I got banned from a sub for posting *nuance* on the transgender issue. Nuance, and expressing opinions that go beyond the simple tribal ones, is apparently as bad to reddit mods and admins as going whole hog with the wrong tribe is.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-15T18:57:00+00:00

Saying something is disagreeable or false is not the same thing as wanting to deny people to have a right to say it. That's wanting control, not merely disagreement.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-15T18:40:28+00:00

Thanks for agreeing with my solution.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-13T05:29:31+00:00

Sure, but you can't do anything about what other people think, really, so much.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T09:01:33+00:00

Is that the proper construction of the "mainstream narrative", though? What sources do you claim constitute the "mainstream narrative"? For me, the "mainstream narrative" refers to the one put out by formal academe - so I'm thinking University health websites/publications and related resources, as well as government health agencies (CDC and esp. WHO). Which one of these have said the statement "the vaccine is entirely free from risk" and moreover, where is this statement often repeated?

And you're right it could be a risk for some people. The problem is that vastly more people than could be reasonably assumed to be at such risk refused the vaccine, and a million died for it in the US alone, while many more people now likely have long term disability (long haul COVID) and ... it's still out there, just not at the high tide levels we saw in the summer and winter of last year. And your bit about a headache is probably right (I don't really use meds for those anyway) but my point is the 37% does not mean "significant" effect by the scaremongering definition (i.e. something life threatening or at least chronically disabling - ironically the latter is much more likely with COVID itself). I'd also suggest that that doctor, using the phrase "significant injury" to describe a figure that the papers quite clearly state includes the ordinary mild effects that many vaccines have, is, due to the fact of its connotations, being dishonest in doing so.

Insofar as having too many or too few meds, that's also a complicated call. There's good cases to be made for both under different circumstances. For example, the obsessive use of cleaners and antibiotics is almost surely reached the point of overuse because not only are we seeing that autoimmune diseases are rising and it's believed by a lot of experts this is due to the lack of having enough pathogens to have to put up with a fight with, but also that bacteria are evolving and may come out at some point in a form we won't be able to easily beat back. A few such "super bugs" already exist, e.g. MRSA, and the fear is enough of them will come that we will be back to having no antibiotics, and that brings me to the other point where our medication is not only highly effective but many people around the world are deprived of such medicine. With vaccines I think the use is more or less on the mark.

What I would point the finger squarely at, is people lacking good scientific literacy and ability to think critically in the face of data. That, and the inability to separate the facts of how the world is from moral/political facts, i.e. what ideology you use. I always said at the heights of the pandemic that I was not adverse to people who wished that it wasn't the place for Government to tell them to get a vaccine and I could respect that (heck I've always had some sympathy for Anarchism which has gotten stronger [though I'm not gonna actually claim the big 'A' for myself] since Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but ...) - what really got me angry, as in real blood boiling desk pounding mad, was people thinking that they could just ignore the facts of the matter and repeat the same basic errors over and over even though I could clearly see the theoretical soundness behind the various interventions because I was following the experts and could see the internal logic behind them. Such as with masks, how the mask blocks the spit particles and moreover it's more there to protect others than you, and these were points I'd see people consistently, consistently keep ignoring.

It seems to me that people have taken profession of a certain ideological, moral, or values stance as permitting and requiring that they live in a world where that is "easy". But that's not how it works - not even for "left" people either, like I would tend to be considered as more aligned with in most cases. Some leftist want to make apology for Stalin and Mao, for example, and too many don't want to get serious about how that cancel/censorship culture can really hurt things not because of "sticking it to the big bad bigots" but because of scaring off reasonable people. If someone is feeling afraid to even ask a question or to voice an opinion even if they are otherwise perfectly willing to admit they were wrong, I can hardly see how that is "progress". Yes, we need to do something about real bigots, but we should make sure that what we are doing isn't coming at a grave cost in collateral and worse, potentially setting up for a rerun of Stalin & Mao.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T06:53:22+00:00

Seriously?

