I remember subscribing to this Substack thinking “FINALLY A writer devoted to taking down the crooked seismology industry.” I’ve been disappointed ever since.
Please cite some of the "Liberals who further the delusion that America has basically been a nonstop Klan rally for the past 400 years." Please limit yourself to those who are as prominent as the voices of the Far Right.
What's the due date for this assignment, Glenn? Does it count towards my final grade?
Biden's "Jim Crow 2.0" speech, Nikole Hannah-Jones entire existence, the large number of liberals who believe that the number of police shooting of Black men is higher by several orders of magnitude than it actually is, the significant number of people who believe that no racial progress has been made over the last 50 years (https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-only-on-ap-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-police-9a73b306d00aa423e330d26d99f973a1). Jesus...do you actually think that liberals do not sometimes exaggerate racism? Don't answer -- I don't actually want to talk to you.
What a stupid response to a legitimately framed request. At Berkeley we learned to look for documentation and additional information no matter who was making the assertion. Interesting that you weaseled the word "sometimes" into your last sentence. Thanks for showing me that I don't want to waste my time on you.
(1) I asked for prominent ones (on a par with Tucker Carlson, for example. I never heard of Hannah-Jones. (2) I didn't ask to be insulted as a result of a legitimate request for information.
Hannah-Jones is the Pulitzer-Prize winning creator and chief author of the New York Times' hugely publicized 1619 Project. If you honestly never heard of her, your knowledge base is so weak that it cannot possibly be caught up with a few comments.
Not sure this is a fight you want to start. There are a lot of us liberals who believe American public conversations and policy have been stained with racism for 400 years. We even have the evidence to point to, and we don't call it the "civil war" as if it was just a tribal dispute. The official name for that war should be the Slaver Rebellion. Because that's what it was.
Not only that, but after a million people died in that war and Congress and the Union added the 13th and 14th Amendments, it took over 100 years for SCOTUS to piecemeal recognize the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. And now we have actual racists and Christo-fascists on that bench eager to roll back all those hard fought gains.
Yes, it's been 400 years of fighting the racists, and we're nowhere near a victory.
"Liberals use mass shootings to push for gun control and to further the delusion that America has basically been a nonstop Klan rally for the past 400 years." - some white guy on the internet
What is bad is the vastly larger number of people who are seduced by the transification cult into believing that they are trans when they are actually not, like the Nashville shooter. Here's just one of a zillion such stories: https://pitt.substack.com/p/i-didnt-realize-you-think-of-her
No, what is bad is the conservatives using transgender persons (not "transgenderism") to push politicized medical viewpoints from people who are not doctors. Not to go Godwin, but it's a legitimate argument that the Nazis were as committed to fighting "deviant sexuality" (transgender medical diagnosis began in Weimar Germany) as they were committed to fighting Communism and The Jewish Problem.
The doctors in the UK, Sweden, Finland, and Norway who have actually taken the time and effort to review the actual medical evidence (which has NOT been done in the US) have all concluded that minors should not undergo medical transition: https://bprice.substack.com/p/why-have-many-nations-concluded-that
These arguments are awesome, because they involve a miniscule fraction of society that have history to date always had a legitimately hard time. I'm confident we should try to soften the edges for them, out of humanity, but I can't help but imagine feeling like you're born the wrong gender will be a tough life. But it seems folks with agendas burn endless calories on these truly fringe issues, and from where I sit I suspect it's a circus to avoid give and take on more serious issues affecting most of us (including gender unusual folks with difficult challenges or folks so deluded/brainwashed, I don't care).
How about we try to be decent folks towards others, even if they have issues, even if we (I) can't be bothered for every new pronoun change we can still treat folks decent, full stop, and tell both the far right and the far left to shove this discussion somewhere cozy? Then how about we do something constructive about the rampant serious drug and untreated mental illness abdication that's making our larger cities shockingly filthy and dangerous with some of that freed up time? It's just nuts to me how much bandwidth "trans" talk tries to hoard.
The reason that "trans" hoards a lot of bandwidth is that the associated belief system (that there exists a condition which can be described as "being born in the wrong body" and that a good treatment for it is the process of either pretending that a person's body is of the other category, or undergoing medical treatments to change their body to as close as possible to the other body) doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it, and many people (myself included) think that it's simply false in every respect.
And if it IS a false belief, then obviously many things which are being done in the name of trans-inclusion (such as medically treating kids, including male people in women's sports and prisons, and promoting a philosophy which says that sexual attraction is based on mental gender feelings rather than physical sex) are wrong and harmful and should be stopped.
