The L / G / B / T divide

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Derek » 7 April 2021, 14:00

I regret biting. I knew it was pointless. Maybe we can bring it closer to the original point. Activists can be strident, irrational, and dogmatic, but if we've learned anything it's that bigots are too, and even more so. I think it's important to keep the causes themselves in mind when determining what deserves our (open) support, because going by who's obnoxious will eventually lead you to disengaging from the human race entirely.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6837
+1s received: 2653
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Brenden » 7 April 2021, 15:08

Marmaduke wrote:No, he said suggested transexuals are as likely to be suffering with Munchausen’s as to be genuinely suffering with gender dysphoria.

And you lumped me in with him.

Marmaduke wrote:Mine is an issue with your constant and deliberate side-stepping and avoidance of addressing them as anything other that deluded persons that need to be steered back towards conformity with their natal sex and the societal norm of a hard gender binary, where one MUST be one of the other.

The whole concept of gender transition reinforces the hard gender binary, as it takes gender nonconforming people and tells them the solution to their psychological distress is to go to the opposite side of the binary by modifying their natural bodies chemically and surgically.

Marmaduke wrote:Mine is an issue that you use the impression of simply caring about what’s best for them to steer the topic away from your persistence in denying the validity of their condition.

I don't deny the validity of any mental illness.

Marmaduke wrote:Mine is an issue that you consistently and absolutely continue at any opportunity to outspokenly liken them to anyone else suffering with any other dysmorphic disorder, and you do that wholly without articles or minority opinions from medical professionals or any ilk.

Thinking you are something you're not is a delusion. Sorry, it just is. Whether its thinking you're fat when you're not or thinking you're the opposite sex.

Marmaduke wrote:Mine is an issue that you will not or cannot even consider the notion that somebody may not feel comfortable conforming to the sex they were assigned at birth, and that condition may cause them significant distress. Even less are you able to conceive of a notion of somebody that may not wish be comfortable conforming to a binary gender model. Mine is an issue that you think people simply need to be counselled back to conformity with what your societal expectations of them are.

Sex is not assigned at birth, it's observed. It is an immutable characteristic of our sexually dimorphic species.

I don't want people counselled to gender conformity. I want them counselled to healthy acceptance of their natural bodies. They can take on whatever gender roles they want!

Marmaduke wrote:Mine is an issue that were I to log in to this forum by another name and take a similar tact in addressing homosexuality, that it’s in no way a biological or genetic issue and is simply a psychological abnormality and a matter of steering people back to hetereosexuality, and rolled out all the pro-conversion therapy articles written by qualified medical professionals that genuinely believe in it, you’d rightly label me a homophobe. I’d be outright denying the validity of how you identify yourself and calling you mentally deranged to even humour the notion of loving someone of the same gender. Yet even the suggestion that the fundamental basis of your position is a transphobic assumption rolls us back to you asserting that you are simply the defender of children and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is disgusting. (And yes, I fully appreciate that you have used the word sickening, I’ve chosen a synonym that doesn’t suggest you’re about to vomit at the idea of transexuals in a rare and off-character moment of winding down the hyperbole).

This false equivalency between sexual orientation and trans-everything is such a tired trope. :yawn:

The only conversion therapy with regard to gender incongruent people is attempting to convert them to something they are not: the opposite sex.

Marmaduke wrote:[…] outright refusing to accept people’s own experience of their own lives.

Nor do I accept an anorexic's own experience of being fat when they are not.

I believe in objective reality, not subjective experience.

Marmaduke wrote:You’ve openly stated you don’t think trans people should be included with gays, lesbians and bisexuals because you perceive LGBT as being some sort of temple owned exclusively by cisgendered persons who engage in same-sex relationships.

LGB are sexual orientations. T is something else entirely, but not mutually exclusive. Someone can be part of both groups.

Marmaduke wrote:Perhaps you can say “straw men” again?

If you don't want to be called out for what you're doing, don't do it.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 8896
+1s received: 3375
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United States (us)

PostThis post was deleted by betonhaus on 7 April 2021, 16:16.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby betonhaus » 7 April 2021, 16:27

I get the feeling someone mistook me for someone else. Or at the bare minimum I was only referenced to in third person.
I have never said that gender disaporia is exactly as likely as Munchausers, just reminding people that Munchausers Syndrom exists - some of the more extreme things I've heard coming from transgendered people and their supporters has sounded really really off.

