Pragmatism Vs. Nihilism: The Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson Trifecta

[Milo]

What does the left have to do with my opinion of Ben Shapiro?



^ this paragraph pretty much explains it.

Even in a limited world where you believe gender is binary and separated into male and female, it's a total shithead move to call someone the wrong gender. If you don't want to get into calling people "xem" or something then whatever but that example rarely ever comes up in real life anyway.

Misgendering someone when you know what they prefer is just straight-up bullying, and there are few ways to respond to bullying unless the bullying is recognised for what it is. It's equivalent of someone giving someone a pet name they really don't want, and repeating it over and over even when asked to stop.

If it happened once, you might not think much of it and any insult perceived wouldn't really be that justified. But if you harassed that same person the same way over and over, and they endured it regularly to the point it became systematic bullying endured from many of their peers, in many social contexts, you'd probably understand why they were upset.

And yeah, nowhere am I condoning someone being violent and threatening someone like that - but if you watch that altercation (it's on YouTube somewhere) it becomes obvious who the real shithead provoking who is there, and why she person responds the way she does.

Ben Shapiro, and the people who follow him are more often than not quite hostile and malicious towards basically anything they don't understand - namely people from already repressed minority groups that are regularly bullied and socially stigmatised.

Hahahaha. No, you don't know what you're talking about. Listen to Ben's podcast or Steven Crowder's podcast. You'll realize its the other side doing what you are describing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtftZPL-k7Y

 

[Milo]

Your entire argument is faulty as heck. You rage on him for playing the Jew card when the Left has been playing the "muh blacks, muh gays, muh *insert oppressed group here*" cards for years. The left has been posturing on their high moral ground and what Ben Shapiro is doing is calling them out on that. He's doing it to mock the Left's tactics, and you are proving his point when you criticize him for that. The point is that the left are a bunch of hypocrites.

Ben Shapiro actually uses facts and statistics to back his arguments, more than what I can say about the Left. He has challenged the Left to actually cite valid statistics multiple times but the best they can do is "But ur racist!11!!!". God forbid they come across any article that suggests that ON AVERAGE men are more mathematically inclined than women. Then they throw a hissy fit and everything scientific gets thrown out the window. Because they are dumb.

Regarding the transgendered guy, LOL, he literally grabbed Ben by the neck and threatened to put him in the hospital. Ben accused the left of condoning violence because that was exactly what they were doing. But of course, the left has a long history of not being able to accept the truth. Because they are dumb.

Finally, the left has not been making targeted attacks on people? Oh please. Their dumb fucking "white privilege" annoys the shit out of me, and I'm not white. Honestly, you just sound like a knee-jerk liberal cuck.

#accurate

 

[Milo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0hPd2gMlGw

Also relevant

 

[Hadoblado]

Crowder? Oh my.

Sorry, but if you're recommending that guy that's gonna hurt your credibility and the value of your other recommendations. I legit have more respect for Alex Jones.

 

[Milo]

Crowder? Oh my.

Sorry, but if you're recommending that guy that's gonna hurt your credibility and the value of your other recommendations. I legit have more respect for Alex Jones.

Then let me ask this--why Alex Jones over Steven Crowder?

 

[redbaron]

Hahahaha. No, you don't know what you're talking about. Listen to Ben's podcast or Steven Crowder's podcast. You'll realize its the other side doing what you are describing.

What does the "other side" have to do with the fact that Ben Shapiro quite plainly does the stuff I'm talking about?

Also, Steven Crowder, lol.

I get why you don't understand my arguments though, because you're exactly that brainwashed lowest common denominator who has a pre-existing personal identification with the, "right", so when presented with two turds, you pick the one you feel most familiar with. Your only defence (and everyone else who disagrees with my points so far) against my obviously truthful points about what a demagogic shithead Ben Shapiro is, amounts to, "no the left does that!" or, "but the left does this!".

This isn't about the left. I don't care about what the American left and right do, because they're all full of stupid demagogic shitlords.

You made a thread about how these people emody your personal development goals and you like to "learn" about things from these three people. One of these people is a special kind of ignorant hatemonger, and not in some relativistic sense of his actions in arbotrary comparison to whatever other fucked up people exist on the political "left" - no, he's just a fearful, spiteful, closed-minded demagogue.

How obviously poisoned your brain is becomes apparent when the only way you can possibly muster up any kind of refutation is some pathetic attempt at character assassination, or to juxtapose my words as if what I'm doing is somehow championing some mythical left-wing figure, and then you're attacking that - because what I've said is plainly and obviously true.

 

[QuickTwist]

What does the "other side" have to do with the fact that Ben Shapiro quite plainly does the stuff I'm talking about?

Also, Steven Crowder, lol.

I get why you don't understand my arguments though, because you're exactly that brainwashed lowest common denominator who has a pre-existing personal identification with the, "right", so when presented with two turds, you pick the one you feel most familiar with. Your only defence (and everyone else who disagrees with my points so far) against my obviously truthful points about what a demagogic shithead Ben Shapiro is, amounts to, "no the left does that!" or, "but the left does this!".

This isn't about the left. I don't care about what the American left and right do, because they're all full of stupid demagogic shitlords.