What's wrong with murdering huge quantities of people? Traumatizing the survivors for the rest of their lives? Leaving millions of families aggrieved and bereaved? I mean, if there isn't anything more unambiguously textbook evil than "wanton mass destruction of human life and infliction of suffering and tragedy" I don't know what else the word "evil" can possibly mean. It makes no sense. Seriously. What else could it mean?

You're a freaking monster. And given the target, I'll say it. A Nazi. Truly. In the truest sense, because you want exactly what they wanted - and what they actually did. And you should take that with gravity because I actually don't treat that word lightly and actually have pushed back on some for what seems like overuse or potentially ambiguous use, but seriously, I can't say what else would be appropriate to call someone who seriously advocates the genocide of the Jews, literally what Nazi Germany is most reviled for doing. If there's anyone who should be "shunned and ostracized away from society" it's certainly not trans people, it's freaking monsters like you who advocate the most violent and reprehensible things man can do to man.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T04:27:14+00:00

The problem here is that this doesn't put any controls on its comparison. For one thing, the lithium from the EV only needs replenishment sparingly. On the other hand, the fossil fuel extraction is absolutely massive in total scale. Just because it isn't as "visible" as a strip mine doesn't mean the total across all fossil fuel extraction planetwide is somehow less than the extraction for minerals.

That said, they are right to point out that lithium is not environmentally "free", either. And yes, that means EVs are not a cure-all for ALL environmental problems and they shouldn't be treated that way. But here's another thing: they cite Indigenous communities in that article. Many of them ALSO oppose fossil fuel extraction, too. The real trick is MORE radicalism, not less - getting rid of the personal car. Public transport (heck, trams!), work at closer proximity if physical presence is needed, remote if it's not, trying to get more food supplies made locally, eliminating waste (i.e. no more throw-away goods), and so forth.

And of course, even with all the best effort there will still be some environmental impact. But "perfection" is not and should not be the aim, simply stopping the 6th major mass extinction event on Earth which is an event of our own making.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T04:20:26+00:00

Yet he'll probably still let the fucking cops have them. Disarmed citizens, armed police.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T04:14:44+00:00

Once more a place where people have to exercise their critical thinking and attention to detail and read the underlying sources:

From the cited paper: https://ard.bmj.com/content/81/5/695

The safety profiles of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with I-RMD was reassuring and comparable with patients with NI-RMDs. The majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of I-RMD flare and very rare reports of serious AEs. These findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients and promote confidence in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety in I-RMD patients.

That's the conclusion of the scholars who wrote the report that was cited.

Two main types of AEs are collected:

Early AEs within 7 days from vaccination (reactogenicity): pain, redness or swelling at the site of injection, generalised muscle or joint pain, headache, fever, chills, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhoea.

In other words, much like in other medical research in this area, the simple sore/funny shoulder after getting a vaccine is counted into that 37% number even though that hardly seems like something people should "worry" about healthwise which is what one is doing if one is using that 37% number to advocate for vaccination refusal. This is a big problem for how a lot of people interpret scientific findings, in that they will assume that scientists and they mean the same thing when those scientists use a particular term (like here an "adverse effect"), instead of realizing that there are actually differences, if not in strict meaning then especially in connotation. In this case, "adverse reaction" means any reaction beyond simply the vaccine doing what it's intended to do (train the immune system so it knows in advance how to fight), not just "medically serious adverse reactions", and in their expert judgment, which counts for more than a Karen's, the vaccines are as safe by the same medical standards used for, as any other medicine you've likely taken.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T04:03:42+00:00

Ideologues in general think this way. All humans probably do, too. Yes, even I likely do, as well. We all want to think, at least, that ours is "the truth". Nobody honestly thinks they are believing in lies or fiction. Let's be honest about it for one, then we might be able to start moving to something genuinely better. And also let's be honest that actually ultimately then the conclusion is all of us likely don't know at least something about reality.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T04:00:08+00:00

So who then is willing to keep guns available but take away at least all the surplus military ones from the cops and saving that money to put into instruments of peace instead? You in favor of that option? Taking the claws out of the beast.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T03:56:23+00:00

Then if you aren't shouting "fuck the cops" from the rooftops, you're a hypocrite, because cops are the enforcement arm of Government's will. SO you better be.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T03:43:35+00:00

jews that thought this up need physical removal

You sound genocidal. Genocide doesn't solve things. Every genocider, of course, thinks otherwise. They're wrong.

and less of everything

So keep people more ignorant?

