Notices by Aven (aven@shitposter.club)
-
@mono That's really cool. I've never seen some of those before.
What kind of place/event was it, that was selling this stuff?
-
@shmibs @Moon @shibao How so? How would you draw the lines? Would you not draw them at all?Is it better to not differentiate between XX and XY? Or between intersex and non-intersex? How do intersex people get proper care if there's no distinction?Earlier you implied that everyone should be treated like they are intersex? How is that better?
-
@shmibs @Moon @shibao The categorization:1) Biological Female1a) Biological Female non-intersex1b) Biological Female intersex2) Biological Male2a) Biological Male non-intersex2b) Biological Male intersex1) or 2) is determined by "Is there a Y?"1b) and 2b) are edge cases"*all* variants of intersex have a basis in either male or female" and "flawless categorization"is true in that there is *zero* overlap of 1b) and 2b)this is important in a medical contextA heuristic that works 99% of the time, and you can know when the 1% is occurring and can do something different, is not a bad heuristic.
-
@shmibs @Moon @shibao That was entirely a mischaracterization of my argument.>entirely worthless both in medical and in social contextsIt only works 99% of the time, so throw it out? Of course you should treat the remaining 1% edge cases like SRY differently based on individual patient need. I never said otherwise. You don't need to treat every case like an edge case.Biological sex is as real as XX is real.XX varies in that genes within an XX can be different. Different XX have different needs. Does that make the category XX "entirely worthless both in medical and in social contexts"?
-
@shmibs @Moon @shibao that kind of deconstruction leads to total skepticism and inability to decide about anything. Your using that to attempt to deconstruct my truth claims by claiming uncertainty and unknowability, and yet you simulateously make truth claims about XX or Intersex.By that logic, can you claim biological sex isn't real, but intersex is? Or does intersex simply mean *wildcard* and *wildcard* is all there is?I gave you a flawless categorization: "Is there a Y?"You seem to believe XX is real.The notion that it's all unknowable is contradictory to the trans idea that there is a course of action to improve things.I'm not intending to accuse of bad-faith here, because it's probably just a subconscious confirmation bias, but when I present sand you say it's not a heap, and when you present sand you say it's a heap. You don't have a monopoly on heap-determination, but that's a status I see a lot of relativists take: they crown themselves arbiters or truth, and everyone else is just too stupid or ignorant to have an opinion.
-
@shmibs @Moon @shibao Alright I'm gonna learn about Bayesian Epistemology and get back to you. Thanks for sparking interest in learning the topic.Tbh I'm a bit frustrated and wondering "am I the asshole?", because I feel like I've been bringing all the receipts for my claims, only to have it hand-waved away and been told to educate myself.Especially dismissing the scientific method, whilst claiming intersex is real whilst claiming biological sex is not. It all sounds like postmodern sophistry to me. The constant dismissiveness, ad hominem, and false accusations, also indicate sophistry.
-
@shmibs @Moon @shibao >there is no such thing as "the scientific method" (that is, a set of steps which clearly differentiates "science" activities from "non-science" activities)Control groupsComparison to placeboDouble-blind studyNot trying to prove a negativeRandom sampling techniquesReducing the number of variablesControlling for one variable at a timeReplicating experiments and reproduceabilitySample sizeFinding contradictionsEdge cases are hard, but hand-waving it all away as the same thing is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.>"science" and "not science" exist, but only as overlapping families that have no boundary drawn between themThe overlap is called fraud and pseudoscience. It exists and it sometimes called science, when it isn't exposed.>"gay" and "trans" exist, but they are terms applied to broad subset families of intersex conditionsBeing gay does not make one intersex. Sexual orientation is not sexual identity. Being trans does not make one intersex.>but there is no such thing as "biological sex" (that is, a set of characteristics which clearly differentiates "female" humans from "male" humans)having a Y chromosome.>trying to apply that kind of thinking in edge cases leads to bad treatments, misdiagnoses, and people dyingQuite the opposite, lack of distinguishing in a medical context does that, and is a big part of how trans people are being not served well by medical professionals.
-
@shmibs @Moon @shibao >like "the scientific method", "biological sex" is an invention for middle schoolers and over-taxed medical practitioners who need zero-thought heuristics>and trying to insist on its reality you sound like bill nye apologising for "real science"What?? So do you believe the concept of science itself is illegitimate? Because the scientific method is how the workings of electricity was discovered and so how your computer works.>"gender" is an invention of that one whats his face marxist(?) guy and doesn't really mean anything as a wordIf biological sex doesn't exist and gender is a meaningless word (it's not, it has a meaning but is frequently misused), and that would imply that trans doesn't exist. What does a person transition from and to, or identify as, if none of these things exist or are meaningless?Are you saying trans doesn't exist?