You made a thread about how these people emody your personal development goals and you like to "learn" about things from these three people. One of these people is a special kind of ignorant hatemonger, and not in some relativistic sense of his actions in arbotrary comparison to whatever other fucked up people exist on the political "left" - no, he's just a fearful, spiteful, closed-minded demagogue.

How obviously poisoned your brain is becomes apparent when the only way you can possibly muster up any kind of refutation is some pathetic attempt at character assassination, or to juxtapose my words as if what I'm doing is somehow championing some mythical left-wing figure, and then you're attacking that - because what I've said is plainly and obviously true.

This is how the mods on this site behave here. I'm almost surprised if I didn't know the kind of place this was.

 

[Milo]

What does the "other side" have to do with the fact that Ben Shapiro quite plainly does the stuff I'm talking about?

Also, Steven Crowder, lol.

I get why you don't understand my arguments though, because you're exactly that brainwashed lowest common denominator who has a pre-existing personal identification with the, "right", so when presented with two turds, you pick the one you feel most familiar with. Your only defence (and everyone else who disagrees with my points so far) against my obviously truthful points about what a demagogic shithead Ben Shapiro is, amounts to, "no the left does that!" or, "but the left does this!".

This isn't about the left. I don't care about what the American left and right do, because they're all full of stupid demagogic shitlords.

You made a thread about how these people emody your personal development goals and you like to "learn" about things from these three people. One of these people is a special kind of ignorant hatemonger, and not in some relativistic sense of his actions in arbotrary comparison to whatever other fucked up people exist on the political "left" - no, he's just a fearful, spiteful, closed-minded demagogue.

How obviously poisoned your brain is becomes apparent when the only way you can possibly muster up any kind of refutation is some pathetic attempt at character assassination, or to juxtapose my words as if what I'm doing is somehow championing some mythical left-wing figure, and then you're attacking that - because what I've said is plainly and obviously true.

Except I grew up in a liberal town in a liberal state (MN), so I am familiar with how the entire spectrum works, meaning your criticism bears nothing but bias in the first place. What you say is plainly and obviously confirmation bias--hence, "you don't know what you're talking about".

 

[redbaron]

Except I grew up in a liberal town in a liberal state (MN), so I am familiar with how the entire spectrum works, meaning your criticism bears nothing but bias in the first place. What you say is plainly and obviously confirmation bias--hence, "you don't know what you're talking about".

How does the place you grew up in relate to Ben Shapiro's demagogic fear-driven gas-lighting and prejudice towards minority groups?

Which part is the confirmation bias exactly, and what pre-existing belief am I trying to "confirm" by pointing out that Ben Shapiro's a disingenuous gaslighting dickhead?

 

[Milo]

How does the place you grew up in relate to Ben Shapiro's demagogic fear-driven gas-lighting and prejudice towards minority groups?

Which part is the confirmation bias exactly, and what pre-existing belief am I trying to "confirm" by pointing out that Ben Shapiro's a disingenuous gaslighting dickhead?

He doesn't have prejudice besides the predjudice of valuing free speech and capitalism. You are defending a leftist viewpoint whether you know it or not. Did you know Ben was bullied for being a minority in school? (which is besides the point since it's not actually a real issue) He is not bullying. The liberal media is using these minority groups to frame a perceived victimhood as grounds for supporting the liberal agenda and demonizing the right to create political distortion for those who don't keep a close eye on American and global events--the media is taking these things out of context and trying to discredit conservative arguements using smokescreens like this.

 

[redbaron]

Deliberately misgendering people is absolutely bullying and it takes a pretty warped view of reality to not view it as such.

You're still not pointing out where the apparent confirmation bias is either, talking about liberal media and not what's being said in this thread. Anyway it's a bit strange that you get upset about liberal media creating smoke screens that detract from issues - do you also get upset about conservative media demonising the left?

You say a lot about how you're apparently avoiding an echo chamber, and yet all of your sentiment appears very much to be strictly right wing? The people whose views and podcasts you subscribe and listen to so far are:

Sam Harris
Jordan Peterson
Ben Shapiro
Steven Crowder

People all aligned very clearly on one specific side of the political spectrum. You reflexively reject anything that contradict these people by framing them as "leftist", and then going on to justify that by how you dislike the left. No one can, in good faith, claim to be "unbiased" while sourcing all of their opinions and ideas from such a narrow pool of political alignments.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

And yeah, nowhere am I condoning someone being violent and threatening someone like that - but if you watch that altercation (it's on YouTube somewhere) it becomes obvious who the real shithead provoking who is there, and why she person responds the way she does.

Have never been too much of a fan of Shapiro, but after watching the altercation it's quite clear that he is making the point that he uses the term "he" because Caitlyn Jenner is biologically male. There is no provoking, it's just a matter what properties of a person are being used to derive the pronoun.

For people getting worked up about the biologically-derived pronouns, I would suggest going about it in a more honest fashion: simply assert the proposition that pronouns should not be derived biologically but politically or subjectively. I am not sure what one achieves with that, though. It is like saying that we should say "thin" instead of "fat" if a fat person feels thin despite being obese, etc.

 

[Absurdity]

I believe I clarified your first concern in my response to Hadoblado

lol no you didn’t

For your second concern, what I mean is that being forced to identify people in certain terms is compelled speech and is a direct violation of the 1st amendment, so it can never be enforced to have to respect or call anyone by a chosen name or identity--that comes from knowing a person.

