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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Shut the fuck up joe

Joe Numbers: "How could this person have turned out to be taking advantage of me? They never told me they were doing so to my face. They never beat me up and took my wallet."

i pooped a huge log just now

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.

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.

You've held the rhetoric of trans people and their allies up to the absurd standard of "does this allow any possibility for anyone to possibly misinterpret it too broadly?" while more or less ignoring the given examples of conservative rhetoric and legislation on the issue.

[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.

i love how all joeynumbers examples of thing dems mistakenly say are actually true, and how every time he gets called out on that, he just soldiers on and does it again a few posts later.

He's been at this for nearly a week now. I'm astonished he hasn't been given another timeout yet.

Medussa posted...

i love how all joeynumbers examples of thing dems mistakenly say are actually true, and how every time he gets called out on that, he just soldiers on and does it again a few posts later.

You can also wait a few months and he'll come back with something similar for a new topic and conveniently forget about everything said in this one

joe40001 posted...

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.

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?

Now, if one were to accept your narrow definition of genocide: how do you get from here to mass murder? Isn't ostracization and demonization (and again, I mean that literally: https://www.advocate.com/politics/florida-barnaby-transgender-people-demons) a necessary prerequisite in order to create the grounds for mass murder? At what point are people allowed to recognize a pattern, when one appears?

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/03/29/republican-trans-robert-foster-mississippi-politician-trans-firing-squad/

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"

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?

Never seen so much concern trolling from one TC before. Or at least not in a long time.

joe40001 posted...

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

What does "eradicated from public life entirely" mean to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU9y9dcM5NQ

Sometimes the truth and lies are on opposite sides and there really isn't a special super truth to be found by trying to acknowledge the value of both

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.

Shut the fuck up already TC.

The genocide could have already elevated to the machine gun last resort, and Joe would still be combing over links to the Missouri gender-affirming care ban to determine if it's truly restrictive enough to justify trans people and allies being upset by it. "Surely the Republicans aren't trying to eliminate trans people and do so out of malice. Letting emotion obfuscate the accuracy of language is just going to hurt the dialogue between both sides and prevent everyone from reaching a compromise."

joe40001 posted...

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.

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.

joe40001 posted...

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

No.

Because that cannot be proven.

We can only suspect given what we see them say and do, and draw conclusions.

And right now, looking at the given evidence, I'd say it's at absolute best giving-way-too-much-benefit-of-the-doubt "inconclusive" whether Republicans are trying to mass murder LGBTQ people or not trying to do that.

And that on its own is more than enough cause for concern. If we cannot casually determine whether or not our elected officials are fully intending to mass murder their citizens, we do not have adequate elected officials.

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.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You don't see it, because IMO you are in a bubble, but somebody can literally make the same type of argument from a republican bubble point of view. I've seen that kind of argument argument from real people. They argue bullshit like: "read between the lines, you think they aren't trying to groom kids? Then why are they doing drag time story hour? Drag shows are sexualized! (Points to a random drag video that does seem sexual) Why are they telling boys they are girls, and girls they are boys, and confusing them all? Remember how we were told it would stop with legalizing gay marriage and that any arguments otherwise were 'slippery slope fallacies'? Well, we were right to doubt that. It's not slippery slope, it's occams razor, etc..." (In all honestly they usually use even more severe rhetoric, but I don't want to repeat it because I think you get the point)

They will point to some youtube video or news story reporting on like the most extreme leftist gender thing in san francisco and be certain that it represents a national commonplace thing that is part of this big agenda from the democrats to idk turn all the kids gay or trans or confused or whatever.

And I've seen people talk this nonsense and I do try to get through to them. Because the only reason they think the way they think is because they are in a bubble they only shows them things that validate their pre-held beliefs.

For another comparison, let's take the word "grooming":

I'm guessing when you hear "grooming" to you it implies grooming children for sex with adults, that honestly is what it sounds like to me. But honestly, the groom/genocide comparison is a good example of bubble thing and needless ambiguity. Republicans can say "democrats are literally grooming children!" and then if you push them "what you do specifically mean by that?" and they can be like:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groom
to get into readiness for a specific objective : PREPARE

"I wasn't implying pedophilia! just that they were preparing them for indoctrination into leftist woke gender ideology!".

And it's shit like this where I get frustrated. People will use these terms, and anybody with sense can see others (particularly their political opposition) are going to interpret them in the most inflammatory extreme way.

