OneMeaningManyNames

Full time smug prick

  • 23 Posts
  • 180 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2024

help-circle














  • the consequences like rental cars costing three times as much because 19-year-olds are fucking stupid

    This is a slippery slope fallacy. People are arguing in favor of a careful, suitable, medical treatment, not in favor of utter relentlessness. Unless gender is that important to your worldview, that society is at risk of immediate collapse because of gender affirming care??

    People over 25 can do whatever the fuck they want. It varies for 18, 21 etc

    Exactly. And other things people can do at 16, that they can’t do at 12. Do you have specific arguments[1] about the age range of gender affirming care?

    A trans person in their 25-30’s having undergone puberty will have to undergo expensive and painful procedures that could not undo all of the unwanted effects of puberty. Do you think this is a better outcome? Experts don’t!

    And most importantly: What do you think gender-affirming care is?


    1. Logic dictates that if you suggest a range like >25yo, you should back it up with arguments, other than “gender transition sounds scary so I should restrict it for anyone looking for it” ↩︎


  • Oh, I got one of my own: The notion that Linux is for enthusiasts that spend most of the time tweaking their computer, and therefore Linux can’t be used by an end user who just want to get things done.

    Close to this is the classic adage: “Linux is only free if you don’t value your time” which is an extension that assumes that extensive tweaking is necessary to get to work, not an option available to the power user.

    (But they still complain when Microsoft fucks over their workflow on every update. It is a double standard because Microsoft is “a brand”, so yes, I will say it is a Linux-specific bias.)





  • I adore that your sources were: Yourself

    It is a whole thread, not just my analysis. I also put thought into it, so I won’t recite every point I carefully phrase there to a rando centrist, so live with it.

    a comic strip and a paraphrasing of a (solid) late night comedian

    Directly responding to your very argument though, are you going to engage with these responses or what?

    I did watch Stewart’s take

    Stewart took on an Alabama MAGA moron legislator on trans youth heatlhcare bans. We are probably not talking about the same segment. The part you are talking about is probably the one I am criticizing in the thread you refused to read because it was written by me, so why should we bother with your tired argument? This borders on sea-lioning since a couple iterations ago, and I think if this is the case it is actionable.

    Which is as dumb as people on the Right saying that “trump said he respects and loves women so I don’t get how the libs think he’s anti woman.”

    But you talked about pitching to the progressive base, not the opposite side. MAGA fanatics are cult-minded morons that dismiss everything that diverts from their narrative. There is no comparison to centrist and center-left democrats base, who operate under totally different rules than a fucking Nazi cult.

    Your example about the Ad is addressed to a cult.

    You said:

    no way to rebut it without alienating our progressive wing, so we just take the L on this

    Just searching around Lemmy you can find fine rebuttals to this bullshit. You make it sound like it is unthinkable to rebut these hateful tropes. This is more or less what Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro tout: That their common sense is unrebuttable. It is not.

    to ZERO pushback from Harris

    She could have rebutted, and take them on. Same goes for Rachel Levin. They chickened out of it. Furthermore, the mainstream progressive media not only omitted to address misconceptions and dangerous cliches, but they chimed in with thinly veiled TERFism, and this is because the interests behind the Democrats are in part transphobic as well.

    This also responds to these words of yours:

    To say that trans issues weren’t a thing this election because your side didn’t talk about then is absurd.

    I keep saying they abstained from matching the excessive anti-trans propaganda. What is your point?

    I said that Oliver and Stewart, the Scientific American, the APA, and several other bodies have addressed trans issues to the progressive base, and no-one in the left thought they were unpalatable until now. The progressive media would have protected against this, that is more than a decade in the happening, but they did not.

    Given that it’s an issue that some 70% of America disagrees with us on

    Shit man, this is such a complex study that I can easily point out that 60% of Democrats think that trans representation has not even gone far enough.

    Above all, I don’t think that trans issues are edgy and unpopular at all. Until a couple years ago it was a strictly medical thing, with a very niche activism surrounding it, mostly on legal representation and medical gatekeeping issues.

    It was the fascists who spent millions to demagogue on that point for many years, and I think people should be educated on trans issues as they should a decade ago.

    At this point people who take anti-trans propaganda seriously are lost causes to me, and this includes people who fall for an ad like the one you posted. There is no point to cater to them from a pro-trans perspective, it is like trying to appeal to a 1936 German crowd applauding Hitler about the human rights of Jews at this point.

    The view you defend here is essentially a compromise to concurrent Nazi discourse, which as I said is unacceptable, and I don’t care about Democrats ratings. I rather see that the extreme left everywhere dials up the pro-trans issues and organize defense and survival programs.

    such an easy bone to throw moderates with almost no real world costs (apologies to the handful of high level trans athletes

    Again I have cited arguments against the supposedly self-evident low hanging fruit you evangelize here.

    I think that I have responded to all your concerns here or elsewhere in my Lemmy posts and comments, and I won’t respond further. You probably come from a naive self-designated center-left perspective, but the discourse of this post borders too closely to sealioning and concern trolling, that I will not waste more of my time on.



  • I don’t actually believe there’s a way for the Left to pitch trans issues

    Then fuck the Left, I guess?

    doesn’t alienate our progressive base

    Then fuck “our” “progressive” base?

    If the “Left” had spent a fraction of the resources to match the vile torrent of anti-trans propaganda, the situation would be different, with regard to both of your points about pitching trans issues to the progressive base.

    Like, John Oliver and Jon Stewart showed exactly how a mainstream progressive media can combat anti-trans demagoguery by Republicans, not to mention Scientific American, the American Psychological Association, and other bodies. You probably weren’t listening because if you don’t think this is a way to “pitch” then you might have been listening to other sources that make the matter unpalatable, like “biological males in female sports” and what have you.

    So I take it as a given that you were listening to the wrong sources about it, and you are at least partially anti-trans yourself. On the other hand, you might not be listening to all the analyses after the fact that point to other issues as to why Democrats lost the election. See for example this thread, this comic strip, and this thread also.

    In a nutshell, Harris did already try to appeal to the transphobes and she failed. So this should be end of discussion. I am not discussing compromise of the human rights of any group in order to appease to either moderate or extreme bigots.