-
@shmibs @shibao @Moon >(and the page you cited also disagrees with you; note that the masculinisation is only 'partial' when SRY is translocated onto one of the two Xs in a location where it's then deactivated in some cells)No it doesn't. Phenotype is not the same as biological sex. XX males have a male phenotype, but female chromosomes. The article said:>XX males that are SRY-positive have two X chromosomes, with one of them containing genetic material (the SRY gene) from the Y chromosome; this gene causes them to develop a male phenotype despite having chromosomes more typical of females.I don't mind if they want to identify and present as male, but to their doctor, knowing that they are XX matters!>and so all sorts of interesting middle-ground combinations are possibleBut *all* of those combinations have a "sex specificity" and each of them *only* happens within that specificity. See the table in this section:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#PrevalenceBiological sex is determined by "did the gamete provide an X or a Y?", or in the case of more than two, "is a Y present?"Intersex and trans are not the same thing. An intersex person may not identify as trans. I think conflating the two is harmful to intersex.
-
@lain @cjd ok, I'm changing my mind about this. I'd thought NFT was bad for crypto because it was just another hype-train bubble, with no real new substance underneath.Then I saw some surprisingly good points and nuance made in ???? Meme Review ????https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QZrGGy7uYI actually didn't know that there was more to it than simple proof of ownership. And I though of cryptokitties, clogging up the inter-tubes and increasing gas fees (while being cute but ugh).
-
@lain @cjd >"telephones are stupid, most of the time they are just used by girls to gossip with their friends"I like that comparison. It's like the"bittorrent is for piracy"or more tongue-in-cheek"the internet is for porn"which echoes a frequent sentiment at the time that the internet was for nerds and weirdos, and wouldn't ever be a practical tool.>Sadly, people seem to quickly stop at [...]To play devil's advocate, there are scams and they get some of the loudest voices, both luring more people in, and being talked about after being exposed. Bitconneeeeeeeect! Unfortunately, that's a big portion what what's loud enough to reach the mainstream.You can't say there aren't scams, but the goalpost is unfair because there are plenty of scams outside of crypto too, including in IRL art, which is used in money laundering. So it's kind of pot-meet-kettle. Same as many of the complaints about cryptocurrency being applicable to fiat.In terms of scumminess, this Stan Lee thing (image) pissed me off. Dude's dead and they still won't stop the elder abuse. Of course this in no way reflects on NFTs, but, similar to how pewdiepie described it, some people/companies get the dollar signs in their eyes and do things that make me say "this is why we can't have nice things". There's a lot of that in crypto.
-
@shmibs no, the people I was critiquing I think are leftists, because their ideology is leftism with "fellow kids" fake virtue signaling "right-wing" coat of paint. Tbh I think they LARP.Look at what they're advocating and how they're advocating it:It's collectivist, authoritarian, anti-capitalist, culture-as-battlefield, peer-pressure, postmodern argumentation, etc.Just because the slap the words "christian" and "nigger" and "sodomite" and "traditional" on top, doesn't mean they aren't talking about leftism.In the same way that Maoism is leftism, as "Marxism with Chinese characteristics", they're adding (what they stereotype as) "right-wing" characteristics.It's like "Redneck Revolt", an ANTIFA LARP group that tries to bring leftism to "rednecks".
-
@shmibs Orwell, while being of the left, was not a leftist, and warned against leftism in 1984, where English Socialism (INGSOC) portrays a very pure leftism.>doesn't realise he's in a war zonewe don't have to see everything through the lense of endless war. Doing so is a leftist thing. We can disagree, and don't need metaphors of violence and battle and militarism around it.
-
@shmibs I think the "left" people you're referring to are liberals, not "leftist", they are not in with "leftism".Leftism is anti-liberal, and increasingly liberal stances are being smeared as "far-right" by leftists. The left in the USA is conquered/occupied by leftists, despite that I'd estimate about 5% of the population is leftist.The democrat party isn't leftist, either, they're just stuck pandering to it, because it's to the left of them and they can't "punch left".
-
@shmibs how so, specifically?