I still firmly believe that people who think they are the other gender should really first get the mental support to understand what they are getting into - and at the bare minimum do practice like putting on Drag makeup to see what their body looks like on the other side. I've seen tto many cases where a mtf trans started as a pretty decent looking dude, but after transitioning seem to automatically assume they will magically transform into a beautiful Irish waif who doesn't need makeup or thoughtful hair styling. I've seen too many cases where the most they do is grow out their thinning hair and dye it a primary colour them complain how everyone acts more cooly to them
User avatar
betonhaus
 
Posts: 243
+1s received: 98
Joined: 14 January 2019, 00:09

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Marmaduke » 7 April 2021, 17:52

Well I’d like to open with clarifying that we’re thankful as always to have our faithful public servant, Brenden Bourne, Arbiter of Objective Reality. It’s nice to have someone so willing and selfless as to dedicate themselves to dictating unto the masses how they should identify their own experience and live their lives.

Contemporary treatment of gender dysphoria is not to push a person into one gender role or the other. It is not a matter of reaching diagnosis and then informing the patient that the time has come to transition. Quite a significant proportion of trans people do not identify as male or female. They/them is an increasingly common and comforting choice of pronoun.

You do also realise, I trust, that trans people do not believe that they are something that they are not? Were that the case, they would indeed be delusional, but they wouldn’t be trans. As far as they were concerned, they would be cisgendered. Correct or otherwise. Transsexual people are not trying to disabuse themselves of a notion that they are something they aren’t. They know their sex. They are very much aware of their objective reality. It’s their objective reality that is the very heart and soul of the issue. Their objective reality is what is causing them distress.

The reality is that they know with absolute certitude whether or not they are in possession of a twig and berries. The objective reality of the situation is that the objective reality is not the core of the issue. If you’re going to professionally arbitrate on the nature of objective reality, you should probably take a minute to gather yourself and figure out if the objective reality was ever in question in the first place.

Trans people are people who understand their natural gender and do not feel comfortable with it. To some extent or another, the physical or mental aspects of their biological sex cause them distress.

Very much how you are gay because of genetic programming, they are beholden to a dissonance between their genetic programming and their biological reality. It is their subjective experience not correlating with their objective reality that is the heart of the issue. And you - a self-professed denier of subjective experience, you don’t believe in it - are clearly not equipped to consider something of which you have no understanding. It’s nuance. It’s shades of grey. They are impenetrable to you. You cannot discern them.

As Arbiter of Objective Reality, you can only reference the world against the materials that were issued to you in order to undertake your role; the dictionary in your right hand and a DSM-5 in your left. You lack the requisite context of empathy and experience to understand the problem.

An anorexic may believe they are fat when they are patently not, and that is something that you can reconcile because it integrates with your personal experience and doesn’t require you to empathise. You know that you think you’re fat, despite everyone in your life telling your you’re not. You are deluded.

You have fallen down trying to transpose your experience onto someone else’s when the experiences themselves are fundamentally different. A transsexual, in the context of anorexia, would be abolsutely aware that they are underweight. Their issue is not the reality. Their issue would be that they feel like they can’t reconcile that weight with their own identity, that they feel like they should be obese but do not feel able to bridge that dissonance. Yes, I am aware, a very skinny person can address that dissonance themselves much easier than one who feels uncomfortable with their own gender, thank you, we can put the dictionary and the DSM down. The objective reality is established. I am not positing the example as a genuine scenario. I am trying to frame the heart of the issue within a context that you may find easier to unpack. Within this context, you are asserting that the person should simply be told that their experience is wrong and that they should just learn to love themselves as they are. And for some, that may work, but for most it’s about as helpful as saying “oh just pull yourself together”. What I’m trying to steer you towards is an acknowledgement that medication may help that person make or prevent physical changes that would ease their discomfort, and if their discomfort is acute enough then cosmetic surgery may be warranted. Now, admittedly, this example would make much more sense if I switched the underweight and overweight and adjusted the context, but I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that I’m talking to a brick wall. And this is kinda a flow of consciousness, I’m not going back and rewriting it. I’ve clubbed you with my overuse of “objective reality” quite enough. I don’t want to type it anymore unnecessarily.

This is more to just not let you have the last word, out of fear that someone needing support may stumble in here and assume your thoughts on the matter represent the position of the community and leave having not asked for it.

L, G and B are indeed sexual orientations. T is not. We again thank you for your keen attention to objective reality and making sure we know what it is. But again, you’re kinda shouting an irrelevance. Once upon a time, the B wasn’t valid. Most of you bisexuals remain somewhat annoyed that a fairly significant number of people just assume you’re either in denial or sexually greedy. But you’re getting there. Your distinct separation from the cisgendered and heterosexual “normal” is more established now that it has ever been. Now transsexuals are on the cusp of establishing their distinct nature as a matter of public normality, and LGBT, whilst initially a grouping that just happened to contain exclusively sexualities, is now more contemporarily interpreted as a collective of groups, supporting each other in promoting their distinction from cisgendered heterosexuality. It’s not about who any of us want to fuck, it’s about supporting each other in being able to live our lives in the way that makes us happiest, without fear of persecution and without need of hiding our true nature for the comfort and ease of understanding of those unwilling to make anything approaching an effort to change themselves in the interest of letting others be happy.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8176
+1s received: 3027
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby mysterygoldfish » 7 April 2021, 20:24

I share your sentiments with pretty much everything here. It is worth noting I am not really involved at all in the gay/LGBT community nor do I know many LGBT people so it is very possible due to my lack of experience and real knowledge here thoughts/opinions might be skewed by that.