I suppose not being able to call black people the N word is similarly unjust since it is compelled silence. Do you see how absurd this reasoning is? If your fallback to not being a dick is the First Ammendment you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

For your third comment, he doesn't simplify things without an empirical formula that he states. He, unlike people who lose their self-awareness to being overly complicated and undefined because of their idolatry to being special because they subjugated themselves to the idea that that is what it takes to fit in while being able to fit in their daily dose of debauchery, has a foundation that he can stand on and grow on. The role models of socialists are the inverse--inverse in that that they stand as tall as how much tradition and stability they can debunk. Without some structure being there in the first place, these people would have nothing to stand for. They worship taboo and get delinquent followers to back up the claim that taboo has value. It's like the guy who brings Pinocchio to pleasure island where he turns into a donkey.

Muh moral purity. I think Arabs are subhuman and don’t want to treat transgender folks as people because of my warped understanding of a three thousand year old religion that I bend to my existing prejudices.

Give me a break.

 

[Milo]

Deliberately misgendering people is absolutely bullying and it takes a pretty warped view of reality to not view it as such.

You're still not pointing out where the apparent confirmation bias is either, talking about liberal media and not what's being said in this thread. Anyway it's a bit strange that you get upset about liberal media creating smoke screens that detract from issues - do you also get upset about conservative media demonising the left?

You say a lot about how you're apparently avoiding an echo chamber, and yet all of your sentiment appears very much to be strictly right wing? The people whose views and podcasts you subscribe and listen to so far are:

Sam Harris
Jordan Peterson
Ben Shapiro
Steven Crowder

People all aligned very clearly on one specific side of the political spectrum. You reflexively reject anything that contradict these people by framing them as "leftist", and then going on to justify that by how you dislike the left. No one can, in good faith, claim to be "unbiased" while sourcing all of their opinions and ideas from such a narrow pool of political alignments.

I get why you don't understand my arguments though, because you're exactly that brainwashed lowest common denominator who has a pre-existing personal identification with the, "right".

Confirmation Bias.

When you can't see what another person is talking about when they are on point, then that means you probably have circular logic. If you have to frame things in the way that you are framing them, it proves that you have no moral basis of what has value other than what your feelings tell you at the time.

When did I claim to be unbiased and why did you put quotes around the word? Are you claiming to be unbiased?

 

[Milo]

Have never been too much of a fan of Shapiro, but after watching the altercation it's quite clear that he is making the point that he uses the term "he" because Caitlyn Jenner is biologically male. There is no provoking, it's just a matter what properties of a person are being used to derive the pronoun.

For people getting worked up about the biologically-derived pronouns, I would suggest going about it in a more honest fashion: simply assert the proposition that pronouns should not be derived biologically but politically or subjectively. I am not sure what one achieves with that, though. It is like saying that we should say "thin" instead of "fat" if a fat person feels thin despite being obese, etc.

@redbaron

This is right. He is not bullying but defending against unfair judgement against those who see things through a biological lens. If you see gender as biological, then it is the transgender person who is doing the misgendering.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Society can't handle transgender people because we only print medical forms with two gender boxes? You know there are like 8 different blood types right? If anything we should have far more precise and granular ways of differentiating humans than the millennia-old and clearly flawed categories of "male" and "female" (which breaks down as soon as you have any kind of chromosomal abnormality - is someone with XXY male or female?).
.

It is quite nonsensical to compare variation in gender identity and blood types. All of the different blood types are all biological adaptations, none of which are at odds with human survival or reproduction. Whereas, human reproduction happens sexually between two - and two only - genders. Of course, there are pathological cases but we are not asked to be more accepting of pathological cases, but rather of people who claim there is such a thing as a normal, extra-binary gender.

By the way - if any transgenders find this offensive, I would like to point out: I have nothing against transgenders. I love transgenders, gays, everyone. I even take it as a compliment when gays make advances at me. But this narrative that everyone has a right to dictate people's thinking on biology purely based on compassion, and get offended when they don't, is never going to work. It only makes people more hostile.

 

[Milo]

I suppose not being able to call black people the N word is similarly unjust since it is compelled silence. Do you see how absurd this reasoning is? If your fallback to not being a dick is the First Ammendment you don’t really have a leg to stand on.



Muh moral purity. I think Arabs are subhuman and don’t want to treat transgender folks as people because of my warped understanding of a three thousand year old religion that I bend to my existing prejudices.

Give me a break.

Your logic is absurd--yes, I see that, Absurdity...

 

[Absurdity]

It is quite nonsensical to compare variation in gender identity and blood types. All of the different blood types are all biological adaptations, none of which are at odds with human survival or reproduction. Whereas, human reproduction happens sexually between two - and two only - genders. Of course, there are pathological cases but we are not asked to be more accepting of pathological cases, but rather of people who claim there is such a thing as a normal, extra-binary gender.

You’re taking my example out of context. Milo seemed to think we wouldn’t be able to avoid making prescription errors for people who don’t fit neatly in the two gender categories of male and female, while I demonstrated that we handle a far more complicated issue of medically relevant categorization (blood types) that is not at all obvious on the surface already.

