other. But first you'd have to find a person here willing to have such a discussion, and I think many such people have been driven away, and some of the most vocal people aren't interested in that kind of thing at all.

But I think there are still plenty, and probably more than you'd think. It's just unfortunate that the least constructive people on the internet are often the loudest.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Agreed. Early on that card was so powerful that people legitimately played it defending Ghostbusters 2016. "You only hate it because it stars women." When like, no, it's just a movie that sucks.

And a lot of the arguments never made sense, like "men dislike strong female characters", and like T2, Aliens are super beloved and always have been. Mad Max came out in 2015, and the same people who got called "people who hate strong female characters" from 2016-2021 loved that movie.

Some of this woke shit was honestly just brands realizing they could be lazier if they tried to turn criticisms against them into political nonsense. Sure Disney filmed near like a Chinese concentration cap for Mulan, but she's a girlboss now with no weaknesses, so if you dislike the movie you are a bigot!

It's ridiculous that it ever kind of worked. But I'm glad it's just about done.

Intro2Logic posted...

Well, to give one example, he had Elon Musk on to discuss the "woke mind virus"

Wouldn't removing the dumb parts from the left help the left and not the right?

Trump got votes because of people pissed off at Hillary. I honestly think that if Trump weren't on the ballot but instead people could just vote for an inanimate rock with the words "Fuck you, Hillary Clinton" on it, that rock also would have won. Hell, I might have voted for that rock, and I didn't vote for Trump.

IMO You don't solve a problem by ignoring the main complaints. And some the main complaints about the modern left are about a handful of woke things that like 70+% of americans think are a stupid distraction that don't help people and often makes things worse.

Wouldn't removing the bad parts of the democrats make them stronger not weaker to the far right?