Despite the beliefs and attitudes you talked about are incredibly apparent and I have known a couple of people that fall into that belief system though from my understanding I think it is a somewhat loud minority of people that think this way though I could possibly be wrong.

I believe feminism and equality is about evening the playing field and dissolving predigest against people based on who they are attracted to, gender identity and how they express that, race, etc.
It is important to understand privilege one might have but it is not right or progressive to put down and shame straight, cis, white, traditionally masculine men/traditionally feminine women, people that just are not attracted or want to be romantically or sexually involved with someone for whatever the reason they might have and especially straight cis white men. Equality is not tearing other people down for the other side of the same coin for what you believe needs to be accepted. Shitting on people for being straight is in the same type of thing as being homophobia. Not supporting and/or putting down women for being traditionally feminine or men for being traditionally masculine and the choices they make for what they want to do in life is exactly the same as not supporting and/or putting down women for being more traditionally masculine/taking on a traditionally masculine role/profession or men for being more traditionally feminine/taking on a traditionally masculine role/profession. While I know it doesn't have nearly the same history, inequality, and discriminating or even hating someone for being white is, by definition, is fucking racist.

The only thing that I would personally disagree with is that if it comes up I will be open about supporting trans rights but I pretty strongly believe that people just not being attracted to someone trans people is part of that.

People just have preferences in who they are attracted to and the people they want to be in a relationship with. Equality for someone's sexuality and sex positivity is about not holding who someone wants to date and what they get down to in their own home and free time as long as it is between consensual adults. Some people are into blondes, brunettes, tall, short, whatever it might be and this is the same thing.

It really sucks and it must be truly awful to be rejected from someone's dating pool for something that someone that does not have a choice in and that might already effect their life, how they view themselves but I think we have to face that there are some things that just undeniably are going to effect any sort of relationship in at least some capacity.

While it always sucks to get rejected and I can't imagine how awful it especially is for someone who is trans but as long as it isn't something like someone being ftm and the other saying "I'm not into women, you aren't a real man." then isn't transphobic or hateful the person just is not it. It isn't a big deal.

This is just my own opinion and everyone is initialed to their own. I really don't mean to offend anyone. Also hopefully what I wrote made some sense and I did not write in circles too much.
Last edited by mysterygoldfish on 8 April 2021, 15:46, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
mysterygoldfish
 
Posts: 38
+1s received: 17
Joined: 23 February 2021, 14:43
Location: my school/my parent's basement

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Brenden » 8 April 2021, 15:14

Marmaduke wrote:Well I’d like to open with clarifying that we’re thankful as always to have our faithful public servant, Brenden Bourne, Arbiter of Objective Reality. It’s nice to have someone so willing and selfless as to dedicate themselves to dictating unto the masses how they should identify their own experience and live their lives.

Since when is wanting people to get psychological treatment so they can accept and live healthfully and happily in their natural bodies and choose whichever aspects of gender they want to adopt "dictating unto the masses how they should identify their own experience and live their lives"?

Governments are literally halting vaccination for a fucking world-changing pandemic over the tiniest rate of blood clotting, yet when 5% of transgender women experience venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism during cross-sex hormone therapy that's just brushed under the rug.

I'll repeat again: there has been very few well-controlled long-term longitudinal studies of such therapies and absolutely no clinical trials to date.

Marmaduke wrote:Contemporary treatment of gender dysphoria is not to push a person into one gender role or the other. It is not a matter of reaching diagnosis and then informing the patient that the time has come to transition. Quite a significant proportion of trans people do not identify as male or female. They/them is an increasingly common and comforting choice of pronoun.

You say this, yet…

Marmaduke wrote:You do also realise, I trust, that trans people do not believe that they are something that they are not? Were that the case, they would indeed be delusional, but they wouldn’t be trans. As far as they were concerned, they would be cisgendered. Correct or otherwise. Transsexual people are not trying to disabuse themselves of a notion that they are something they aren’t. They know their sex. They are very much aware of their objective reality. It’s their objective reality that is the very heart and soul of the issue. Their objective reality is what is causing them distress.

The very terminology you are using and which has been adopted is binary. Trans- and cis- imply a stark line between one side and another.