But please keep making the same tired arguments and calling my logic absurd without actually responding to it.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You’re taking my example out of context. Milo seemed to think we wouldn’t be able to avoid making prescription errors for people who don’t fit neatly in the two gender categories of male and female, while I demonstrated that we handle a far more complicated issue of medically relevant categorization (blood types) that is not at all obvious on the surface already.

But please keep making the same tired arguments and calling my logic absurd without actually responding to it.

Just providing the context would suffice. No need for the bitchy, defensive comments. But yeah, I see I didn't read the whole thing properly.

 

[redbaron]

@redbaron

This is right. He is not bullying but defending against unfair judgement against those who see things through a biological lens. If you see gender as biological, then it is the transgender person who is doing the misgendering.

Sigh. This again.

If you're closed-minded and want to stubbornly believe gender is completely binary, despite significant evidence pointing to the potential for transgender and body dysphoria having a physiological basis, and you think that justifies bullying someone, that's pretty fucked up tbh.

Science doesn't work by saying "we have concluded that this is X" - no self-respecting biological or neuroscientist is going to put that into a study. But there's at least a dozen studies that all corroborate this same inclination towards there being a physiological basis for being transgender.

I know, people look through studies or reports and say, "Aha! It only says _COULD BE_" and that's because that's how science works. If I came across a study that claimed to have found a hard determinant that transgender is physiological in nature, I would be immediately sceptical of it because it's such a complex issue that the discovery of such a thing would be completely unprecedented. I'm fine with making the leap that it's very likely it's a physiological phenomena that can't be cured, based on the findings of a dozen or more studies, as well as a large collection of anecdotal evidence of how poorly 'correction' facilities worked at 'fixing' the problem of people being trans (because no matter what you do, if it's physiologically based then no amount of mental or behavioural conditioning is going to change their gender identity) and instead just led them further into social alienation and rejection.

It's impossible in good faith to deny that this potentiality exists, and that a persons personal gender identity is NOT simply the product of their subjective "choice" - no one in their right mind would actually "choose" to deal with all the heartache, rejection and repression that simply being openly transgender subjects you to.

The only honest answer anyone can give is that "it's possible that it could be physiological". Choosing to view gender as strictly binary and reducing transgender or dysphoria to simply being "subjective" is supremely ignorant. That's not at all the rational and reasonable mindset you're talking about. It's a pious and moralistic one. One that seeks to put people and things in their place, because it's easier than taking the rational stance of, "hey I'm not really sure".

And after all that, what I really want to know is what possible harm comes to Ben Shapiro for referring to someone who's undergone/going hormone treatment to essentially become female, as a female?

To Absurdity's point, does it hurt you to use the term African American instead of nigger? Does it hurt to say Asian instead of chink or gook? I think it's pretty hilarious how you've basically made this into some convoluted victim complex, whereby somehow being asked to not be a bigot makes you a victim.

 

[redbaron]

Just providing the context would suffice. No need for the bitchy, defensive comments. But yeah, I see I didn't read the whole thing properly.

Considering you just got done being presumptuous and bitchy by calling absurdity's post nonsense when the actual problem was your reading comprehension - I'm not sure why you're calling him out for being "bitchy and defensive"?

He dealt with your blatant misrepresentation and lack of understanding about as amicably as you'd expect. He wasn't bitchy and defensive at all.

 

[gps]

human reproduction happens sexually between two - and two only - genders.

Well, not genders so much as individuals ... and not any longer.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-three-people-can-make-a-baby/385126/

Though I'm aware of the terms bio-mommie and bio-daddy used to decouple the NATURal influences of DNA from the paternal and maternal `nurturing' influences, I don't know how we're going to accurately portray the genetic influences of 3 or more `donors' of snippets of DNA and whether or not it was important they started out in an egg or a sperm -- as per `genders' -- if ANY.

Let alone the bullshit ATTRIBUTIONS of would-be causal factors justifying our self-reported identities played out as per bullshit categorical discrimination CATEGORIES as per socio-impolitical frameworks.

 

[redbaron]

By the way - if any transgenders find this offensive, I would like to point out: I have nothing against transgenders. I love transgenders, gays, everyone. I even take it as a compliment when gays make advances at me. But this narrative that everyone has a right to dictate people's thinking on biology purely based on compassion, and get offended when they don't, is never going to work. It only makes people more hostile.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

- Martin Luther King

~

Also, I'm calling bullshit on this one tbh. You quite clearly do have something against transgenders Serac, because you have a very big issue in accepting that it's actually possible for transgender to be a physiological phenomena, and not just a 'political/subjective' one.

Simply having black friends doesn't mean you can't be a racist. Not having a specific individual problem with any trans people doesn't mean that you aren't saying things that encourage transphobic attitudes.

 

[redbaron]

It is quite nonsensical to compare variation in gender identity and blood types. All of the different blood types are all biological adaptations, none of which are at odds with human survival or reproduction. Whereas, human reproduction happens sexually between two - and two only - genders. Of course, there are pathological cases but we are not asked to be more accepting of pathological cases, but rather of people who claim there is such a thing as a normal, extra-binary gender.

And this is such horseshit too - because in this case it's simply a born-male undergoing HRT to become female. They aren't asking you at all to accept them as some extra-binary gender, you're literally still using the same pronouns you've been using your entire life: He/She.

