I have a hard time taking this kind of enlightened-centrist both-sides gruel very seriously. Calling every strong position "extreme" is a classic sleight-of-hand maneuver by people who want to mask their own wrong-side-of-history beliefs that they know they should feel ashamed of expressing.
Yes, yes, look for truth beyond labeled groups, but pretending that the "sides" are equal is some utterly moronic "Fair and Balanced" bullshit.
> it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.
Many issues really do have a bright dividing line. I mean, for fuck's sake, there are people who are currently fighting against releasing the Epstein files, documents that clearly incriminate pedophilic rape and sex trafficking.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent.
I think the author here doesn't actually understand what manufactured consent is, because believing otherwise demonstrates media illiteracy. Talking about our extreme filter bubbles (community/information homogeneity) in one breath and then denying the pervasiveness of manufactured consent in the next is otherwise a perfect demonstration of Gell-Mann amnesia.
"enlightened-centrist" and "both-sides(ism)" are phrases left-leaning people use to try and say "My team good, your team bad, to believe anything else is insanity/stupidity!" without coming off as a douchebag. (It doesn't work)
If you don't want to release the Epstein files, then yeah, you're bad.
If you're 'both side'-ing fucking pedophilia, take a step back and ask yourself - what the fuck are we doing here?
Sometimes people, and this includes republicans, are just pieces of shit. Sometimes someone is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and someone is OBVIOUSLY right. You are allowed to diverge from the fucking hivemind and say 'you know what, this republican sucks'.
Trump sucks man. He's a legitimately bad person and a stain on humanity. There is no alternative perspective to that. If you try to argue one, that's suspicious!
> If you don't want to release the Epstein files, then yeah, you're bad.
You can be against the Epstein files being released for numerous reasons that don't require supporting child abuse.
Here's an example:
"The files are likely inaccurate or manipulated and likely to be used for character assassination. I see numerous people on the left and right wings of the political spectrum accusing the other side of manipulating them."
That does not in any way support child abuse.
> If you're 'both side'-ing fucking pedophilia, take a step back and ask yourself - what the fuck are we doing here?
I'm unsure what you mean. This is a very emotional statement with little actual substance. If you're claiming that only Republicans participated in Epstein's child abuse ring, that doesn't seem to be true at all.
> Sometimes people, and this includes republicans, are just pieces of shit. Sometimes someone is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and someone is OBVIOUSLY right. You are allowed to diverge from the fucking hivemind and say 'you know what, this republican sucks'.
Nobody is objectively a piece of shit, nor is an opinion objectively wrong. Opposing the release of the Epstein files is not objectively or obviously wrong. What "hivemind" are you talking about? A large number of Americans hate Trump.
> Trump sucks man. He's a legitimately bad person and a stain on humanity. There is no alternative perspective to that. If you try to argue one, that's suspicious!
What do you mean, "there is no alternative perspective to that."? Are you saying that people arguing that Trump is not a stain on humanity don't hold a perspective on that matter?
This is a very angry, very Redditesque comment that is more emotional than it is logical.
What you perceive as 'Redditesque' is just a severe lack of conviction on your part. It's a kind of cowardice so powerful it can disguise itself as reasonableness.
Even when faced with villiany beyond belief, you cannot find the strength to condemn. Do you need see the poetic level of pathetic-ness in that?
You're allowed to just say 'these people suck'. Doing so doesn't make you anti-intellectual. You don't have to do backflips and contort your soul in unimaginable ways to defend people who do not deserve it.
> What do you mean, "there is no alternative perspective to that."? Are you saying that people arguing that Trump is not a stain on humanity don't hold a perspective on that matter?
Kind of, I'm saying their perspective is either not genuine or does not matter.
Right, again, when people are defending actual pedophiles, we have to take a step back.
Why are they doing it? It's probably not genuine. It's for political reasons. They probably know, deep down, that this is bad. They do. But they ignore their true feelings and argue the opposite, because they want to win in some political sense. They are cowards to their own beliefs.
Also, I never said objectively. I said obviously.
You can argue diddling kids is not objectively bad. Whatever. But it's certainly obviously bad, at least to the human beings I have met.
This is a common misconception about what it means to be against political extremes.
It does not mean "both sides have a point".
It does not mean "both sides" are equally bad.
It does not even mean that there are necessarily two sides.