So yeah, just like I don't buy it when a republican says "groomer" but pretends like they didn't mean to imply grooming for child sex, I also don't buy the whole "genocide isn't meant to imply mass murder." Both sides know what they are doing. They are using willfully inflammatory rhetoric that isn't "technically" inaccurate but paints the most extreme and emotional picture possible.

So much of the population can't get past rhetoric and that kind of shit gets us stuck. Some democrats repeat the word genocide and republicans think they are being accused of mass murder, some republicans repeat the word grooming and democrats think they are being accused of child sex rings. And both sides indulge this rather than cutting the bullshit hostility through calm, clear specificity.

And while it's clearly different, I do find some people in this topic to be in a similar kind of bubble to the bubbles I see republicans in. You really think 25% of the country (republicans) are working towards mass murder of LGBTQ people, and that 50% of the country (independents) are a-ok with it? Really?

I think you'd acknowledge that the republican's POV I discussed earlier is clearly delusional and is likely the result of them watching right-wing sensationalized news all day that feeds him this horseshit and never exposes him to anything that challenges it, right?

I'm not drawing an equivalence to you, but would you allow for the possibility that on some small scale that might be happening to you or the other people in this topic who think republicans want genocide?

Do you acknowledge the possibility that such a dramatic characterization of the scenario might be the product of watching a lot of sensationalized news, commentary, opinion, etc that all points in the same direction?

Here's a different question: If I were talking to a republican who was in a bubble believing an extreme and false narrative about the democratic agenda, what do you think I should say to them to most effectively challenge their perception?

PS: I am not directing my frustration at anybody in this topic, while I do find this kind of low-resolution high-emotion rhetoric frustrating and counter-productive for society, I don't fault, judge, or hate those who employ it. (I try not to hate anybody). These are important issues that people have strong feelings about. It can be very hard to be nuanced while emotional, particularly if your emotions have been manipulated by businesses who profit off of your engagement (and thus outrage). So even if I sound cold or robotic sometimes, I am sympathetic towards the fears and suffering of everybody.

CyricZ posted...

No.

Because that cannot be proven.

We can only suspect given what we see them say and do, and draw conclusions.

And right now, looking at the given evidence, I'd say it's at absolute best giving-way-too-much-benefit-of-the-doubt "inconclusive" whether Republicans are trying to mass murder LGBTQ people or not trying to do that.

And that on its own is more than enough cause for concern. If we cannot casually determine whether or not our elected officials are fully intending to mass murder their citizens, we do not have adequate elected officials.

Personally, I feel quite confident that our elected officials are not fully intending to mass murder their citizens. And I would speculate most all independents would feel the same way.

Ironically you'd probably have to get all the way to the far-right before you would again encounter people who start believing the government intends to mass murder it's citizens.

joe40001 posted...

Personally, I feel quite confident that our elected officials are not fully intending to mass murder their citizens.

well, i'll concede that. they just want to make our lives so miserable that we'll do it ourselves. but that's a distinction without a difference. and, again, there literally are Robert Fosters out there literally calling for mass executions.

How the fuck is OP not banned yet?

joe40001 posted...

(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.

You're certainly testing the limits of my civility. I can't help you if your response to LGBTQ people and their concerns is "I get you're upset, but you're in a political bubble and not handling this the way an outside observer like me believes is correct. Honestly, you're fundamentally behaving exactly like that other side that thinks you're pedophiles and threats to America." You're essentially saying you care more about harmony and good outcomes for all than the people being hurt.

You aren't allowing LGBTQ people to be emotional. You're saying they need to have their emotional moment, get it all out, and then they need to realize a lack of effort to educate the "other side" is responsible for the confused Republican stance and we need to all work on a compromise. Because you have admitted you don't actually know much about anything going on and need to do more research, but you definitely know there is no way anyone with any kind of platform or power in America is being malicious towards LGBTQ people.

simple question, joe:

what's your solution for when you calmly, emotionlessly, educate the republican party members, they calmly, emotionlessly listen to everything you have say, and then they ignore it all and pass all the bills they were planning to pass all along?

because that's reality right now. you really think no one has tried to talk this through? that you're going to come in and save us by having the conversation we never even considered having? really?

Medussa posted...

simple question, joe:

what's your solution for when you calmly, emotionlessly, educate the republican party members, they calmly, emotionlessly listen to everything you have say, and then they ignore it all and pass all the bills they were planning to pass all along?

because that's reality right now. you really think no one has tried to talk this through? that you're going to come in and save us by having the conversation we never even considered having? really?