Honestly Serac, you say you have 'no problems' with any transgender people - but I wonder how many trans people you know in real life who've gone through HRT, who you decide to call 'him' instead of 'her' or vice/versa. Sure you probably have no issue here because you're the one being an asshole. Of course you aren't offended, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a trans person who'd want to call you friend if you went around doing that.

I mean is it compelled speech if you pronounce someone's name wrong and they correct you? Oh no my First Amendment!

By the way Milo, the first amendment has nothing to do with social and cultural backlash or standards. In a nutshell, it means this:

Spoiler

Just another one of the little facts Shapiro likes to bend and twist to make it sound like he has a point to make - when actually he's just twisting shit to make his issue with gays/trans/whatever look legitimate and reasonable, when it's really just him expressing his own personal dogma.

 

[Yellow]

I've never heard of Jordan Peterson or Steven Crowder, but I've listened to the other two on a few occasions.

Sam Harris was one member of the "Four Horsemen" dialogues (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett & Harris). Everyone wants a dose of confirmation when they feel isolated in their opinions. Those talks provided that lullaby for me. Harris was the only one I didn't care for. He was the most prone to black-and-white thinking, seemed the least informed, and appeared to be the least intellectually curious of the four.

I found Shapiro far from insightful. He's skilled in manipulating dialogue, using the same tactics that are more transparently employed by Kellyanne Conway. I've never had the fortune of witnessing any kind of rational speech from him, only the same absurd brand of pathos employed by most modern demagogues.

 

[Milo]

@redbaron, it seems like you're stuck thinking that we live in a binary of closed and open minds--using the opinion on this issue as judgement for who is open and who is close minded. But you fail to see that it's practical to open your mind to keeping a societal standand and a healthy way of not being prone to the natural gaslighting effect of an extremely large part of society that is not even adopting standards and instead adopting that they should just add any and all bologna they hear as a credible sting of information that they should add to their giant, unmanagable belief system because people "feel" like it "should be true" isn't only impractical, it literally is a proponent to catalyze social disorder and devalue all human life in the process.

The truth is--the less you give your respect away to the feelings of others, the more sturdy the emotional grounding you have for yourself. If you have no ground, you literally become debased and your only grounds is self-centering to feelings and it's the slippery slope to being in denial of all other bases while growing more and more narcissistic until respect itself means so little that you can't even have any for yourself because respect also works in a juxtaposic fashion.

This is the psychological perspective of Jordan Peterson by the way and why he is a part of this group. The merit of my initial 3 choices and I suppose Crowder fits in as well--but more as a commedic example of who does not disrupt the base.

This is an ode to health and order. If you do not make a foundational choice, you will be lost in the rabbit hole forever.

 

[Milo]

The rationale provided for everything you say regarding the issue leads me to the exact issue I see with the left--that the left is basically foundationless in that they are only a proponent of there being a mass solution to every human in society--which, by the way is the same ideology that allowed the nationalist socialist party to systematically take over Germany in pre-WWII.

 

[redbaron]

There's a difference between adding "any and all bologna" and choosing to respect people who are part of a well-studied, well-documented, very likely physiological phenomena. The only reason you come to the conclusion that it's "bologna" (i'm fairly sure you mean baloney but I'll keep the wording in case you really did mean an Italian city) is because you're either:

A. choosing to ignore the abundance of scientific study on the topic, or
B. being dogmatic because of your own irrational fears

None of what you said has any relevance to any of my points. It doesn't explain how Shapiro's disingenuous wording of the First Amendment is relevant. It doesn't address the fact that there's plenty of evidence to point to the fact that transgender isn't known to specifically be "political and subjective" (as if, even if it were subjective it would somehow make it any less important), it doesn't address the obvious gaslighting Shapiro does and the fact that the heart of all of his talk and bluster is little more than fear-driven ignorance.

There's nothing unhealthy about accepting trans people and referring to them as their preferred pronoun. Projecting your own fears and your own inability to understand an issue onto others is pretty ridiculous (although you have been doing it for years on this forum so I'm not surprised).

You haven't answered yet if you're scared of the fact that it's frowned upon to say nigger anymore? Is this compelled silence a violation of the First Amendment too? What about gook, cunt, slut, whore? Is it a big problem that you now have to refer to women as women and not whore? What about names? If you pronounce someone's name wrong and they correct you, is it violating the First Amendment?

Of course all these questions are rhetorical, because obviously none of them have anything to do with the First Amendment and none of these instances violate it in any way - just like using someone's preferred pronoun of he/she doesn't violate it either.

~

And spare me the pious fearmongering. Respect isn't some limited resource that you "give away". It's not like you suddenly lose your ability to respect yourself just because you respect someone else. Probably re-read JP's work, or hey, if that's actually an accurate representation of his opinion (I don't think it is, he doesn't seem that stupid tbh) then he's an idiot.

More likely that you're misunderstanding it though.

 

[Milo]

I see your rationale in a format that does not take the big picture into account, but instead is always regressive aside from the vangards to retain justifications that devalue non-regressive rhetoric to justify the continuation to regress (i.e. saying you're a dick or any other ad hominem attacks that paint a decisive picture of a party that has an opinion that has a consistant logical pace as opposed to the "logarithmic" pace of breaking it down over and over until you are at the meta-level where your frame is so small that you live in the illusion of argumentive progress because your self-measure of pace is at an extremely small scale).