People don't know what men are anymore because the system wants them removed.

And this sounds like MRA redpill nonsense.

"Men" the world around still hold way, way more power than women do. Don't confuse media visibility with actual hard power. No, I don't want the script flipped. I want those who abuse power to be held accountable and punished for abusing power, and tyrants to go hike off a short cliff.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T03:38:36+00:00

Yes, and you have an ideology too with its own internal logic. The insistence that a person must make your position as one or the other such ideology, instead of seeking out their own, is the tribalism.

If Butler said that (I can't say since I haven't read her theses on it), then she's wrong. Gee, who cares. People have opinions and they can be wrong and nobody's a god who is right on everything. Nobody. Execute rapists, if that's what it takes. But if your stopping rape requires rejecting trans people who never have a rapist bone in their body that makes no sense at all.

And regardless, my point here is less to debate the opinion, than to point out the silliness of BANNING that which you disagree with.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T03:34:27+00:00

But no, trannies do not have a "right" to make up their own facts, or dictate to biologists what is a man and a woman.

Who is going to control them to prevent them from having such a "right" to say their "facts"? Isn't that censorship too? Censorship is censorship no matter who it serves.

Gender is not an affectation you can slip on like a pair of underwear.

Ideologically mandated straw man because that's not what it's about, it's about a process of psychological development similar to sexual orientation. Seriously, this sounds like the "chooses to be gay" nonsense/bullshit again.

These people have a horrible mental illness and deserve to be helped if they're willing to be helped, or to be shunned and ostracized if they're unwilling, so they're mental illness doesn't harm others.

Shunning and ostracizing the mentally ill is sick. I will try my darndest to subvert attempts to do so.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-12T03:33:01+00:00

I can't believe you support people doping themselves up with cross gender hormones in order to seek "euphoria." Ever notice how much they use that word? And the backwards surgeries that cut off boobs and cocks are mutilation plain and simple.

People shouldn't be authoritarianly forced to what someone else feels is in their best interest. Any more than it should be the other way around. You can disagree with it all you want, where it stops is you getting to impose them to conform to the dictates of that disagreement.

I'm not alone in the concern that as a person who does not have entirely stereotypical male interests, had I been raised today I would have been told I'm really a woman. Instead of being taught that stereotypical gender roles aren't all that important usually. That was common in the 90s, we regressed to a stricter interpretation of gender norms oddly enough.

The problem is there are people who would assert transgender status WITHOUT such teaching, because it comes from something deeper. That's the whole problem with the ideologies - they aren't just certain sets of values but certain sets of "facts" and some of those facts are false. This is one on the anti-trans ideology. Just like a false "fact" on the pro-trans ideology is that you can just ignore the distinction of biological sex in favor of gender identity without consequence in every situation and circumstance.

You tried to make concessions to the trannies but the trannies don't want your concessions, and they punish you for trying. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Obviously, neither do you want concessions given the posture you are taking. Pot, kettle, black. Thanks for proving my point. NEITHER want it. It's only "stupid" games that seek to get beyond this kind of posturing that'll work so I'll win all the stupid prizes it takes.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-10T00:47:29+00:00

lol now I don't know (wo?)man haha

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-09T21:41:15+00:00

No, seeking to offend people on purpose is just being a jerk.

The better view would be "you should not lie about what you think in order to avoid offending someone". Dishonesty is the problem.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-09T21:38:17+00:00

Interesting. I'd want to say that I disagree with the "sex trade" too (e.g. trafficking and the like), but I also think they went overboard with then opposing the "slut walk" concept, because you don't blame those exploited by an industry, but rather the ones doing the exploitation. The problem with "slut" as a slur is that it still lays claim to the idea that the authority rests more with men to decide what the "bounds" of sexuality are. I think a much better position is to both oppose the industry, while holding nothing against the women therein, otherwise that is much of the same thing as with rapes and the whole "she was asking for it", taking culpability away from the rapist and turning focus onto the victim, and thus ultimately making rape that much more acceptable.