He really does. Joe is the same guy that wondered for years when people were going to try to actually present facts and research to anti-vaxxers instead of shaming and insulting them. He truly believes the only reason someone wouldn't agree with you is because you didn't hit them with enough fact-based evidence and skillful debate. Everyone needs to get along, but apparently it's mostly on the shoulders of LGBTQ people to convince everyone else that they are cool and worthy of equal rights.

hockeybub89 posted...

You're certainly testing the limits of my civility. I can't help you if your response to LGBTQ people and their concerns is "I get you're upset, but you're in a political bubble and not handling this the way an outside observer like me believes is correct. Honestly, you're fundamentally behaving exactly like that other side that thinks you're pedophiles and threats to America." You're essentially saying you care more about harmony and good outcomes for all than the people being hurt.

You aren't allowing LGBTQ people to be emotional. You're saying they need to have their emotional moment, get it all out, and then they need to realize a lack of effort to educate the "other side" is responsible for the confused Republican stance and we need to all work on a compromise. Because you have admitted you don't actually know much about anything going on and need to do more research, but you definitely know there is no way anyone with any kind of platform or power in America is being malicious towards LGBTQ people.

I'm sorry you are interpreting it that way. How you are characterizing what I am saying is not accurate to what I am attempting to express.

I am not saying anybody needs to do anything, I just personally have a perspective about what is most effective, and was sharing that perspective. Nobody has to behave in a way I find most optimal, I make no demands or requirements of people in that regard. Rather I am expressing my opinion of what is most likely to help, not what is required. I am sympathetic towards people having emotional responses, and even if those responses IMO aren't useful towards the relevant goals, I would not deny a person a right to have such a response.

People are allowed their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Me disagreeing with a perspective is not me arguing that such a perspective should not be allowed to exist. I am quite pro free-speech (and freedom in general) and would not take such a position.

https://imgur.com/a/DpHWAh1

Medussa posted...

well, i'll concede that. they just want to make our lives so miserable that we'll do it ourselves. but that's a distinction without a difference. and, again, there literally are Robert Fosters out there literally calling for mass executions.

They are literally calling for mass executions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU9y9dcM5NQ

That's Fox News channel. Not some random blogger.

joe40001 posted...

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 actually agree with this. If in order to "persuade" these independent voters so that they vote for my candidates and policies, I have to butter them up and stoke the right emotional cords in them, then I will do it. Even if it means I have to swallow every ounce of ego and dignity that I have.

But do not misunderstand me here...I think it's fucking insulting not just to the intelligence of the independent voters, but also to the minority group that depends on these policies passing. I speak more about this in my post earlier (post #79).

People are emotional, I fully agree. People can be told and shown credible facts that a policy is beneficial to them and others, but you say it in the wrong tone, and it doesn't matter anymore. It's stupid, but it's how we are. But this is not a trait or method of argumentation that we should be advancing and giving credence to. All this talk about persuasion and having logical debates when in the end you're (not you specifically Joe) just trying to use your own version of emotional rhetoric. It's all fucking rhetoric. Don't feel high and mighty because you deem yours to be "logical"

joe40001 posted...

Personally, I feel quite confident that our elected officials are not fully intending to mass murder their citizens. And I would speculate most all independents would feel the same way.

Ironically you'd probably have to get all the way to the far-right before you would again encounter people who start believing the government intends to mass murder it's citizens.

So, as someone who claims to be against ambiguity, you have decided, in the absence of a clear message from the Republicans, to just... assume that they're not acting in a manner indicative of genocide.

Your answer to the ambiguity from the Republicans is to remove that ambiguity on their behalf, rather than challenge them to do so themselves.

I feel like growing up on CE has trained me to immediately pick out the clowns.

Anyway, back to lurking for a year.

Medussa posted...

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/03/29/republican-trans-robert-foster-mississippi-politician-trans-firing-squad/

Jesus mf christ

Tyranthraxus posted...

They are literally calling for mass executions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU9y9dcM5NQ

That's Fox News channel. Not some random blogger.

I mean he clearly said "transgenderism" and "ideology". Referring to the ideology and not the people.

That's simply not "literally calling for mass executions."

Don't get me wrong, he is clearly not tolerant of transgenderism at all, but that video clip is not a call to violence. You could accuse it of being a dog-whistle towards violence, but there are almost verbatim statements made by some on the left about the patriarchy or about the police.

I bet you have occasion to be around people who might call for the patriarchy to be torn down, wiped from the face of the earth, etc. Or people who say "all cops are bastards", and we need to "get rid of" the police, or something like that. Do you interpret those people as calling for mass executions?