Marmaduke wrote:The reality is that they know with absolute certitude whether or not they are in possession of a twig and berries. The objective reality of the situation is that the objective reality is not the core of the issue. If you’re going to professionally arbitrate on the nature of objective reality, you should probably take a minute to gather yourself and figure out if the objective reality was ever in question in the first place.

The distress comes from nonacceptance of objective reality.

Marmaduke wrote:Trans people are people who understand their natural gender and do not feel comfortable with it. To some extent or another, the physical or mental aspects of their biological sex cause them distress.

Gender is a social construct that only roughly maps to our sexual dimorphism.

Marmaduke wrote:Very much how you are gay because of genetic programming, they are beholden to a dissonance between their genetic programming and their biological reality. It is their subjective experience not correlating with their objective reality that is the heart of the issue. And you - a self-professed denier of subjective experience, you don’t believe in it - are clearly not equipped to consider something of which you have no understanding. It’s nuance. It’s shades of grey. They are impenetrable to you. You cannot discern them.

The mind is malleable, much more so than the body. Evidence does not suggest that there is a gay gene or that sexuality is entirely genetically encoded except in broad strokes of generally favouring heterosexuality.

Marmaduke wrote:As Arbiter of Objective Reality, you can only reference the world against the materials that were issued to you in order to undertake your role; the dictionary in your right hand and a DSM-5 in your left. You lack the requisite context of empathy and experience to understand the problem.

You lack the broad compassion to take in the whole picture and extend your empathy to the multitudes who are being hurt by the current zeitgeist. You only have empathy for the people whose political narratives you've internalised.

Marmaduke wrote:An anorexic may believe they are fat when they are patently not, and that is something that you can reconcile because it integrates with your personal experience and doesn’t require you to empathise. You know that you think you’re fat, despite everyone in your life telling your you’re not. You are deluded.

Or maybe it means that my understanding of mental illness of this nature is better informed than yours by the inclusion (alongside scientific evidence) of first-person experience that you lack.

You're just functioning off of base empathy which is being manipulated by propaganda.

Marmaduke wrote:You have fallen down trying to transpose your experience onto someone else’s when the experiences themselves are fundamentally different. A transsexual, in the context of anorexia, would be abolsutely aware that they are underweight. Their issue is not the reality. Their issue would be that they feel like they can’t reconcile that weight with their own identity, that they feel like they should be obese but do not feel able to bridge that dissonance. Yes, I am aware, a very skinny person can address that dissonance themselves much easier than one who feels uncomfortable with their own gender, thank you, we can put the dictionary and the DSM down. The objective reality is established. I am not positing the example as a genuine scenario. I am trying to frame the heart of the issue within a context that you may find easier to unpack. Within this context, you are asserting that the person should simply be told that their experience is wrong and that they should just learn to love themselves as they are. And for some, that may work, but for most it’s about as helpful as saying “oh just pull yourself together”. What I’m trying to steer you towards is an acknowledgement that medication may help that person make or prevent physical changes that would ease their discomfort, and if their discomfort is acute enough then cosmetic surgery may be warranted. Now, admittedly, this example would make much more sense if I switched the underweight and overweight and adjusted the context, but I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that I’m talking to a brick wall. And this is kinda a flow of consciousness, I’m not going back and rewriting it. I’ve clubbed you with my overuse of “objective reality” quite enough. I don’t want to type it anymore unnecessarily.

ENEURO.0183-19.2019.full.pdf


Marmaduke wrote:This is more to just not let you have the last word, out of fear that someone needing support may stumble in here and assume your thoughts on the matter represent the position of the community and leave having not asked for it.

Oh not this line again. 🙄

Marmaduke wrote:L, G and B are indeed sexual orientations. T is not. We again thank you for your keen attention to objective reality and making sure we know what it is. But again, you’re kinda shouting an irrelevance. Once upon a time, the B wasn’t valid. Most of you bisexuals remain somewhat annoyed that a fairly significant number of people just assume you’re either in denial or sexually greedy. But you’re getting there. Your distinct separation from the cisgendered and heterosexual “normal” is more established now that it has ever been. Now transsexuals are on the cusp of establishing their distinct nature as a matter of public normality, and LGBT, whilst initially a grouping that just happened to contain exclusively sexualities, is now more contemporarily interpreted as a collective of groups, supporting each other in promoting their distinction from cisgendered heterosexuality. It’s not about who any of us want to fuck, it’s about supporting each other in being able to live our lives in the way that makes us happiest, without fear of persecution and without need of hiding our true nature for the comfort and ease of understanding of those unwilling to make anything approaching an effort to change themselves in the interest of letting others be happy.

There is a huge difference:

LGB people who accept their natal sex characteristics need do nothing but love and fuck who they want to love and fuck to be happy.