The term "centrist" is used to imply and reinforce these misconceptions, encouraging people toward extremes. When you see things in black and white, of course everything is a straight line from good to evil (with you at the far end of good), so if someone only partially agrees with you, they're in the "center" and that much closer to Hitler than you. It's hard to step outside of this fantasy. But I'll try to help you.
Imagine the following dialogue.
A: "Are you Hindu or Muslim?"
B: "Neither. I'm an atheist."
A: "Oh, so you are torn between Vishnu and Muhammad."
And yes, one of the political parties is significantly more deranged than the other right now. You don't need to be extreme to see that and it is possible to vote for the more reasonable party without drinking their kool-aid.
Let's just poke this one a little bit. Does this standard apply to all people or just trans people? Why or why not? Do you think this[1] individual is who they say they are? Why or why not?
> Does this standard apply to all people or just trans people?
All.
> Why or why not?
Because the self as a concept only exists within the mind of the individual and it's sole source for determination is what that individual says. It's non-falsifiable so taking people at their word is simply the only option.
> Do you think this[1] individual is who they say they are?
Sure. There are shitty transpeople too.
> Why or why not?
See above.
And if you're asking how you prevent that person from being a threat to other people in the prison, well, there's a lot to unpack there.
For immediate solutions, solitary confinement. I don't like it as a policy but the neo-nazi movement is openly male-supremacist and this person, woman or not, is a threat to other women. If she wants to be sent to a women's prison it's the prison's duty to see that incarceration pass with as few incidents as possible, so the only logical path forward is isolation from other inmates.
For broader solutions: the fact that we segregate prisons along sex lines is going to always be a problem for trans offenders, but I also understand why that segregation exists and it's obvious. If we assume those same risks are valid, then any transwoman in a woman's prison is a threat, and any transmasculine person in a men's prison is threatened, and nonbinary folk are going to be all kinds of lost in that system. So, logically, we should expand the range of available prison facilities to account for this. Transwomen would go to a transwoman's prison, which would be identical to a woman's prison, apart from not having ciswomen in it, and vice-versa. And I guess you'd also need enby-jails too.
Though if you want my personal opinion, I think there's a much easier solution to this particular offender, and it's the same solution I'd prescribe for any Nazi, regardless of their gender identity.
Ok, so then transracial individuals[1] should be believed as well? What about those that identify as inanimate objects[2] or animals? If we accept self-identification as an inanimate object should others be allowed to treat that person as such?
> Ok, so then transracial individuals[1] should be believed as well?
I mean, "race" is a social construct too. There's nothing biologically different about a black man from a white man. It's a collection of cultural, historical and visual cues society imbues with meaning. So... in a way, it's got a lot in common with gender.
> What about those that identify as inanimate objects[2] or animals?
Yep.
> If we accept self-identification as an inanimate object should others be allowed to treat that person as such?
If someone earnestly identifies as an object, that's their prerogative. But no, others don't get to treat them like furniture or property because consent and dignity still apply to them. Identity doesn't override someone's right to safety, and it doesn't give others license to dehumanize, even in a twisted manner of affirming them.
And, as someone with an occasional spirit for some BDSM play, I am familiar with treating people like objects in a way that is edifying without being harmful to them.
Edit: It feels like you're trying really hard to find an edge case in self identification where it could be used to cause harm, as though the actual, current mechanisms of identity as imposed by society aren't also doing that. Yes, someone could use self identification to do something shitty. That is not unique to this concept and in fact this, and a variety of others, already have plenty of holes wide enough to drive a truck through to accomplish the same goal.
If your standard here is a system which is objectively verifiable, you will not meet it at any point. All of this is subjective because it all ties into the subjective experiences of individuals and the subjective analysis of systems and other individuals. There are no clear cut answers and there never will be, it's subjective turtles all the way down.
Yes, yes, look for truth beyond labeled groups, but pretending that the "sides" are equal is some utterly moronic "Fair and Balanced" bullshit.
> it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.
Many issues really do have a bright dividing line. I mean, for fuck's sake, there are people who are currently fighting against releasing the Epstein files, documents that clearly incriminate pedophilic rape and sex trafficking.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent.
I think the author here doesn't actually understand what manufactured consent is, because believing otherwise demonstrates media illiteracy. Talking about our extreme filter bubbles (community/information homogeneity) in one breath and then denying the pervasiveness of manufactured consent in the next is otherwise a perfect demonstration of Gell-Mann amnesia.