You can excersize your mind to different paces of logic. It seems your intuition to utilize game-theory to win persuasion at what I presume (from the psychological premise that you are low in agreeableness) is an effort to find your own base within the mainframe of the initial context of this thread to destroy it from within like a virus, and that is why your scale of logic is shrinking and therefore why your point has to inevitably become longer and longer without actually making any argumentive gains.

Side note: This might be an interesting premise for a theory on the origin of some (or maybe all) virus strains.

 

[Milo]

https://intpforum.com/album.php?albumid=465&pictureid=3157

You must not be from North America...

 

[Milo]

There's a difference between adding "any and all bologna" and choosing to respect people who are part of a well-studied, well-documented, very likely physiological phenomena. The only reason you come to the conclusion that it's "bologna" (i'm fairly sure you mean baloney but I'll keep the wording in case you really did mean an Italian city) is because you're either:

A. choosing to ignore the abundance of scientific study on the topic, or
B. being dogmatic because of your own irrational fears

None of what you said has any relevance to any of my points. It doesn't explain how Shapiro's disingenuous wording of the First Amendment is relevant. It doesn't address the fact that there's plenty of evidence to point to the fact that transgender isn't known to specifically be "political and subjective" (as if, even if it were subjective it would somehow make it any less important), it doesn't address the obvious gaslighting Shapiro does and the fact that the heart of all of his talk and bluster is little more than fear-driven ignorance.

Except the real reason is that language doesn't just get added to English. We all choose the words we want to use to express our perception. Freedom of speech. If I was affiliated with a trans person and I have gained respect for them through the means that is subjective to my personality, then I would probably address them in a way that they aren't against and that I'm not against--it's called a social contract and they are made between individuals, not between groups. It's not in my interest to speak like I'm in some sort of gang or cult, so it is highly related to freedom of speech and is ultimately a better way of accepting people societally because otherwise we would form stronger lines between groups and begin to look like NAZI Germany.

There's nothing unhealthy about accepting trans people and referring to them as their preferred pronoun. Projecting your own fears and your own inability to understand an issue onto others is pretty ridiculous (although you have been doing it for years on this forum so I'm not surprised).

Are you starting to see more of your own confirmation bias now?

You haven't answered yet if you're scared of the fact that it's frowned upon to say nigger anymore? Is this compelled silence a violation of the First Amendment too? What about gook, cunt, slut, whore? Is it a big problem that you now have to refer to women as women and not whore? What about names? If you pronounce someone's name wrong and they correct you, is it violating the First Amendment?

Whether or not something is frowned upon doesn't give it a basis for having any legal presage because there are no laws about not being able to say these derogatory terms, and I would always refrain from saying them for personal reasons anyways--meaning I'm not out to defaultly go around disrespecting people I don't know the same way I'm not out to defaultly go around respecting people I don't know. There is a line of courtesy of not having an opinion either way and that's where a default state of politeness comes in and where I think people who are forcing the issue unnaturally are crossing the line first.

Of course all these questions are rhetorical, because obviously none of them have anything to do with the First Amendment and none of these instances violate it in any way - just like using someone's preferred pronoun of he/she doesn't violate it either.

Yeah of course they're rhetorical because its the rhetoric for your view that has no persuasion over someone defending fundamental U.S. freedoms.

And spare me the pious fearmongering. Respect isn't some limited resource that you "give away". It's not like you suddenly lose your ability to respect yourself just because you respect someone else. Probably re-read JP's work, or hey, if that's actually an accurate representation of his opinion (I don't think it is, he doesn't seem that stupid tbh) then he's an idiot.

More likely that you're misunderstanding it though.

I don't only read Jordan's work--I listen to his podcasts and large library of videos on YouTube. He talks about how respect means nothing when it's just given as a formality and how that cynical use of language can lead to the way we view ourselves. If I ever come across one of the videos where he says this, I'll be sure to PM you.

 

[redbaron]

I don't only read Jordan's work--I listen to his podcasts and large library of videos on YouTube. He talks about how respect means nothing when it's just given as a formality and how that cynical use of language can lead to the way we view ourselves.

And here we get to the core of the issue: you don't actually respect trans people, and you aren't interested in doing so.

I'd ask how using someone's preferred pronoun amounts to "cynical use of language" but I'm not optimistic about your ability to explain it in a way that makes any kind of sense.

Cynical implies a focus on self-interest only. Yet it seems an undeniable act of cynicism to deny pretty much all evidence, both anecdotal and empirical for the argument that transgender is a very real and meaningful phenomenon to people, and simply saying "he or she" is really, quite a simple request. The cynical thing here would be to refuse to do something that makes literally no difference to you, on the basis of some warped justification of the First Amendment that actually has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

 

[Milo]

If you are trans, you will find your real friends on the conservative side of the spectrum, and on the liberal side, you will see trans people are nothing but something used for political gain--the political gain that causes people to try to find a trans friend in order to get away from the possibility of identifying as intolerant which is the same basic fear preyed upon for pushing the socialist agenda. The idea that if you are conservative you are against the rights of trans people is a generalization used to demonize the right.