I mean if you do in the latter case then yes I will grant you that the clip you posted would be equivalent. I wouldn't believe the former or the latter would be calls for mass murder, but if you believe both are then you are consistent in your principles of assessment.

However if you believe things like "when the far left calls to destroy, eliminate, or tear down some group or institution it is not a call for violence." then I don't know how you can in good faith claim the same kind of rhetoric from a political opponent as clearly a call for violence.

joe40001 posted...

I mean he clearly said "transgenderism" and "ideology". Referring to the ideology and not the people.

That's simply not "literally calling for mass executions."

Again, what do you think he meant when he said "eradicated from public life entirely"? And how do you eradicate transgenderism when there's a transgender person in the room with you without also eradicating the person?

emblem-man posted...

I actually agree with this. If in order to "persuade" these independent voters so that they vote for my candidates and policies, I have to butter them up and stoke the right emotional cords in them, then I will do it. Even if it means I have to swallow every ounce of ego and dignity that I have.

But do not misunderstand me here...I think it's fucking insulting not just to the intelligence of the independent voters, but also to the minority group that depends on these policies passing. I speak more about this in my post earlier (post #79).

People are emotional, I fully agree. People can be told and shown credible facts that a policy is beneficial to them and others, but you say it in the wrong tone, and it doesn't matter anymore. It's stupid, but it's how we are. But this is not a trait or method of argumentation that we should be advancing and giving credence to. All this talk about persuasion and having logical debates when in the end you're (not you specifically Joe) just trying to use your own version of emotional rhetoric. It's all fucking rhetoric. Don't feel high and mighty because you deem yours to be "logical"

Thank you for your response, and your acknowledgement of the utility of pragmatism.

To your other points: I disagree that it is all rhetoric. I also disagree that what is necessary is an insincere "buttering up". To me, most on the left (or at least the semi-far left types on say this forum or twitter) seem almost repulsed at the idea of showing anything but contempt for somebody not 100% on their side.*

Even in your response, (and I consider you a very calm and reasonable person), there seems to be a clear indication that talking with and hiding your contempt for independent voters nearly makes you sick.

Granted, you may be picturing a person who is entertaining far-right talking points. In which case your response might make sense. But if you are picturing somebody who agrees with you on everything but "transwomen in sports", or agrees with you on everything except "under-18 trans related surgical interventions", is that person still really that bad in your ideas?

I'm genuinely curious, where for you the line between "person I happen to disagree with" ends and "person who disgusts me with their views but I must pander to if I want to achieve progress" begins. Because for some people in this topic, it feels like that line is about 1-inch from where their opinions are. I'm not accusing that of you, because I genuinely find you measured and reflective, but I am curious, if you are comfortable sharing. Where that line is for you?

PS: *=For the record, many many many many people on the right are like this too.

CyricZ posted...

So, as someone who claims to be against ambiguity, you have decided, in the absence of a clear message from the Republicans, to just... assume that they're not acting in a manner indicative of genocide.

Your answer to the ambiguity from the Republicans is to remove that ambiguity on their behalf, rather than challenge them to do so themselves.

What do you think compels you to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt on this? Is it a desire to simply hope things will turn for the best? Is it a general presumption that people just would rather have a simple societal sense of order rather than entertaining the idea that there are people who do seek dominance and oppression?

I'm not assuming that. If there were any republicans here I would definitely press them to be more specific about what they think. I do that when I interact with them. I also talk them down from attributing BS motives and agendas about the left.

If they were throwing around the word groomer, I would be like "hold up, what exactly do you mean by that?". Inflammatory ambiguity like that really does bother me.

This is very much a principled stance that I'm consistent on, but there's basically nobody on gamefaqs here on the right for me to do it towards. Is there a single person in this topic taking even the mild right position? I'm probably coming across as the most "right-wing" person in this topic and literally all I'm claiming is that I don't think it's probable that most republicans want to commit mass murder.

And insofar as I am claiming that I don't think their agenda is mass murder, that claim comes from a belief/principle of mine that "it is not prudent or productive to assume the worst of those you don't agree with."

Because honestly how can somebody expect to have a good understanding of the thoughts and beliefs of somebody they hate? By virtue of hating them, you almost certainly are unable to relate to their perspective, or see the world through their eyes. And if that's the case, how can you be sure you know what they are really thinking or believing?

And that applies to society as a whole IMO. It's no good when the right does it to the left, and it's no good when the left does it to the right.

And that principle is related to another principle I have which is "if a conclusion is incredibly convenient relative to my beliefs, it probably isn't comprehensively true."