T people who do not accept their natal sex characteristics demand hormonal and surgical alterations that are clinically unproven to make them any happier than other interventions might. Whenever any medical protocol gives any resistance to the demand it is deemed "gatekeeping", whenever any research is done that might contradict the demand it is deemed "transphobic", whenever anyone doesn't bend their language to that person's preferences they are deemed "transphobic", whenever society doesn't bend over backwards to accomodate a T's preferences it is "transphobic".

Some LGB people began this verbal cudgeling tactic back in the day with the term "homophobic" — and now Ts have taken it to an extreme.

I'll just leave this here…
poolerboy0077 wrote:Many gay people have found it necessary to prove that we are "born this way" to combat homophobia and demonstrate to others that we are worthy of similar rights, of dignified treatment, and to be free from harassment and vitriol. I've questioned the value of this approach before, but I think what people try to do here is establish that being gay is a deep, immutable and important aspect of people's identity to counter dismissive claims that it's some choice or mere fetish. That's understandable.

With that in mind, would affirmation and recognition of transgender people's proclaimed gender identity be necessary to fight for trans rights? A few years ago I wrote on GTF about whether gender dysphoria arises from an actual conflict between a brain that is a sex or gender opposite of one's body, similar to being intersexed (i.e., hermaphrodite), or whether it's a kind of quirk of sorts that makes them think they're a sex or gender they are not, similar to those with species dysphoria. My question for this thread is whether it's important to affirm the former position in our quest as a community to demand certain types of rights and accommodations for transgender people.

For instance, if it turns out that gender dysphoria produces a kind of hallucination or psychosis that convinces someone they are trapped in the wrong body, would it be unreasonable then to demand that society treat people as the gender or sex they claim to be? Everyone should obviously be treated with compassion and dignity, and to a sensitivity to others' states of mind, especially those who endure hardships that may lead them to the point of suicide. But would doing so for trans people necessarily demand that we unequivocally recognize them as the identity they profess? And if so, does this require us to answer the question of whether it's a true internal conflict of genders or sexes as opposed to a brain quirk that convinces someone of a falsehood? This is obviously a difficult question, and I really don't mean to offend anyone or be dismissive, but I'm genuinely curious.
The link goes to the following (which is unfortunately no longer publicly available):
poolerboy0077 wrote:Here's something I've been thinking about recently.

So many transgender folks are diagnosed with this disorder known as Gender Dysphoria (a discontent with their biological sex and/or their assigned gender). One transgender user here years ago proposed that a person with this condition had a "brain sex" (which she defined as "the area of the brain believed to be responsible for gender identity, the sex the mind 'considers itself to be'") different than their body, but the studies cited to support the assertion had persons who had already undergone hormone "treatment" which has been shown to alter the brain.

Then I stumbled onto this wiki article on Species Dysphoria (i.e., people experiencing dysphoria because they feel their bodies are of the wrong species). Unfortunately the literature is very scant, it seems, as this is something that appears to have been recently investigated, at least from what I gathered. Nonetheless, the article also talks about supernumenary phantom limbs (i.e., a person thinking they have limbs they actually don't, presumably animal ones in this case) and it reminded me of a TEDTalk I saw a long time ago made by neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran who talked about regular phantom limbs (i.e., people who've lost a limb but still feel as though it's there, sometimes causing discomfort if, say, the limb was last clenched for example, give a type of learned paralysis).

Then I stumbled onto this study. It's about people who have a desire to amputate their own limbs so as to "correct" their perceived self image. Curiously enough, the author could not find a category in the DSM-IV-TR (the U.S.'s mental disorder handbook so to speak) that remotely fit this...except GID (i.e., Gender Identity Disorder--what will now be called Gender Dysphoria in the upcoming DSM V). A lot of the phenomenology fit.


So why do I bring this up? Well, there are brain phenomena that cause people to feel discomfort but not because it's actually detecting something wrong with them, such as being in the wrong body or having limbs they shouldn't have. Rather, it's a discomfort stemming from some brain quirk, for lack of a better word. If this explains gender dysphoria, maybe the solutions to help transgender folks isn't to take hormones or mutilate (or "reassign" if that's too mean) their genitals after all.

Could there be something here? Does anyone know more information on this? Has this been explored thoroughly? Based on the sources available to me I really couldn't find much. I'd be interest to see what many of you think of this. :monocle:

___
Also relevant here, the song Dude Looks Like a Lady.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 8896
+1s received: 3375
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 8 April 2021, 18:29

So, while y’all are going at it with a very particular point of this thread, I want to post excerpts of this excellent analysis of progressive politics by Freddie DeBoer (shout-out to Max/Mr. Monkey who tipped me (us) off to him years ago):

