EPT...like that thing people say about if alchol was invented now it'd be banned, truely is bollocks
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 623
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1108 Posts
...like that thing people say about if alchol was invented now it'd be banned, truely is bollocks | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24033 Posts
On April 29 2025 01:21 baldgye wrote: It's kinda wild to me that a brand new and foreign technology has been able to infect and destablise the entire world, causing only harm and damage to generations of people, while making a tiny minority of people insanely wealthy... and it's just accepted... ...like that thing people say about if alchol was invented now it'd be banned, truely is bollocks That's the entire point of capitalism. To get society to accept a tiny minority of people being insanely wealthy by pretending it was a consequence of a meritocracy while shouting down/shaming anyone that points this out. If you don't like a tiny minority of people getting insanely wealthy off the destruction of the society they extract that wealth from, you need to oppose capitalism. It's really that simple. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5183 Posts
I don't think the early pioneers of capitalism had this in mind. But once again I'm talking out of my ass and ready to be educated  | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1108 Posts
On April 29 2025 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote: That's the entire point of capitalism. To get society to accept a tiny minority of people being insanely wealthy by pretending it was a consequence of a meritocracy while shouting down/shaming anyone that points this out. If you don't like a tiny minority of people getting insanely wealthy off the destruction of the society they extract that wealth from, you need to oppose capitalism. It's really that simple. I think you unfairly highlighted a part of my post. I don't have a problem with successful people becoming wealthy. I don't have a problem with billionaires existing. What I do have a problem with, and what most western countries tend to have a problem with, is these wealthy people exploiting others and doing societal harm for their own personal gain. We know social media is harmful, social media companies know they are harmful. Yet almost nothing is done, I hope that the government wakes up to this... but we've a long way to go in the UK, as it seems successive governments (both Labour and Tory) still seem to think encryption is the root of all evil and no one must be allowed it... maybe the EU can step up and we can benefit on the side... | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14145 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44079 Posts
On April 29 2025 03:57 BlackJack wrote: Lamenting the demise of nuance and the rise of tribalism while offering nothing more to the discussion than to trash women who've celebrated this decision as being anti-trans is peak TL. But JK Rowling is anti trans. That's what she's most famous as, an anti trans activist. Though she was an author a while back I think. We're not calling her anti trans, she identifies as that. She calls herself anti trans. | ||
|
Vivax
22377 Posts
On April 29 2025 02:10 baldgye wrote: I think you unfairly highlighted a part of my post. I don't have a problem with successful people becoming wealthy. I don't have a problem with billionaires existing. What I do have a problem with, and what most western countries tend to have a problem with, is these wealthy people exploiting others and doing societal harm for their own personal gain. We know social media is harmful, social media companies know they are harmful. Yet almost nothing is done, I hope that the government wakes up to this... but we've a long way to go in the UK, as it seems successive governments (both Labour and Tory) still seem to think encryption is the root of all evil and no one must be allowed it... maybe the EU can step up and we can benefit on the side... Encryption should be limited to certain areas. I am personally a fan of chat controls. The damage large groups of people can do in private chats at the expense of unaware people is not to be underestimated. It‘s always a bit of a dilemma. I prefer to know when I‘m being spied on. Right now you think encryption works but you don‘t ever know when someone is spying on you. How would you react if you found out that someone or an entire group was spying on you illegally but their spying was encrypted so the government never found out ? I‘d be a bit upset. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On April 29 2025 03:57 BlackJack wrote: Lamenting the demise of nuance and the rise of tribalism while offering nothing more to the discussion than to trash women who've celebrated this decision as being anti-trans is peak TL. Who was really trashing those women though? It’s a very, very tribalistic issue with some vague cohort in between who exist trying to straddle a balance between complexity and granting trans people their human rights, as well as dignity. I’m not a massive fan of the borderline tautology of ‘trans women are women and there’s nothing to discuss here whatsoever’, I’m also not a big fan of how a niche and vulnerable segment of the populace have become a lightning rod in the wider ‘culture war’, and find it rather unedifying to see some of the UK’s most prominent anti-trans bigots glorying in something that might make that population’s lives harder. On April 29 2025 04:19 Sermokala wrote: BJ "I'm not going to contribute anything to this discussion other than to nitpick some specific thing I don't like and then die on that hill while never accepting responsibility for the outcome of my decision to do this" is also peak TL. I have no doubt he’ll still be doing this in the apocalypse while we spend most of our days hiding from the flesh eating mutants the holocaust bore. ‘Hey remember that time you were possibly a hypocrite though, what about that eh?’ | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On April 29 2025 05:38 KwarK wrote: But JK Rowling is anti trans. That's what she's most famous as, an anti trans activist. Though she was an author a while back I think. We're not calling her anti trans, she identifies as that. She calls herself anti trans. I have found that a good way to parse good articles from bad articles is to check whether they describe the rowlings as "gender critical" or as something like "trans-exclusive ('gender critical') activists". A timesaver, especially in UK politics. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On April 29 2025 06:00 WombaT wrote: Who was really trashing those women though? It’s a very, very tribalistic issue with some vague cohort in between who exist trying to straddle a balance between complexity and granting trans people their human rights, as well as dignity. I’m not a massive fan of the borderline tautology of ‘trans women are women and there’s nothing to discuss here whatsoever’, I’m also not a big fan of how a niche and vulnerable segment of the populace have become a lightning rod in the wider ‘culture war’, and find it rather unedifying to see some of the UK’s most prominent anti-trans bigots glorying in something that might make that population’s lives harder. I'll grant that "trashing" is a bit click-baity but certainly nothing of substance was offered to the discussion when speaking of the women celebrating the decision, with undertones that they are filled with glee for getting to deny trans people rights. I'm sure if the decision went the other way the "anti-trans" circles would post about the sadistic glee of the other side celebrating making it easier to strip rights away from their "vulnerable group" aka women. I agree with your post. I agree with the points on tribalism and a lack of nuance. I've been complaining about tribalism more than anyone. My point is I don't see any more effort being made to steelman the opposing side on this forum and other left-wing media I consume than I see on any of the right-wing media I consume. | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1108 Posts
On April 29 2025 06:32 BlackJack wrote: I'll grant that "trashing" is a bit click-baity but certainly nothing of substance was offered to the discussion when speaking of the women celebrating the decision, with undertones that they are filled with glee for getting to deny trans people rights. I'm sure if the decision went the other way the "anti-trans" circles would post about the sadistic glee of the other side celebrating making it easier to strip rights away from their "vulnerable group" aka women. I agree with your post. I agree with the points on tribalism and a lack of nuance. I've been complaining about tribalism more than anyone. My point is I don't see any more effort being made to steelman the opposing side on this forum and other left-wing media I consume than I see on any of the right-wing media I consume. For the record, I agree with the judgement/ruling as I understand it. But I don't think it helps anyone (or the debate) to celebrate it with champaign and cigars... | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On April 29 2025 06:32 BlackJack wrote: My point is I don't see any more effort being made to steelman the opposing side on this forum and other left-wing media I consume than I see on any of the right-wing media I consume. In the trans debate and in a lot of others, in order to steelman what the right is saying, I would have to deny basic reality. I'm not a fan of doing this as a general rule, and if I were to do this it probably wouldn't be because I want to show "fairness" to a political ideology who sees fairness as a one way street: others should always be super fair to them, compromise with them, while they can't wait to treat everyone else unfairly and never plan to compromise with anyone on anything if they gain access to power. Generally you'll hear some silly claims like "trans people are dangerous" or "I suddenly care a lot about where people piss" that are here to shield the more fundamental position, which is either that trans people don't exist or that they shouldn't exist. And, well, they do exist. Always have, always will. Not much more I can say, is there. Nobody on this side has ever made a point with much steel in it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On April 29 2025 06:32 BlackJack wrote: I'll grant that "trashing" is a bit click-baity but certainly nothing of substance was offered to the discussion when speaking of the women celebrating the decision, with undertones that they are filled with glee for getting to deny trans people rights. I'm sure if the decision went the other way the "anti-trans" circles would post about the sadistic glee of the other side celebrating making it easier to strip rights away from their "vulnerable group" aka women. I agree with your post. I agree with the points on tribalism and a lack of nuance. I've been complaining about tribalism more than anyone. My point is I don't see any more effort being made to steelman the opposing side on this forum and other left-wing media I consume than I see on any of the right-wing media I consume. Some are doing exactly just that. Although yeah point taken, I’m sure that would be the case. Equally I mean, sometimes one side of the aisle is just in the right. Just as I don’t think most folks are