It would be delusional narcissism for me to think my beliefs as they currently are, are 100% on the money. Even from a probability standpoint, such a thing is effectively impossible. And so if I only ever entertain ideas that don't challenge me at all, I likely don't hold true beliefs, because they have never been challenged in such a way as to expose their flaws. To be well informed you have to allow for the possibility you are wrong in some way.

And when I go into these bubbles that's most of all I see, people who conveniently are sure that people who they disagree with are literally evil monsters who literally want for the world, the worst things imaginable. There was some fairly recent poll, I need to look it up, but it was something like half of democrats think republicans are morally reprehensible, and half of republicans think democrats are morally reprehensible.

And as an outsider, I think that is awfully convenient. To believe "The world is good guys and bad guys, and I am on the good team, and everybody who disagrees with me is evil. And they are so evil I don't even really need to consider their humanity, let alone consider there might be an infinitesimally small chance any of their perspectives have merit at all."

I couldn't take my judgement seriously if I indulged that premise. That's why I come to places like GameFAQs. Not because I like being called insulting names, or feeling people's hate at me. It's honestly rather unpleasant. I honestly could feel much better, smarter, and happier if I just found a good bubble of independents and yucked up insults about the stupidity and moral failings of the "political tribal normies". But that wouldn't help me learn and grow. If I don't challenge my ideas, I will never find the flaws in them, and honestly it's hubris to assume my (or anybody's) beliefs as they exist right now are perfect.

Anyway, all of that is a bit of a tangent, but all of it is to say that generally:
IMO ambiguity is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.
IMO inflammatory rhetoric is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.
IMO assuming the worst of those who you disagree with is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.
IMO assuming you have nothing to learn from those you politically disagree with is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.

These are principles that I believe across the board, and apply them universally. The only reason you don't see me doing that to republicans here or in defense of democrats here is because there are no republicans here and there are no democrats being attacked here.

Well, there goes the mask. Guess I won't be getting an answer to #182. I figured he had me on his ignore list and wasn't even seeing my posts. But that reply proves he can at least see the quotes, and is just actively ignoring me.

Medussa posted...

Well, there goes the mask. Guess I won't be getting an answer to #182. I figured he had me on his ignore list and wasn't even seeing my posts. But that reply proves he can at least see the quotes, and is just actively ignoring me.

Relax, I didn't see it. I try to start with the last post I saw and respond in order, but sometimes if I've clicked the new messages notification earlier, it will jump me past a post that I haven't yet responded to.

I apologize if you felt skipped. It was not my intent. I will respond to your post now.

Medussa posted...

simple question, joe:

what's your solution for when you calmly, emotionlessly, educate the republican party members, they calmly, emotionlessly listen to everything you have say, and then they ignore it all and pass all the bills they were planning to pass all along?

because that's reality right now. you really think no one has tried to talk this through? that you're going to come in and save us by having the conversation we never even considered having? really?

How a republican politician votes is downstream of a lot of things, such as political incentives, particularly their desire to not get primaried from within their own party. If you wanted to reduce political extremism you'd likely have to change to open primaries so that political officials wouldn't have to pander to the base.

When I talk about discourse I was more referring to discourse and consensus shifting among the general public, and not directly changing politicians themselves. What that would look like is that you are able to get far right voters to understand that it isn't literally groomers, and that when right wing talking heads use the word "groomer" they are being willfully ambiguous and inflammatory. You likely won't convince a person on the far right that transitioning is good for anybody, that it doesn't "physically/mentally damage people" or whatever they think. But you would shift them away from out-and-out "they are all coming for my children!!!!" transphobia.

And then you can make even more progress with people closer to you ideologically. These are the people whose votes will make a difference towards the outcomes you want, because if you are calm enough to talk with them without expressing contempt for them, they might grow more sympathetic to the cause and thus towards voting for politicians that were sympathetic to the cause.

And to your question of "you really think no one has tried to talk this through? that you're going to come in and save us by having the conversation we never even considered having? really?"

I wouldn't say "no one" has tried it. But I would say that the large majority of what I see are people having contempt for those they even mildly politically disagree with, rather than having this kind of civil discourse I support.

Is it a cure all? No. But it helps more than ambiguous inflammatory rhetoric and angry yelling.
Has no one tried it? No. Some have, but most of what I see is the ambiguous inflammatory rhetoric and angry yelling.

"If you try really hard, maybe you can get them to stop believing you're pedophiles, but still that you're crazy and hurting yourself, so maybe that will make them stop passing oppressive laws"

jesus