  1. Social justice politics, like most political schools, is right about some things and wrong about others. The problem is that social justice politics also militate against criticizing people who express them thanks to ideas like standpoint theory; embedded in this school of politics is the notion that no one outside the movement (and few people inside) have standing to say that the movement is unhealthy. In a very basic sense this means that social justice politics lack the typical correction systems of other ideologies. When criticism becomes forbidden it is impossible to recognize and address serious internal problems. This meta-problem permeates everything that follows.
  2. [...]
  3. The desire to find fault in everyone and everything damages your basic perception of the world and make it harder to express your moral purpose. There are times when people are targeted for social exclusion because of perceived violation of social justice norms where many people react not with objection but with confusion; the alleged violation is premised on academic theories so complex and inscrutable that it’s hard for ordinary people to sort them out. And it leaves practitioners of these politics often expending time and energy making critiques that simply aren’t a reflection of what they’re critiquing. I wrote a post recently that argues that historical evidence shows that censorship efforts can’t stop right-wing extremism. This was very, very explicitly an argument that those efforts don’t work, not that they are wrong on principle, which is a different conversation. At the beginning of the piece I said that liberals seem incapable of understanding the is-ought distinction, that there is a difference between saying “this is good” and “this is true.” The reaction to the post was mostly positive, but there were plenty of critics who… seemed incapable of understanding the is-ought distinction, summarizing it as “deBoer says it’s bad to censor Nazis.” But I had very directly and unambiguously not said that. I have to imagine these educated adults are capable of better reading than that. The problem is that their incentive within the social justice world is to condemn in the harshest and most simplistic way possible. So “censorship cannot prevent right-wing extremism” becomes “deBoer loves Nazis.” Eventually this kind of thing undermines your credibility in the broader public, but then again see the next item.
  4. Social justice politics has an inside-outside problem. When you refer to “Black bodies” to describe Black people, and wield that phrase as though it has talismanic power, it becomes a kind of insider jargon that is confusing to those outside of your discourse space, and this confusion is not incidental but by design. The advantage of insiderism is that human beings have an inherent desire to be insiders and the appeal of becoming one can attract converts. The disadvantage is that for insider status to mean anything the outsiders must vastly outnumber the insiders, which provides direct incentives to limit the numbers within your movement, an existential contradiction with the basic project of any politics.
  5. An obvious conclusion one must draw from social justice politics is that most people are inherently bigoted, perhaps irredeemably so. It’s hard to see how someone could not derive that from the basic ideology. It is now perfectly common for people within that world to say that all white people are racist, in the interpersonal sense - that is, that all white people harbor animus and fear towards people of color. And those who do not go that far still see all white people as parts of a structurally racist system which they personally benefit from and uphold via their passive behavior at the very least. Similarly all cisgender people are assumed to perpetuate transphobia, again at least through participation in normal transphobic society and usually through active prejudice, patriarchy conditions the thoughts and behavior of all men and many unenlightened women, etc. Simply taking the basic texts and values of this tradition at face value leads you inevitably to the conclusion that almost everyone you encounter in contemporary society is a bad person.
  6. [...]
  7. [...]
  8. One problem with this fatalistic belief in the universality and inevitability of bigotry is that many or most people find it profoundly unattractive. The progenitors of this school of politics created the social expectation that racism is a uniquely pernicious evil, as it certainly is. But, for one thing, the more you generalize and universalize an accusation, the less it has meaning. Terms like “problematic” have become parodies of themselves because of their relentless application. More importantly, this dynamic makes it really hard to apply social justice politics in mass spaces. As I have argued media is suffering from this problem right now. Last year Wesley Lowery wrote a piece for the NYT in which he discusses media’s abandonment of journalistic objectivity, a change which he both acknowledges as real and asserts is a good thing, as journalists have now discovered “moral clarity” and can speak truth to power. Setting aside the fact that everyone believes themselves to be in possession of moral clarity, Lowery’s indifference to (or disdain for) the audience is remarkable. Media sells a product, the margins of which are slim. It is essential to sell to as large of an audience as you can. At the very least, the takeover of establishment media by social justice has alienated the ~40% of the country that identifies as conservative, and as I said above, in fact the vast majority of Americans are indicted by the ideology. People don’t like being accused of bigotry through mass generalizations by the tiny slice of America (urban, college educated, socially liberal, culturally elitist) that produces the vast majority of our news. Proof? Media has never been less trusted or popular than it is now. Never. What would Lowery’s attitude be towards his industry being financially crippled by this political “awakening”? I have no idea. There’s no indication in his essay that he cares.
  9. When you represent your politics as a matter of intense emotional importance and profound moral value, and insist that there are no exceptions to the rules, and promote an ethic of refusal to compromise, and establish harsh reprisals for people who step outside of your norms, it profoundly undermines your credibility if you don’t practice what you preach. Many or most members of the social justice movement were enthusiastic and aggressive promoters of the Joe Biden campaign. Joe Biden was credibly accused of rape. Joe Biden was accused of, videotaped during, and admitted to inappropriate touching of many women. Joe Biden was a key architect of the crime and prison policies that the social justice movement correctly identifies as racist, including being perhaps the single most important champion of the infamous sentencing disparities between cocaine and crack. Yes, there are realpolitik considerations that can compel you to support a candidate who is contrary to your values. But a) many in the social justice world angrily rejected skepticism of Biden from socialists and b) the entire ethos of the social justice world is a refusal to compromise. You’re left with a group of people who will excoriate someone who uses the word “crazy” as a hater of the disabled but who went to war on behalf of a man who was a key part of perpetuating the myth of the welfare queen. It’s bizarre.
    [...]
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9653
+1s received: 2670
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 9 April 2021, 14:37