motivated by outright hatred or a desire to strip rights, or a disdain for women in the pro-life camp, I think broadly that is the case here, although bigotry and disdain play a bigger part. I still think the end result can very much look that way. But that’s about as much as I steelman, I’m not in the steel business. I studiously try to be fair, often fail, in terms of what arrives at my desk so to speak, but I don’t go to bat for positions I don’t hold. Like it’s a shame there aren’t say, more conservatives on TL pol threads but I’m not gonna invent some to fill the gap. As far as I’m concerned the trans ‘debate’ as it were has been absurdly, massively over-amplified in the first place. Often accompanied by complete and utter bollocks scaremongering. Going back however long, I’d say this process is at least a decade old, maybe longer in terms of prominence, it should always have taken the form of ‘ok trans people are real, it’s not a big deal, how do we deal with edge cases?’ and it basically never has taken that form. Not yourself obv, but if I was to engage someone who’s got like a 10 year history of incessant posting about trans people in a negative light, asking me to respect nuance is rich if you’ve been wielding a megaphone to shout from the rooftops incessantly. Going back to the ruling itself, it doesn’t even especially fix problems, it just swaps them around depending on how it’s implemented. You’re still going to have the ‘wrong people’ using the wrong bathroom, just in a different form. But because it’s not trans women it’s seen as fine. Which I think speaks to this hysteria I’ve alluded to. That boogey(wo)man just waiting in your allocated bathroom, just itching to sexually assault you. And that is just predicated on absolute fearmongering in the first place. Most of this pushback is, and sometimes the only level of nuance required is ‘that basically doesn’t happen so your worries are unfounded so just chill the fuck out.’ Others, yeah perhaps less so and there is some tricky ground to navigate. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On April 29 2025 06:59 Nebuchad wrote: In the trans debate and in a lot of others, in order to steelman what the right is saying, I would have to deny basic reality. I'm not a fan of doing this as a general rule, and if I were to do this it probably wouldn't be because I want to show "fairness" to a political ideology who sees fairness as a one way street: others should always be super fair to them, compromise with them, while they can't wait to treat everyone else unfairly and never plan to compromise with anyone on anything if they gain access to power. Generally you'll hear some silly claims like "trans people are dangerous" or "I suddenly care a lot about where people piss" that are here to shield the more fundamental position, which is either that trans people don't exist or that they shouldn't exist. And, well, they do exist. Always have, always will. Not much more I can say, is there. Nobody on this side has ever made a point with much steel in it. Nothing to steelman you say. https://abc7chicago.com/post/pronoun-use-center-rape-case-involving-former-chowchilla-central-california-womens-facility-prisoner-tremaine-carroll/15696730/ A convicted criminal who served time at the women's prison in Chowchilla, California is charged with raping fellow inmates. A Madera County judge ruled 52-year-old state prisoner Tremaine Carroll must be referred to with she/her pronouns because Carroll identifies as a woman. "After his first cellmate became pregnant and was moved to Los Angeles, two other cellmates of his had complained that he had raped them, so we have filed rape charges against this inmate," said Moreno. Carroll was allowed to serve time in a women's prison despite being a biological male because of Senate Bill 132, The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in 2021. It allows inmates to be housed with the gender they identify as. "There's no psychological evaluation that needs to be done. This person does not need to be on cross gender hormones, they don't need to be signed up for transgender surgery, they don't need to be a psychological evaluation regarding gender confusion, the mere statement is enough," said Moreno. We'd have to "deny basic reality" to believe the person born with a penis and XY chromosomes is anything but a woman simply because they've said so. In the interest of "fairness" we have no choice but to force women to share a cell with this person. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44079 Posts
Do you care about addressing prison rape or is this purely about maximizing the problems trans people face? Because I’m certain that most prison rape doesn’t involve trans perpetrators and yet you’re seemingly not concerned about any of those victims. And do you think that prison rape involving trans people will go down if female presenting trans women are housed in male prisons? I question that as an anti rape strategy. If anything you could reasonably conclude your stance as a rape maximalist stance. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On April 29 2025 07:37 BlackJack wrote: Nothing to steelman you say. https://abc7chicago.com/post/pronoun-use-center-rape-case-involving-former-chowchilla-central-california-womens-facility-prisoner-tremaine-carroll/15696730/ We'd have to "deny basic reality" to believe the person born with a penis and XY chromosomes is anything but a woman simply because they've said so. In the interest of "fairness" we have no choice but to force women to share a cell with this person. Here we have an issue with rape being commonplace in prison, which I also care about when it's done by a cis man on a cis man, or a cis woman on a cis woman, or a cis man on a trans woman if we were to put trans women in the men's jail. Rape is also commonly done outside of prisons, usually by cis men, disproportionately with women, both cis and trans, as the victims. As far as I know every single one of these happen way more often than the scenario you mentioned, but suddenly when a trans person does it we have to change the world. Silly. An honest approach to a story like this deals with how we make it so that prisoners are less raped, because you know, I didn't read anywhere in the sentencing of any of these people that they ought to have their odds of getting raped massively increased. Of course you didn't explicitly say what your opinion of what should be done based on this story is because you're BJ, but we'll imagine someone else, not you, who thinks that because some trans people have raped some cis women in prison, then all trans women should be in the men's prisons, where rapes are obviously much more likely to occur, and obviously much more likely to happen to trans women. This person isn't preventing rapes; they're presenting a preference for who the rapes should happen to. But as usual they wouldn't realize it, because they're not thinking "Yes I want trans people to be raped in men's prisons", they're thinking "I want trans people to be out of my sight, so that I can pretend they don't exist". And as such, no, they don't have any steel to offer. | ||
|
Razyda
1013 Posts
On April 28 2025 07:28 Nebuchad wrote: The decision defines 'sex' exclusively as the biological sex assigned at birth under the Equality Act 2010, explicitly excluding trans individuals - even those holding a Gender Recognition Certificate - from legal recognition of their gender identity. This decision permits the automatic exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces such as schools and sports teams: previously, the Equality Act required a “legitimate aim” to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces, and now it can happen by default. This exclusion disproportionately affects trans women of course, and the first impact was felt almost immediately as the professional pool federation banned trans women from their women's league, welcoming, much like Keir Starmer, the "clarity" of the ruling. "This exclusion disproportionately affects trans women of course" - why is that? On April 29 2025 06:17 Nebuchad wrote: I have found that a good way to parse good articles from bad articles is to check whether they describe the rowlings as "gender critical" or as something like "trans-exclusive ('gender critical') activists". A timesaver, especially in UK politics. It is not a time saver, it is self imposed echo chamber. Judging article quality merely by the way they describe person you happen to disagree with is somewhat close minded. On April 29 2025 06:59 Nebuchad wrote: In the trans debate and in a lot of others, in order to steelman what the right is saying, I would have to deny basic reality. I'm not a fan of doing this as a general rule, and if I were to do this it probably wouldn't be because I want to show "fairness" to a political ideology who sees fairness as a one way street: others should always be super fair to them, compromise with them, while they can't wait to treat everyone else unfairly and never plan to compromise with anyone on anything if they gain access to power. Generally you'll hear some silly claims like "trans people are dangerous" or "I suddenly care a lot about where people piss" that are here to shield the more fundamental position, which is either that trans people don't exist or that they shouldn't exist. And, well, they do exist. Always have, always will. Not much more I can say, is there. Nobody on this side has ever made a point with much steel in it. "In the trans debate and in a lot of others, in order to steelman what the right is saying, I would have to deny basic reality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality#:~:text=Reality can be defined in,phenomena, whether observable or not. "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it first appeared in English in 1513. The first definition given is "Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena" "Generally you'll hear some silly claims like "trans people are dangerous" or "I suddenly care a lot about where people piss" that are here to shield the more fundamental position, which is either that trans people don't exist or that they shouldn't exist." Amusingly, only people who want trans people to not exists, are people saying "trans women are woman" (and "trans men are men"). If trans woman are woman then you have only woman, same goes for men. Effectively you end up with just woman and men - no trans people. Ultimately, debate isnt, as you trying to present about some sort of trans genocide. It is whether there is difference between trans woman and woman, or trans men and men. Basic reality is, that there is. Thats why left will never win this discussion and ends up shouting: bigot, transphobe, whatever. There is actually great discussion to be had: what are those differences, in what environments they are important, how does degree(?) of transition impact those differences and their importance in different environments. There never was such discussion, it was pretty much all or nothing from the start. "political ideology who sees fairness as a one way street: others should always be super fair to them, compromise with them, while they can't wait to treat everyone else unfairly and never plan to compromise with anyone on anything if they gain access to power." That just projection. Edit: From link BlackJack posted: ""This is a particular issue in this case because it's