Generally speaking, political agitation around trans issues is being led by people who have actually experienced those harms in some way - some of them are conservative but many have simply joined forces with conservative people quite recently because leaders and opinion-makers on the left have dug themselves into this issue so hard that, ideologically, they are now unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the harmed people exist, and the harms they experienced were real.
So when you see more and more people agitating against the philosophy of gender (and this is really where the sticking point is - the philosophy - though it often spills over into criticising the actions of specific trans people), don't think "gosh, it's really bad how so many people are causing a big stink over stuff that doesn't affect them". Think "gosh, it's really bad how many people have been negatively affected by this stuff"
IDK, I think maybe after this substack's recent addressing of that issue he probably doesn't
I mean, I'm extremely Terfy these days but I'm okay with neutral observers occasionally wrinkling their brow with a "hmmm - bit weird over there" and then going back to talking about other stuff.
I've been arguing statistical significance with other Terfs all day. Insufficient sample size for meaningful conclusions.
"Terf" originally stood for "Trans exclusive radical feminist", but now it's often used to mean any woman who is "gender critical" (think you can't split the world into male-brain-gender and female-brain-gender people, but only into male-sex and female-sex) and otherwise on the left of politics.
Used to be a slur, but is being reclaimed, since women got a little bored of pretending that "sex is in some cases a salient difference between people, and same-sex changerooms, same-sex sport, same-sex prisons should be retained" was in any way an abnormal, radical or embarrassing position to hold.
I knew MarkS would understand my jargon and its implications instantly, but sometimes forget that other people won't, even in conversing on trans-related issues!
"rare events" - how many mass shootings a day would make mass shootings not rare? How many school shootings a day would make talking about school shootings the sort of thing that is not "confirming our priors?"
And exactly how many people do you think talk about gun control only when there's been a school shooting? Yes, the conversation about gun control gets more noticeable after a tragedy but that doesn't mean any of us gun control proponents needed a shooting to think that way. That is one of the dumbest accusations I've yet read.
I remember subscribing to this Substack thinking “FINALLY A writer devoted to taking down the crooked seismology industry.” I’ve been disappointed ever since.
Um, easy access to AR-15s is really bad public policy.
Only if you start with the default assumption that citizens should be unarmed, which is an assumption that the preponderance of citizens do not share
Um, no.
Please cite some of the "Liberals who further the delusion that America has basically been a nonstop Klan rally for the past 400 years." Please limit yourself to those who are as prominent as the voices of the Far Right.
What's the due date for this assignment, Glenn? Does it count towards my final grade?
Biden's "Jim Crow 2.0" speech, Nikole Hannah-Jones entire existence, the large number of liberals who believe that the number of police shooting of Black men is higher by several orders of magnitude than it actually is, the significant number of people who believe that no racial progress has been made over the last 50 years (https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-only-on-ap-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-police-9a73b306d00aa423e330d26d99f973a1). Jesus...do you actually think that liberals do not sometimes exaggerate racism? Don't answer -- I don't actually want to talk to you.
What a stupid response to a legitimately framed request. At Berkeley we learned to look for documentation and additional information no matter who was making the assertion. Interesting that you weaseled the word "sometimes" into your last sentence. Thanks for showing me that I don't want to waste my time on you.
You literally asked for "some" liberals.
(1) I asked for prominent ones (on a par with Tucker Carlson, for example. I never heard of Hannah-Jones. (2) I didn't ask to be insulted as a result of a legitimate request for information.
Hannah-Jones is the Pulitzer-Prize winning creator and chief author of the New York Times' hugely publicized 1619 Project. If you honestly never heard of her, your knowledge base is so weak that it cannot possibly be caught up with a few comments.
Not sure this is a fight you want to start. There are a lot of us liberals who believe American public conversations and policy have been stained with racism for 400 years. We even have the evidence to point to, and we don't call it the "civil war" as if it was just a tribal dispute. The official name for that war should be the Slaver Rebellion. Because that's what it was.
Not only that, but after a million people died in that war and Congress and the Union added the 13th and 14th Amendments, it took over 100 years for SCOTUS to piecemeal recognize the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. And now we have actual racists and Christo-fascists on that bench eager to roll back all those hard fought gains.
Yes, it's been 400 years of fighting the racists, and we're nowhere near a victory.
"Liberals use mass shootings to push for gun control and to further the delusion that America has basically been a nonstop Klan rally for the past 400 years." - some white guy on the internet
Interesting that you just now write this piece. Hmmm.
Well, I actually wrote it a year ago.
Good to know.