Conservatives want trans people on their side because they are important as individuals and the politics of conservatives to uphold the rights of individuals without taking away anyone's rights. The liberals want trans people on their side to use as a scapegoat victim to say they are all about attending to the needs of everyone as if every citizen were actually a baby and the government is everyone's parents. We do not worship the state--we worship the values that promote individual sovereignty so everyone can be an antibody to dangerous ideologies and temptations. The liberals worship the state. NAZIs worshiped the state. The Soviet Union worshiped the state. Communist China worshiped the state. America worships a hierarchical value structure.

 

[redbaron]

Put plainly: you're just another brainwashed drone of the lowest common denominator, interpreting things based on your fears and preconceived dogma. You put all arguments against Shapiro in the leftist box, because the entirety of your position is a reactionary one - you lean towards the 'right' not because you have a good idea of what 'conservative' politics entail and promote, but because for whatever reason you find the left unpleasant.

It's made patently obvious by the way that your default response to dissent against Shapiro is, "are these lefist tears?"

You have no actual idea how to put into perspective problems with people like Shapiro, and legitimate criticisms of any figure representing the 'right', without first attaching the label 'left' to the source of the criticism. You're riddled with fear because you've chosen to stake your future development on aspiring to be like these figures, and the only ammunition these figures have is reactionary. Ammunition that you love regurgitating because this reactionary diatribe has become the thing that you base your sense of identity on. You find a box to put things in, and labels put on that box - because you're fearful and reactionary, you don't have your own ideas and thoughts, and so are easily swayed by glib, reductionist semantics.

Exactly the lowest common denominator that Shapiro appeals to. People whose brains can't handle anything more complex than dumbed down vis a vis argumentation, who can't understand anything that isn't presented as 'left' and 'right', 'good' and 'bad'. Completely lacking any kind of nuance or original thought.

 

[Milo]

And here we get to the core of the issue: you don't actually respect trans people, and you aren't interested in doing so.

I'd ask how using someone's preferred pronoun amounts to "cynical use of language" but I'm not optimistic about your ability to explain it in a way that makes any kind of sense.

Cynical implies a focus on self-interest only. Yet it seems an undeniable act of cynicism to deny pretty much all evidence, both anecdotal and empirical for the argument that transgender is a very real and meaningful phenomenon to people, and simply saying "he or she" is really, quite a simple request. The cynical thing here would be to refuse to do something that makes literally no difference to you, on the basis of some warped justification of the First Amendment that actually has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Except the core issue from my perspective between my opinion and yours is that you aren't interested in respecting the development of real relationships--you form judgement based in a hypothetical world where generalizations are king.

 

[redbaron]

Except the core issue from my perspective between my opinion and yours is that you aren't interested in respecting the development of real relationships--you form judgement based in a hypothetical world where generalizations are king.

Yeah sure, I can just imagine how many trans people are just frothing at the mouth to develop a "real relationship" with you when you deliberately misgender them and justify it with the explanation of, "to use your preferred pronoun would be against the First Amendment".

 

[Milo]

Put plainly: you're just another brainwashed drone of the lowest common denominator, interpreting things based on your fears and preconceived dogma. You put all arguments against Shapiro in the leftist box, because the entirety of your position is a reactionary one - you lean towards the 'right' not because you have a good idea of what 'conservative' politics entail and promote, but because for whatever reason you find the left unpleasant.

It's made patently obvious by the way that your default response to dissent against Shapiro is, "are these lefist tears?"

You have no actual idea how to put into perspective problems with people like Shapiro, and legitimate criticisms of any figure representing the 'right', without first attaching the label 'left' to the source of the criticism. You're riddled with fear because you've chosen to stake your future development on aspiring to be like these figures, and the only ammunition these figures have is reactionary. Ammunition that you love regurgitating because this reactionary diatribe has become the thing that you base your sense of identity on. You find a box to put things in, and labels put on that box - because you're fearful and reactionary, you don't have your own ideas and thoughts, and so are easily swayed by glib, reductionist semantics.

Exactly the lowest common denominator that Shapiro appeals to. People whose brains can't handle anything more complex than dumbed down vis a vis argumentation, who can't understand anything that isn't presented as 'left' and 'right', 'good' and 'bad'. Completely lacking any kind of nuance or original thought.

How do you interpret things? What is the meaning of your life? You're still acting the way a virus acts because you have no position on the topic other than that someone has a bad position and that you aim to feed on the denial of it, so please tell me your position on how society should function.

 

[redbaron]

I mean my opinion on how we should treat trans people is pretty well established at this point. Feel free to search my post history if you like.

 

[Milo]

Yeah sure, I can just imagine how many trans people are just frothing at the mouth to develop a "real relationship" with you when you deliberately misgender them and justify it with the explanation of, "to use your preferred pronoun would be against the First Amendment".

I prefer that you address me as "My King". If you don't then I don't want to have a real relationship with you. Same logic. Preferred pronoun: My King.

 

[Milo]

I mean my opinion on how we should treat trans people is pretty well established at this point. Feel free to search my post history if you like.