I think Pooler has hit upon the crux of the issue, with his quote.

What we are seeing, is the playing out of an extreme form of leftist politics, that frankly is out of balance in much the same way, that destructive and extreme forms of right based politics, have been, in the past.

The difference in this instance, and why it is so difficult to talk about, is that destructive, imbalanced, right leaning extremism, is very easy to identify and most often manifests in very unpalatable ways.

This particular form of extremist left oriented politics, has staked a claim to moral justice, such that any criticism of it or critical analysis of it, is regarded as being immoral.

Hence it's enjoying a great deal of success, albeit, temporary I expect.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3254
+1s received: 2646
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby betonhaus » 9 April 2021, 18:16

PopTart wrote:I think Pooler has hit upon the crux of the issue, with his quote.

What we are seeing, is the playing out of an extreme form of leftist politics, that frankly is out of balance in much the same way, that destructive and extreme forms of right based politics, have been, in the past.

The difference in this instance, and why it is so difficult to talk about, is that destructive, imbalanced, right leaning extremism, is very easy to identify and most often manifests in very unpalatable ways.

This particular form of extremist left oriented politics, has staked a claim to moral justice, such that any criticism of it or critical analysis of it, is regarded as being immoral.

Hence it's enjoying a great deal of success, albeit, temporary I expect.

That does seem to be the case. I'm absolutely terrified of the backlash if it reaches a point where people can no longer define it as moral justice. Especially if I look at the history and psychology of right wing extremism and see signs that they believed they were morally justified, and fighting against perceived negatives of left wing extremism. Cities are literally burning to promote BLM and antifa ideals, which may end up ad fodder for justifying going back to the dark ages of civil rights. This is why right now I'm insisting we treat the movement with caution and thought, instead of reinventing the wheel only to learn painful lessons that its supposed to be round.
User avatar
betonhaus
 
Posts: 243
+1s received: 98
Joined: 14 January 2019, 00:09

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 9 April 2021, 21:16

At the risk of being cynical, I expect there are some far right individuals who are happy to use it as a means of justifying their own extremism. But I don't think you need to be "terrified" It will just take reasonable voices to counsel people to moderation and responsible behaviour.

It's a phenomenon that I think will exhaust itself before too long.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3254
+1s received: 2646
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby betonhaus » 9 April 2021, 21:36

PopTart wrote:At the risk of being cynical, I expect there are some far right individuals who are happy to use it as a means of justifying their own extremism. But I don't think you need to be "terrified" It will just take reasonable voices to counsel people to moderation and responsible behaviour.

It's a phenomenon that I think will exhaust itself before too long.

Not before it scares a lot of people, and causes a lot of damage.

Let's say you have a group of people that represents a normal distribution of beliefs and perspectives, including a handful of extremists on either end who believe violence and murder is justified by their beliefs. in a functioning group, the collective mean would work to suppress the extremists.
Now what we are having is a group where the general belief is the further left you are the more morally superior you are. So far right extremists are being suppressed by EVERYONE while far left extremists are being enabled, and their actions kept hidden from the rest of the group. Anyone in the middle of the group who is concerned about the left-wing extremism and mentions it gets immediately branded as a right wing extremist supporter and is suppressed and silenced. That starts giving the far-left extremists more and more control, while the rest of the group continues to condone it's actions.

That has happened before in mirror image. That Austrian ex-painter and his supporters genuinely believed they were making a better world, and had the full support of his country and people under his control. Until it was revealed what he was doing to the people he branded as extremists and rejects, and the sheer horror caused such an extreme snapback that his name, beliefs, and even facial hair styling was burned from history. With us letting things go so far nowadays I'm worried we are setting the groundwork that justifies a repeat.