I do like the end conclusion though - that they aren't going to just jump over to the right either. We don't need tribalism, we need people to move outside boxes and form their own conclusions and nuanced positions.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-09T21:26:16+00:00

??? ookay...... ???

are you serious or is this some trolling chain pull? I sure hope the latter because rapey is bad no matter who does it! if you're rapey you get what you get and should, no special privileges in the clink! there's no crime more UNjustifiable than rape! It's the one crime that's truly without ever justification (even 95% justification i.e. that leaves still a little bit of culpability left but which in a truly just system would deserve only a minor rebuke), like not even can justify it 1% in any case that has actually occurred in real world (i.e. outside of some truly fantastically idealized trolley problem situation that can never happen, c.f. Captain Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru Test in that one Star Trek movie. He didn't believe in the no win test, and I agree with captain Kirk and you should be like Captain Kirk who lives in reality where nuance always exists and simple equation-like scenarios don't.).

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-09T21:22:16+00:00

Thanks! Yeah. The thing is, by and large i tend to agree with much of the spirit of most "left" and "woke" ideas - we do need to be aware of things like racism, we need to be aware of injustices, but at the same time, the way you deal with people you disagree with is not to go and ban their thoughts, it's to engage with them. To me, freedom of speech should be non-negotiable whether you are a leftist OR a rightist or anywhere in between or even outside (whatever that would mean - that'd be damn cool!). Free speech is the prerequisite for the use of the human mind. The lack of free speech makes one a slave. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Forcing people to shut up doesn't produce genuine, lasting change, it just breeds resistance, and ultimately further dictatorship to suppress that resistance which then eventually, and likely after producing a bloody purge, is someday overthrown, and after that overthrow, things end up right back where they were, with all effort toward the original goal thus rendered unto waste. And I tend to think this attitude results from a form of lazy (I say this because I know I am susceptible to getting lazy in this regard and my memory for detail is not great to begin with) toward having to actually retain details, because making a nuanced argument very often requires pointing at specifics and details and if you don't retain a lot of such, it's easier to say "mmh mmh you're privileged!!!" instead of having to actually point out concrete examples of where someone's argument goes wrong. Of course, on the other hand, it doesn't help when so many don't want to listen to even that because their mind is made up, but that's why you don't spend much time on those people. You should keep going past them until you find the ones who do want to listen, and even when "just assessing" people, still you present them with a cogent case first, even if in a suitably abbreviated form. And it's not for the sake of the closed ones: it's especially for the sake of the ones you don't see and don't interact with who might be watching you and thinking about who they should trust more.

It's always the rational fence sitter that you have to think about. Never the flaming disagreeable you are so heated up about. Like with BLM. I'm very much in favor of the movement and its aims generally, but I KNEW that rioting against ordinary people was gonna turn a lot of heads the other way and, when it did (though thank goodness that we DID get some measure of justice for George Floyd!) I was NOT surprised at all. And YES, I understand MLK, "a riot as the language of the unheard" - that's the thing - I see both ends of it. It's true. It is. But at the same time you should also at least be considering who is really unhearing you and whether and how it might impact other people who otherwise might want to hear you. Even the ones targeted for the rioting - I'd bet dollars to donuts that specifically for rioter hitting a small community business the persons involved there are perhaps far more likely to be a potential ally than you might think, and then you just permanently made them a mortal enemy. It's almost never about the visible ones. It's always about the invisible ones.

SychoShine509 · 2022-06-09T20:41:55+00:00

To explain. The original thread was about an ACLU decision regarding siding with making it acceptable to move transgender inmates into a women's prison, and was critical of the decision. My post, pictured above, is critical of it too while also advocating for transgender-favorable policy in other regards and areas of life and society. Mine gets banned, the original thread stays up!

Can you say "arbitrary enforcement"?

This kind of thing frustrates the hell out of people like me who want to genuinely find an option that does everybody justice, which can't come from listening to one side alone and following it dogmatically - either side!

SychoShine509