Doesn’t that give credibility to their arguments though?
I mean yes they are full of shit. But being full of shit is acceptable practice. So therefore they are not full of shit.
Your argument implies that people suffering the full range of gender dysphoria and/or intersex conditions, which affect as many as one out of a hundred human beings, are transitioning to win at sports rather than to reduce the suffering and trauma that would in many cases drive them to suicide.
Irrespective of whether athletes who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to compete, that’s a garbage argument and you should be very careful to make clear that you are not making it.
1 Like
In the first place, some of them will transition to dominate sports, and win prizes, and fame.
In the second place, the trans population have a seven times greater rate of articulating suicidal ideations, or self-reporting they had unsuccessful suicide rates, than general pop,
But that is NOT the same as being at greater risk of really committing suicide.
In the U.S. over 3/4 of the successful, meaning real suicide attempts are committed by middle aged, straight, white, males, who almost never make self-reports of suicidal ideations, before hand,
with the only by percentage demographic with a greater claim being Native American males, in the U.S., anyway.
So @BrevardFighter does not need to make that argument, I’ll simply state those facts.
And, I am very careful, when it comes to real data.
But, by all means,
If a child threatens to hold their breath,
Let’s buy them cotton candy,
and let them be rude to the wait staff,
and the parents,
and everybody else.
I would have thought it would be younger males. The 16 to 25 set.
Your argument doesn’t really follow. They are full of shit and the “acceptable practice” being the Friend Enemy Distinction doesn’t mean they aren’t full of shit, it just means that it doesn’t matter as much as you would think.
When it comes to politics, the peasantry in the Global North are like that guy from Kung Pow: we have been taught wrong on purpose. That’s why the reality of politics seems counterintuitive to the average Western person who thinks they are paying attention to politics. Generally the masses have not been given, and it could be argued they have purposefully been kept away from, an education on the reality of politics and instead have been taught a given narrative of “Democracy”. This is why there are still mainstream Conservatives who can’t help but “imagine if a conservative did this” in the face of their political enemies exercising actual power.
Part of opening my eyes to this as an American born in the peasant class was the, basically, fluke of post 9/11 military service that allowed me to use the Chapter 33 GI Bill to try and change my social class in the classically understood Boomer way. I was lucky to be able to see what the people who actually “do” politics tell each other and themselves about politics.
I don’t care why they are doing what they do, frankly. I just can’t help but enjoy the schadenfreude of the whole political dynamic. Basically people who consider me a political enemy are turning the individual parts of their coalition against each other. Ryan Grim at the Intercept put out an interesting article outlining how this is also happening in ostensibly leftist NGOs and media spaces; they are imploding from infighting. And eventually it will come to a head where one member of the coalition will feel they are being sidelined for a smaller part of the coalition.
But that’s really what is at the root of this whole thing i.e. “wokeness” and the backlash against it. What is popularly considered “wokeness”, basically Critical Theory and its offshoots, is just a tool for intra-elite competition in the same way historically being a more pious Christian would have been. It’s made its way downward into the Professional Managerial Class (white collar educated middle class) for at least two reasons: Professional Managerial Class people “acting upward” (for a lack of better phrase) in class signaling, and second because of the ever growing gaze of power on the middle and working classes.
So in this dynamic, that larger member of the political coalition this fight in happening in can’t really articulate their problem while still remaining a member of the political coalition.
Wait. But you are basically saying in politics people will basically commit conformation bias to further their self interest.
So for example in the same school shooting there is evidence that there are not enough guns in society and too many guns in society. Depending whether you want guns or you don’t want guns.
Which i didn’t exactly think was a super secret.
I am saying that in politics the Friend Enemy Distinction means at it’s most basic “If my friend does it, it is good. If my enemy does it, it is bad.” This is regardless of stated principles.
For example, if the speech of your enemy is curtailed it’s “freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.” If the speech of your friend is curtailed then “what about freedom of speech?” If your enemy engages in violence then it’s an epidemic of political violence. If your friend engages in violence then it’s “the language of the unheard”.
And this extends to rhetoric as well. If your friend does something you will engage in whatever rhetorical gymnastics to support it. And if your enemy does something you will engage in the same level of rhetorical gymnastics to condemn it.
“Which i didn’t exactly think was super secret.”
It’s a “secret” in that people still think pointing out hypocrisy is an effective political tactic. It’s not; it is in fact counterproductive because it signals a position of weakness and you can’t build support if you appear weak. People won’t admit it individually but the human tendency is more often than not to bandwagon. There’s still this idea that if we just have a “free market of ideas” then the most rational, logical, ethical ideas will win out. This is no more true than the idea that the majority impose their will upon the state via “democracy” to effect policy outcomes; in reality it is top down. Elites impose their will to effect policy outcomes and the majority adapt their opinions to suit. This is true even in our “democracy” e.g. gay marriage.
BLUF: politically, a sound argument doesn’t matter. That’s Aaron Sorkin tier brainwashing. What matters is power. When you have it you exercise it to protect your friends and frustrate or punish your enemies. Everyone else who aren’t your enemies but aren’t your friends i.e. the “moderate majority”, normies, “the people” or whatever you want to call them go along to get along.
So this basically.
To the one point, yes sort of. In current US politics “Democracy” really means “outcomes I like” and “Fascism” means “outcomes I don’t like”. And something your clip from Yes Minister demonstrates is what power in a “democracy” actually looks like, that is having control over the processes of the state.
This is at the heart of the power of “the Deep State” (unelected bureaucracy which maintains continuity of government between elected administrations"). They don’t have to have the “Constitutional authority” to govern when they can control the processes of governance. In our current system as it exists, the POTUS could be eliminated as an elected position and the rest of the government would continue on without real issue. This is what Trump found out when he took office. Almost immediately the entire executive branch of our government began working to undermine his authority as the CinC. And they were successful not because they could openly oppose the POTUS as employees of the executive branch serving at the pleasure of the POTUS but because they control the processes of government.
Didn’t all the recent SCOTUS members promise not to mess with precedents such a RvW?
I’d love to see some evidence to supports this claim
Not in the U.S.
The middle aged, white, straight guys commit the majority of the successful suicides here.
The demographic you mention does seem to be risk loving and have impulse control problems, though compared to general pop.
1 Like
So what? Didn’t the type of Liberal currently in power promise not to mess with, for example, freedom of speech?
Well it turns out when you are in a position of weakness you show deference to the regime, when you are in a position of power you exercise that power to punish your political enemies and/or reward your political friends.
I prefer my top judges to not lie in order to further their political or religious agenda
But that’s just me
I prefer the elites who share my politics to understand how politics actually works. I want my elites to understand the Friend Enemy Distinction; our political enemies certainly do.
Regardless of agreeing or disagreeing, surely judges need to be truthful
Telling barefaced lies to members of a co-equal branch seems unethical and potentially illegal
Sure. After my political enemies are held accountable for their lies I will worry about holding my side accountable.
That is unfortunate.