So in your society, the center is trans people. Trans people are the meaning of society. The whole reason you think Ben Shapiro is bad is because you don't know the direction he wants society to take. Like I said, your argument is not even remotely at the scale of why I think these people are worth referencing.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Also, I'm calling bullshit on this one tbh. You quite clearly do have something against transgenders Serac, because you have a very big issue in accepting that it's actually possible for transgender to be a physiological phenomena, and not just a 'political/subjective' one.

I'm sure it's a possibility. Whether it is a fact is another question. The problem now is that I am asked to treat it as a fact without any evidence. And before you tell me to google it, I have already browsed through research on this, including the stuff you have posted. E.g. evidence of physical brain differences in trans people. This doesn't prove the actual proposition in question, and it especially doesn't prove that whenever someone says they feel like another gender than the one they actually are, they are entitled to being the arbiters of language use, being entitled to being offended by pronouns and so on.

 

[Absurdity]

I see your rationale in a format that does not take the big picture into account, but instead is always regressive aside from the vangards to retain justifications that devalue non-regressive rhetoric to justify the continuation to regress (i.e. saying you're a dick or any other ad hominem attacks that paint a decisive picture of a party that has an opinion that has a consistant logical pace as opposed to the "logarithmic" pace of breaking it down over and over until you are at the meta-level where your frame is so small that you live in the illusion of argumentive progress because your self-measure of pace is at an extremely small scale).

You can excersize your mind to different paces of logic. It seems your intuition to utilize game-theory to win persuasion at what I presume (from the psychological premise that you are low in agreeableness) is an effort to find your own base within the mainframe of the initial context of this thread to destroy it from within like a virus, and that is why your scale of logic is shrinking and therefore why your point has to inevitably become longer and longer without actually making any argumentive gains.

Side note: This might be an interesting premise for a theory on the origin of some (or maybe all) virus strains.

What the fuck am I reading

 

[Milo]

What the fuck am I reading

 

[Black Rose]

Welcome to the Anime traps Wiki
This wiki is all about anime traps and reverse traps. An anime trap is a boy who looks so convincingly like a female, that by the time you realize you have made a mistake, it’s already too late. Thus, a ‘Trap’ This term has come to refer to both anime characters and real life crossdressers/transgender people. Transversely, a ‘Reverse Trap’ refers to a girl who looks very convincingly male. You can help this wiki by adding, editing pages of traps and reverse traps from all the animes where you can find traps.

http://anime-traps.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Traps

actually im a boy

​

Spoiler

 

[quack]

*Quack* *Quack* Ben Shapiro debunked by a network engineer on net neutrality.

 

[Milo]

*Quack* *Quack* Ben Shapiro debunked by a network engineer on net neutrality.

Except they only repealed Title II, so the first thing said on this is false. Hasan Piker's argument was a little more convincing, but still terrible. Lol

Might as well add Tucker Carlson to the list and now Nikki Haley.

A good video on the large-scale,
long-term issue of culturally accepting preferred pronouns.

https://youtu.be/u5o1EsZHUE4

And what rhetoric the left is using to demonize conservatives while trying to dominate the the conversation via means of exclusion to other ideas at collge campuses.

https://youtu.be/pDKLhTxrDss

Oh and @redbaron, I found a video of JP saying what I said he says about respect concerning pronouns

https://youtu.be/1F0A4rohauQ

 

[QuickTwist]

*Quack* *Quack* Ben Shapiro debunked by a network engineer on net neutrality.

When was the last time you were here? I think last time someone was talking about you only showing up when someone said something like "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck"

You always show up at the most surprising times. Job well done good and faithful servant.

 

[Milo]

By the way, those of you still pressed on seeing this as an echo chamber--my entire perception sees everything every human ever says or does as part of an existential echo chamber where the limited amount of psychological traits express themselves, but there are parts of the chamber where the echo actually has harmony. Literally every person I talk to exists as a reflection of a phase I've been in with their own set of idolatries creating the form of the phase they're in.

The one thing Ben Shapiro and I differ on is that I believe in determinism--although I try to believe in free will knowing that my fear of determinism being true might deterministically cause me to feel more accountable and therefore generate the pathology to keep bettering myself. One might even say that believing in determinism maximizes my free will, but I would regrettably have to argue that when my free will is maximally productive (a subjective term that corresponds to my hierarchy of values which I constantly reassess) then my free will will be minimized to only the few things that keep my life running optimally, meaning there is a deterministic ceiling of free will that the best of us will inevitably hit. So to believe in God is to attempt to rid one's self of the future loathing to the end of hope, wonder, and curiosity. Having a father figure to protect one from the exposure of this reality and uphold the illusion that one can aspire to perfection via redemptive behavior is the function of a role model. Having none, you are subject to the ceiling of determinism with no reference to what is good or bad. And if you have tendency to argue if good or bad is real or not after reading this, then you have no connection to my perception and you are in the phase before full exposure to bare reality because you are still tempted to dig into the rabbit hole--and in doing so, you are predisposed to side closer to the left side of the political spectrum.

 

[Hadoblado]

So you're against net neutrality?

You believe climate change is a hoax?

 

[Milo]

I don't believe that climate change causes terrorism like Bernie Sanders claimed in the primaries. lol

Climate change should be a concern for the private sector. Elon Musk might be creating the standard for addressing that concern.

Net neutrality is worthless. I'd rather see change than be locked into a system where change is inhibited.