-
@shmibs but they do, and they are essentialHere are the common threads present in *all* leftism.Generally, collectivism. That the individual is an isolated monad without meaning or value that will die if left alone. It must be collectivized, whether is consents or not, for its own good.Of course, the good of the individual doesn't matter in leftism, which is part of why self-improvement is neglected and mental health deteriorates. If every person is worse off, but the imaginary group label is better off, it's considered a win.When leftists gain power, they're always hyper-nationalist and jingoist. Globalism is just nationalism with imperialism/world-domination on top.Collective economics (different forms and extents and methods, but all anti-capitalist and against free markets)Anti-private-property, including people's ownership of their own body and labor. They'll do mental gymnastics for pandering to liberals (who are not leftists) for issues like abortion.Collective culture (you live in a society and you cannot opt out)Worldview of the world as an ideological battlefield, where everything is political, no exceptions. This totalizing worldview is where the word "totalitarian" comes from.No privacy or personal choices, because everything is political. Like your haircut must mean something political, whether your like it or not, so choose wisely, comrade.A worldview of the eternal march toward progress/perfection/utopia, where being apolitical is being evil, or as they call it, "fascist".There's more, but this is getting long....
-
@shmibs I do think "leftism" has many heads, but they all to have the same body of ethos and ideology and worldview and tactics.On the surface it does not appear homogeneous as there are many different versions, all of which hate each other.In the same way that different feudal lords may fight each other, each is a warlord and each has a similar worldview (feudalism) and ethos (valor/loyalty/fealty), and they all are feudal.Just because they oppose each other doesn't mean they don't have the same philosophy or core ideology.
-
Overall, the personality looks to me like an intentionally constructed stereotype of what a leftist opposes. A controlled opposition.It's really uncanny, because while the stereotype has all the appearances of a "right-winger", you can see leftist ethos in its worldview and tactics. It's collectivist, wants to control economy (for different reasons), wants to restrict speech (by different means, bullying instead of banning), it purity-spirals.It treats all culture, economy, and social life as a battleground of ideological total war, where "everything is political": a leftist concept.It uses postmodern argumentation: trying to win the argument by not allowing the argument to take place. Constant weasel-words and definition control/twisting.It stands unopposed simply by being so nasty and toxic that no one wants to deal with it, another leftist tactic. Instead of winning respect, it settles for fear.This is what progressivism looks like when it wears right-wing clothes, attempting to be LARP auth-right, but still being left.Finally, false-flagging and controlled-opposition and purity-spiraling and accelerationism are left-wing tactics.
-
So the nasty bullying thread @icedquinn got sucked into:Who the fuck are these supposed unironic "all fascism is right wing and fascism is actually a good thing and we're going to use postmodern argumentation to bully until you let us win" guys?Tbh I think they're glowies or lefty false-flaggers.It's a persona I've seen repeated online from so-called alt-right or so-called groypers or so-called ethno-nats.They use many of the leftist tactics and ethos:Sockpuppeting to make a dogpile to create the appearance of consensus to intimidate and make the other appear outnumbered.The "well obviously" style of argumentation that mostly rests on calling the other stupid for disagreeing until they agree.The need to control definitions and simultaneously motte-and-bailey them to manipulate via control of language.It's the exact same personality and tactics each time, like they're a bunch of clones (or sockpuppets).
-
I'm pleasantly surprised people liked my post so much. I guess I'll further elaborate:There's this weird disconnect between "in name" and "in deed":In name:Ultra-christian, moreso than you!Ultra-nationalist, moreso than you!Ultra-right-wing, moreso than you!Ultra-trad, moreso than you!Ultra-rational/facts-and-logic, moreso than you!Ultra-free-speech (they'll tell you to shut up, but will never miss a chance to interact, something vaguely resembling free-speech trolling)In deed:Very un-christian behavior, probably don't know nuances or details or biblical passages. This cannot be tested because they'll just google it, and invariably return the most hard-line interpretation they can find. They're trying to be the caricature.Their preferred nation controls the economy and implements virtue via government economic policy, like banning "degenerate" things. Totally not socialist, though, totally not like what is done is every socialist country.Ultra-right-wing is the mirror image of the "more left than thou" phenomena on the left, where scummy people virtue signal their way into social capital of "more left than thou" by giving lip-service to ideological purity. Then they're allowed to be total con-artists, because no one will question them because it would be "punching left". This is what that looks like on the "right".The "trad" element is a virtue signal. It's "look at the degeneracy on the left, I'm the opposite of that". They don't do it for any practical or spiritual reason. It's also a mirror image of "degenerate because it triggers the cons" on the left.They love appearing to be "rational argumentation", but mainly in the way of shaming and insulting an invented lack of rationality in their opponent. This is not logos, this is pathos.Their approach to free-speech is hypocritical, as they're for it until they're in charge, at which point "degeneracy" would be banned, the mirror image of the left's "hate speech". Also they like speech like the left likes protest: they use it while not in power, to gain power, and violently crush and ban it when they've gained power.
Aven
- Tags
-
- ActivityPub
- Remote Profile
Statistics
- User ID
- 29537
- Member since
- 20 Oct 2020
- Notices
- 22
- Daily average
- 0
Aven
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the