confusing to the jury. In California, rape is a crime that has to be accomplished by a man," said Moreno." That wording, like WTF... | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On April 29 2025 09:02 Razyda wrote: "This exclusion disproportionately affects trans women of course" - why is that? Conservative hatred is usually directed primarily at trans women, they're always the main target. I don't know the exact psychological reason, I have some ideas but I didn't really look into it. Trans men are more of an afterthought, or not a thought at all. I'll refer you to the dude who went on TV the other day and was completely dumbfounded by the fact that trans men are now supposed to use the women's bathroom, and they look like cis men, so "a predator could just say they're a trans man and go in the women's bathroom looking like a man". On April 29 2025 09:02 Razyda wrote: It is not a time saver, it is self imposed echo chamber. Judging article quality merely by the way they describe person you happen to disagree with is somewhat close minded. It didn't take much imposition trust me, I was never like "oh no not an echo chamber", mainly because I noticed that most people who complain about echo chambers online have the exact same opinions, expressed with the exact same words, on like 90% of subjects. You are not freethinkers; I have a much simpler explanation. On April 29 2025 09:02 Razyda wrote: Amusingly, only people who want trans people to not exists, are people saying "trans women are woman" (and "trans men are men"). If trans woman are woman then you have only woman, same goes for men. Effectively you end up with just woman and men - no trans people. No, that is (as usual) completely faulty logic. If trans women are men, then when I decide to put on a dress as a cis man, I am indistinguishable from a trans woman, I'm just a man in a dress, like they are. This is the scenario in which they don't exist. What you describe, trans women not existing because "you have only woman", is a very basic category error. It's like saying that if blonde women are women, then blonde women don't exist because then you have only women. There are women, the majority of them are cis, and a small minority of them are trans. That's all, it doesn't deny their existence at all. As usual, I can't steelman your counter without denying basic reality. On April 29 2025 09:02 Razyda wrote: Ultimately, debate isnt, as you trying to present about some sort of trans genocide. That is a misunderstanding of what existing means to reactionaries. The society that they want is idealized, in the sense that it's just an idea that they have in their head of what society should be like, or is like. The large majority of them don't want a genocide specifically, they just want trans people to not be seen, heard, or considered by them. On April 29 2025 09:02 Razyda wrote: It is whether there is difference between trans woman and woman, or trans men and men. Basic reality is, that there is. There is a difference between trans women and cis women, yeah. That's what the word "trans" is there to show. Do you believe that trans women are unaware that they're trans? That's a pretty insane thing to believe. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On April 29 2025 09:02 Razyda wrote: "This exclusion disproportionately affects trans women of course" - why is that? It is not a time saver, it is self imposed echo chamber. Judging article quality merely by the way they describe person you happen to disagree with is somewhat close minded. "In the trans debate and in a lot of others, in order to steelman what the right is saying, I would have to deny basic reality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality#:~:text=Reality can be defined in,phenomena, whether observable or not. "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it first appeared in English in 1513. The first definition given is "Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena" "Generally you'll hear some silly claims like "trans people are dangerous" or "I suddenly care a lot about where people piss" that are here to shield the more fundamental position, which is either that trans people don't exist or that they shouldn't exist." Amusingly, only people who want trans people to not exists, are people saying "trans women are woman" (and "trans men are men"). If trans woman are woman then you have only woman, same goes for men. Effectively you end up with just woman and men - no trans people. Ultimately, debate isnt, as you trying to present about some sort of trans genocide. It is whether there is difference between trans woman and woman, or trans men and men. Basic reality is, that there is. Thats why left will never win this discussion and ends up shouting: bigot, transphobe, whatever. There is actually great discussion to be had: what are those differences, in what environments they are important, how does degree(?) of transition impact those differences and their importance in different environments. There never was such discussion, it was pretty much all or nothing from the start. "political ideology who sees fairness as a one way street: others should always be super fair to them, compromise with them, while they can't wait to treat everyone else unfairly and never plan to compromise with anyone on anything if they gain access to power." That just projection. Edit: From link BlackJack posted: ""This is a particular issue in this case because it's confusing to the jury. In California, rape is a crime that has to be accomplished by a man," said Moreno." That wording, like WTF... Be too open-minded and you leave the floodgates open to shit as they say. Nothing wrong with closing it sometimes. | ||
| ||
