Current Events > Just watched the recent ContraPoints video on JK Rowling

(+) Yeah! (+)

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".

For those of you keeping count at home, joenumbers has referred to Contrapoints as they, them, and it so far in this topic, but never she or her. Impressive stuff.

Covid misinformation and pushing horse paste

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You claim u crave some nuanced debates, so why not think about actual issues that have some room for gray areas.

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.

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 did they explicitly write 'I hate trans people and will personally behead them with a hatchet'? I am a very nuanced debater that doesn't just look at things on the surface level."

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.

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 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.

I don't give a fuck about any "Internet bubble".

I feel like this really can't be stressed enough

People like TC and the others that show up regularly to have "nuanced debate" on trans issues treat this as some sort of debate platform that only exists on the internet, like we only talk about this stuff because we spend too much time online. That's all it is to them, because the issue pretty much disappears whenever they put their phones down. The rest of us that are the targets of this big movement against LGBTQ+ people don't get the luxury of stepping away from the debate, we carry it with us everywhere we go, especially those living in conservative ruled areas.

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

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.

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.