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

(+) Yeah! (+)

joe40001 posted...

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?

Those things are fair to argue about, but the talking points sometimes go far further than that, and at that point one should know that it's not about concerns about sports or well-being but just hostility.

joe40001 posted...

IMO ambiguity is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.

So your only excuse for not challenging conservative ambiguity is "well, I just don't see any around here"?

I would think you're not looking hard enough, or caring hard enough to challenge conservative viewpoints, because those do exist on this site.

On topics on the death penalty, I don't see you challenging the ambiguity of wanting capital punishment "in some cases", a conservative viewpoint.

In the topic on protesting in the UK, I don't see you challenging the ambiguity of arresting people for protesting, a conservative viewpoint.

If you're going to declare yourself such an anti-ambiguity champion, and then not demonstrate when certain viewpoints come up, you will find people making observational judgments on what you believe and don't believe to be this "ambiguity" you say you're so against.

Conservative viewpoints exist on this very board, and your silence to them speaks volumes.

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.

Do you believe in meeting Republicans half way politically? On what issues?

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."

What is this weird flux you're in where you acknowledge you weren't aware of something, but then refuse to actually use the information you're given to reach anything resembling a sensible point?

"Transgenderism" as an ideology isn't a thing. Being transgender is not something that is taught, it's a state of being that you have from birth. It's biological. There's been a conscious effort from the right to paint being trans as an ideology that children are being groomed into. They are talking about trans people when they talk about the ideology. They believe trans people merely existing in public is enough to influence kids, so yes, they're talking about eradicating trans people.

joe40001 posted...

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.

My contempt is not for the independent voters. It's for those who try to use "logical" persuasion of independence voters as a rhetorical tool and denigrate other views as being "emotional" in an attempt to minimize them.

Persuasion that I don't think is even logical in the first place. Like I said, I think it's all rhetoric.

joe40001 posted...

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?

Na. Even Contrapoints said that she understands transpeople in sports is an issue still open for discussion.

joe40001 posted...

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?

Disgust is a strong word that I'm going to push back against here. Some of the anti trans rhetoric and opinions are based on fear and moral panic and I find it disheartening that people have fallen for it. It's sad and based on fear of the unknown and it ultimates ends up making the lives of others worse. But if it's possible to, without having to denigrate minorities (as in asking them to keep hiding, etc.), then I will pander to them to gain their vote. I don't find them disgusting.

The only people in that area who actually truly disgust me are the people like your Tucker's, Micheal Knowles, Matt Walsh, Crowder, and politicians who are in that same area.

joe40001 posted...

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."

Isn't it awfully convenient for you, in this topic where you've downplayed Republicans' intentions and policies regarding trans people, to conclude that the guy talking about eliminating transgenderism doesn't mean trans people by that? Rather than seek to prod the ambiguity in his statement, the way you do with comments about healthcare and genocide you immediately conclude that his intent is the least abhorrent possible. That seems a little convenient, to me.

There's a pattern where you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to some while tut-tutting what you perceive as rhetorical excesses from others.

joe40001 posted...

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?

Being a cop is a job. It's not an inherent quality to a group of people.

What do you think "transgenderism," as an "ideology", is? Could you clarify that ambiguity?

Joe being transphobic? No way. Not again.

Oh no the dialogue.

What'll I do with my day.

I may as well start up my livestream on Twitch shortly (4PM EDT).

There has been some very good dialogue about trans issues in here. Of course none of it has come from the latently MAPsexual Joe Numbers but, regardless