Yeah, and it’s not only that. I think I am probably wrong about some stuff and that is making my life worse.
one example is dating. first, the life worse stuff: if I have more of a negative/pessimistic view, that’s going to mean I do it less or don’t try, and that has worse outcomes compared to having an optimistic view (even if it’s wrong). So I’d prefer to have a more positive view on dating, but I can’t make myself believe something just for that reason. Maybe I could expose myself to a bunch of content where people say good things about it, but IDK where to find that.
am I wrong though? Well arguably something’s misaligned because it should be possible to have an accurate appraisal of the situation and not be miserable, but also I won’t find out if I’m wrong if I don’t discuss.
Some things, yes, but tbh I don’t know why I care about the trans stuff. I do want kids and want to protect them from developmental interference, so that’s part of it maybe. I also think how it’s being handled (pre-trump US and around the UK/EU/etc) is an example of how the left doesn’t really care about reality compared to either feelings or votes or ideology or something.
Yeah, starting with BFITF. I haven’t always had the above goal front of mind when responding to stuff though.
Small minority, maybe. Like there definitely is a problematic subsubculture but it’s not the norm.
Yep, probably not entirely, but mostly.
The ideas one holds are a big reason for the ways that one feels and acts and reacts and all that. They are the dominant factor, I think. In practice this means I think it’s possible to gaslight someone or yourself into believing basically anything. That’s why it’s important to ground things outside of the human experience where possible.
Also like anorexia, it seems to be a phenomenon that didn’t really exist before people learnt about it. (This is probably contentious, some academic must maintain a list of historical maybe-trans cases, right? Also I’m not talking about cases of culturally-imposed non-heteronormative gender stuff; but my impression is that I should be against that kind of thing for the same reason I should be against the patriarchy.)
Do you deny it’s happening though?
Also the groomers don’t have to be trans, or be ‘real’ trans if they are. Also grooming doesn’t need to be sexual for the groomer, just gently nudging the kid towards a radical life change they otherwise wouldn’t pick counts as grooming IMO. so an adult suggesting to a confused kid that they might be trans is grooming. IDK what psychologists do to determine the difference between a gay kid and a trans kid, but if they can’t do that reliably and are biased and tell the kid they might be trans, that’s grooming. Also, just on psychologists, if there’s any negligence, that’s also grooming (eg literally flipping a coin, not being appropriately critical and humble, letting ideology influence their diagnosis, etc). Maybe that’s not technically grooming, but it’s obviously not right. I don’t know how much that happens except that it probably does at least a little.
I think preposterous here is describing my view, right? Because I thought we agreed that HRT doesn’t turn you into a woman, I guess it works either way. Regarding what proportion of them think that, IDK. Maybe I’m not giving trans people enough credit and the vast majority realize it’s incoherent. So IDK. Obviously some people do think that because we saw them.
I think these standards are too high. Why would (B) even be one of my goals? The question of (C) is kind of circular, but I get the gist: compatible with intuition. What does ‘actionable’ mean and what are the actions?
In terms of criticisms of what I’ve suggested before, from memory we had loki’s wager (thanks Dev) and, if we were strict about bathrooms, some harassing of cis women because they don’t look enough like women (eg short hair, small breasts, muscular, tall, etc, or some combination; hell, even butch lesbians might get harassed). I can’t remember if there are more.
If we want to go back to that topic we can, but I reject the criteria.
Not sure I said he’s a good news source. But I also think he’s crass, hypocritical on some things, inflammatory, sometimes disingenuous, sometimes does call out the right and sometimes doesn’t, and combative.
Is the the barbeque question a thing where you are? The idea is that you pick people you’d invite to a barbeque. example. Anyway I was thinking about this re: asmongold, and I don’t think I’d get on with him in person, so I wouldn’t invite him. Maybe this isn’t indicative of anything important.
One thing I should mention: I deliberately didn’t mention things I didn’t like about him before. I knew this would probably mislead you by playing into your biases. I also think you’ve essentially done the same, though. Thinking about this more generally, I think doing it knowingly probably counts as bad faith.
Broadly, I’d like to apologize for those times.
In the near term, yeah socially, but not generally necessarily. Things aren’t going how they were promised (including economically), and if that’s the case, maybe we should reconsider our policies. Also I think resisting such a reduction or actively encouraging the opposite (esp via illegal immigration) is somewhat-to-very inflammatory at the moment. I don’t see how tolerating thousands-to-millions of illegal undocumented immigrants is good or economically beneficial (except if you’re rich because underclass to exploit) or, for govt, doing right by your citizens or fiduciary duty as a government/representative. Welfare programs make this problem worse. If, at some point, the pragmatic decision is to reduce immigration, not because of the immigrants but because of reactionary xenophobia, then even in this case I still think it’s the right thing to do if the alternative means civil strife. It’s better to be less permissive temporarily so that the discussion can be less heated.
Also note that I think UK and EU are probably worse in this regard than the US.
I think there are, pretty objectively, cultures that are more and less compatible with western culture, too. The more different they are the more potential issues.
I don’t think economics is the be-all-end-all of this topic, either, and now that I’ve thought more about it, I’m not even sure studies we have on immigrant-economic relationships would be applicable. I think there might be a similar effect to what we see with UBI studies: the more limited and targeted you are, the better the results, but once you start generalizing, it’s an issue.
I also think we should apply immigration standards and reasoning about in/out group intermingling (of this kind) uniformly, so like if an indigenous culture is worried about their culture being affected by mass immigration, it’s not unreasonable for the US/EU/UK (or citizens of) to be concerned about that too.
In general I don’t think the left are very good at empathizing with or understanding the actual issues affecting poor conservatives.
A relevant bias of mine is that I think the left largely consider themselves intellectually superior to the right but they’ll act just as badly and be fine with it. If they want to argue that they’re on the right side of history, they should also be on the right side of logic and pragmatic-ness. And they should be more open to discussion and be able to answer questions or criticisms without refusing to debate or discuss.
Yes, thanks.