"I don’t need to ruminate on large-scale tragedies to know that things like white supremacy and radical Islam are bad."
Do you need a large-scale tragedy to know that transgenderism is bad?
I kinda think that you do.
I think that some people are transgender and I do not think that is bad.
What is bad is the vastly larger number of people who are seduced by the transification cult into believing that they are trans when they are actually not, like the Nashville shooter. Here's just one of a zillion such stories: https://pitt.substack.com/p/i-didnt-realize-you-think-of-her
No, what is bad is the conservatives using transgender persons (not "transgenderism") to push politicized medical viewpoints from people who are not doctors. Not to go Godwin, but it's a legitimate argument that the Nazis were as committed to fighting "deviant sexuality" (transgender medical diagnosis began in Weimar Germany) as they were committed to fighting Communism and The Jewish Problem.
The doctors in the UK, Sweden, Finland, and Norway who have actually taken the time and effort to review the actual medical evidence (which has NOT been done in the US) have all concluded that minors should not undergo medical transition: https://bprice.substack.com/p/why-have-many-nations-concluded-that
These arguments are awesome, because they involve a miniscule fraction of society that have history to date always had a legitimately hard time. I'm confident we should try to soften the edges for them, out of humanity, but I can't help but imagine feeling like you're born the wrong gender will be a tough life. But it seems folks with agendas burn endless calories on these truly fringe issues, and from where I sit I suspect it's a circus to avoid give and take on more serious issues affecting most of us (including gender unusual folks with difficult challenges or folks so deluded/brainwashed, I don't care).
How about we try to be decent folks towards others, even if they have issues, even if we (I) can't be bothered for every new pronoun change we can still treat folks decent, full stop, and tell both the far right and the far left to shove this discussion somewhere cozy? Then how about we do something constructive about the rampant serious drug and untreated mental illness abdication that's making our larger cities shockingly filthy and dangerous with some of that freed up time? It's just nuts to me how much bandwidth "trans" talk tries to hoard.
The reason that "trans" hoards a lot of bandwidth is that the associated belief system (that there exists a condition which can be described as "being born in the wrong body" and that a good treatment for it is the process of either pretending that a person's body is of the other category, or undergoing medical treatments to change their body to as close as possible to the other body) doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it, and many people (myself included) think that it's simply false in every respect.
And if it IS a false belief, then obviously many things which are being done in the name of trans-inclusion (such as medically treating kids, including male people in women's sports and prisons, and promoting a philosophy which says that sexual attraction is based on mental gender feelings rather than physical sex) are wrong and harmful and should be stopped.
Generally speaking, political agitation around trans issues is being led by people who have actually experienced those harms in some way - some of them are conservative but many have simply joined forces with conservative people quite recently because leaders and opinion-makers on the left have dug themselves into this issue so hard that, ideologically, they are now unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the harmed people exist, and the harms they experienced were real.
So when you see more and more people agitating against the philosophy of gender (and this is really where the sticking point is - the philosophy - though it often spills over into criticising the actions of specific trans people), don't think "gosh, it's really bad how so many people are causing a big stink over stuff that doesn't affect them". Think "gosh, it's really bad how many people have been negatively affected by this stuff"
IDK, I think maybe after this substack's recent addressing of that issue he probably doesn't
I mean, I'm extremely Terfy these days but I'm okay with neutral observers occasionally wrinkling their brow with a "hmmm - bit weird over there" and then going back to talking about other stuff.
I've been arguing statistical significance with other Terfs all day. Insufficient sample size for meaningful conclusions.
Kindly, what are Terfs, and "Terfy"?
"Terf" originally stood for "Trans exclusive radical feminist", but now it's often used to mean any woman who is "gender critical" (think you can't split the world into male-brain-gender and female-brain-gender people, but only into male-sex and female-sex) and otherwise on the left of politics.
Used to be a slur, but is being reclaimed, since women got a little bored of pretending that "sex is in some cases a salient difference between people, and same-sex changerooms, same-sex sport, same-sex prisons should be retained" was in any way an abnormal, radical or embarrassing position to hold.
I knew MarkS would understand my jargon and its implications instantly, but sometimes forget that other people won't, even in conversing on trans-related issues!
Thank you!
"rare events" - how many mass shootings a day would make mass shootings not rare? How many school shootings a day would make talking about school shootings the sort of thing that is not "confirming our priors?"
And exactly how many people do you think talk about gun control only when there's been a school shooting? Yes, the conversation about gun control gets more noticeable after a tragedy but that doesn't mean any of us gun control proponents needed a shooting to think that way. That is one of the dumbest accusations I've yet read.