Am I wrong in thinking that when reality finally sets back in with this Trans ideology, I think the people who supported it should feel bad about themselves for it?

submitted by Kai_Decadence from (self.GenderCritical)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKing 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Should? yes. Will? No. There are so many rationalizations with the "firewall" at the end of it all being "I was just trying to be nice". We will be the big meanies in this now and forever even if they admit gc is right. They'll say "you weren't really right because you didn't have this new evidence that finally pushed reality through our thick skulls, you were just mean. We're enlightened and woke and keeping up with science. You're just mean."

[–]WildApples 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, and don't forget the age old diffusion of responsibility: "It's not my fault. I was just following the experts/authority figures." Your last line is particularly apt. I am sure they will say they were just following the science and that was the best science available at the time as evidenced by the adoption of gender ideology by nearly all mainstream media, including scientific outlets. Who are they to question "science"?

Aside from a few doctors and institutions who are especially zealous in profiting off the butchering of children, I do not think there will ever be a real reckoning. Heck, I am starting to worry that gender ideology is here to stay. Masses of detrans individuals speaking out about being pushed into the trans pipeline as children without the ability to give true consent is the only way I see this coming to an end.

[–]FlippyKing 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. This is why the word "scientism" exists. The idea of science has become authority in people's minds, even those who go into the sciences, the same way law has become authority in people's minds and especially those who go into the various law professions from police to lawyer. It is a way to avoid dialogue and admitting what is really unknown.

No one saying "TWAW" can say that honestly. At best they can say "I've heard TWAW", or they can point to someone else's authority to back it up. This is true of so many things. I don't say that to fall into the trap of "there is nothing WE can know", but to make the distinction between what I or any one person can know and what "we" as a society can know. We let bad ideas go with no proof too often. I just commented elsewhere on saidit with the idea that we often let mathematical models (or worse, thought experiment models) pass for science when they are just the hypothesis phase of science. They may be complicated, they may be a statement that no person could make because of all the variables and other factors worked into the model, but a model proves nothing ever.

It is like a model wearing a dress. Does the model prove the dress looks nice and a clothes buyer should buy it for their stores? No. In the same way we have to ask if the dress works on the model as it would for anyone else trying it on, we have to ask if the abstract modeling matches the real world, if the assumptions that went into the model are sufficient-- and we have to ask that before we even deal with how the model was made.

We, speaking generally, do not think scientifically and do not converse scientifically. Our manner of conversation is exploited, and our minds and our lives are manipulated, by scientism just as it is exploited by legalism. This is how I think the manufacturing of consent works. It is able to work because we are dealing with ideas at a great distance from ourselves. We might deal with a harmless cross-dresser in our community in ways that keep the person harmless and unharmed, but we as individuals can not really generalize a set of rules for either thinking about the cross-dresser or regulating how we treat or are treated by the generic cross-dresser. Instead we are manipulated into accepting generalized rules for both. This goes beyond just cross-dressers and beyond this issue. It is every "issue" that comes to us from afar: war, government budgets, education. It ruins everything we deal with up close, our neighbors and friends, what we can and can't do locally with our water or food supplies, and how we train the next generation and for what purpose.

All that said, the other thing this makes me think of is the game "Schlemiel" in Transactional Analysis.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ew the sad thing about what you said is that it's probably true that THIS is the mindset that they're gonna have when the trans bubble pops.

[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not unique to them, and I think it goes beyond just these kinds of "group-think", or the way the masses are duped by sloganeering and social engineering.

Few people ever say 'Wow, you were right and I was wrong.' They might see it as they learned something new, or their views "evolved", or they might see it as very nature of the matter will have changed ('trans people used to be good when they were just trying to deal with dysphoria, but now there are too many pervs who have displaced the "good ones" and the whole thing is now unworkable' which I think is a variation on Ronald Reagan's "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" when really he no longer needed a good union to represent him and was being paid to be anti-union, which in his day was the big division between the two parties in the US).

Trans issues are not the only major issue today where this sloganeering and group-think has manipulated the masses.