So when I say that Trans people should receive mental support and a full understanding of their choices before getting their nuts chopped off and spend the rest of their life dilating, instead of jumping straight to that at the whims of a child... I mean it.
User avatar
betonhaus
 
Posts: 243
+1s received: 98
Joined: 14 January 2019, 00:09

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 10 April 2021, 15:54

I think one other important distinction to make is between the moralizing done by those who are a part of marginalized communities, as described in Derek’s tweet pic on the first page, and the rest of more privileged progressives who speak on their behalf and more or less fit the profile as described by DeBoer above. I feel like this is too easily dismissed as just twitter or tumblr phenomenon that doesn’t exist in the real world to any large and influential extent.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9653
+1s received: 2670
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 10 April 2021, 16:22

poolerboy0077 wrote:I think one other important distinction to make is between the moralizing done by those who are a part of marginalized communities, as described in Derek’s tweet pic on the first page, and the rest of more privileged progressives who speak on their behalf and more or less fit the profile as described by DeBoer above. I feel like this is too easily dismissed as just twitter or tumblr phenomenon that doesn’t exist in the real world to any large and influential extent.

Those that patronize the minorities and do so, not out of a desire to actually do anything for other people, but from the desire to fluff their own egos?

Do you think it's prevalant?
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3254
+1s received: 2646
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 10 April 2021, 17:29

I do think they think they’re being helpful. As to whether it’s prevalent? Well, I think it is prevalent in activist spaces, not necessarily among progressives more generally, but this is only based on my own experiences.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9653
+1s received: 2670
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby betonhaus » 10 April 2021, 17:54

poolerboy0077 wrote:I do think they think they’re being helpful. As to whether it’s prevalent? Well, I think it is prevalent in activist spaces, not necessarily among progressives more generally, but this is only based on my own experiences.

Activist spaces do seem to become more predominant now. Thanks to social distancing and isolation mandates people in most areas are forbidden from meeting face-to-face and having general discussions about local events, instead they are kept inside and online - spending more time on websites like twitter and facebook where their perception of society is getting curated.
User avatar
betonhaus
 
Posts: 243
+1s received: 98
Joined: 14 January 2019, 00:09

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Brenden » 10 April 2021, 18:48

poolerboy0077 wrote:I do think they think they’re being helpful. As to whether it’s prevalent? Well, I think it is prevalent in activist spaces, not necessarily among progressives more generally, but this is only based on my own experiences.

Is the effect a bit like this?
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 8896
+1s received: 3375
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 10 April 2021, 20:07

Brenden wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:I do think they think they’re being helpful. As to whether it’s prevalent? Well, I think it is prevalent in activist spaces, not necessarily among progressives more generally, but this is only based on my own experiences.

Is the effect a bit like this?

Wouldn't that be ironic. I saw something awhile back, that said that this exact behaviour was causing more tension.

The presenter put forward that black or ethnic minorities that have been historically oppressed, have adopted attitudes of assertiveness with white people (sometimes misunderstood as aggression) as a means of demanding respect, only to have white people, over concerned with being seen as domineering or superior in attitude, adopt behaviours of concession and yield very readily, which is mistaken as dismissiveness and a lack of respect.

Or something to that effect. Damn, I can't remember where I saw that, but it stuck with me for being one of those things in life, in which everyone is doing the things that would seem to be the right thing, but it was having the opposite effect. Totally forgotten where I saw it. If I remember ill come back and update here.

poolerboy0077 wrote:I do think they think they’re being helpful. As to whether it’s prevalent? Well, I think it is prevalent in activist spaces, not necessarily among progressives more generally, but this is only based on my own experiences.
I don't know how prevalent it is here, but I'd do know from first hand observation, how patronising the mentality can be. I have seen it a few times, usually from well meaning, upper middle class people who don't have much real world experience, who live in parts of the country where they don't see many foreigners and think that they are being very progressive and forward thinking, when defending to poor minorities. These are the same people who expect that someone brown is likely there to serve them and when said people move onto their street, promptly up sticks and move someplace else.

There used to be quite a few in Blackheath.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3254
+1s received: 2646
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Derek » 10 April 2021, 22:50

betonhaus wrote:Cities are literally burning to promote BLM and antifa ideals, which may end up ad fodder for justifying going back to the dark ages of civil rights.

...They are?

It's odd following the rhetorical patterns of this discussion. LGBT activists are loud bullies, and therefore I do not support those causes. BLM activists rioted last year, and therefore I do not support those causes. It's a process of divorcing the meaning of progressive ideologies from the circumstances which surround them, thereby justifying your indifference and rationalizing your antipathy. You could point out that riots are the inevitable consequence of decades or centuries of police acting as weapons of racial oppression, but that argument has less impact when the whole issue is framed as a series of unpleasant interactions with self-righteous people, or as a spate of criminal acts carried out by criminals who act that way because they are criminals.

Not even mainstream conservatives believe the occurrence of violent protests is a reason to roll back civil rights, let alone anyone who understands the full historical and sociological context of racism. That's such a good example of a disingenuous argument being used to derail the conversation.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6837
+1s received: 2653
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 54 guests