4 ms·

I have no idea what you're saying. I think clinical suffering is bad? I have not mentioned Joe Rogan. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

pixxel 5y ago
Like racist, nazi, or phobe, Joe Rogan is used by certain types as a dismissive. They had that one locked and loaded without looking at the target.
- Jotra7 5y ago
  Anyone listening to Joe Rogan is showing the quality of their brain.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I think threatofrain is proving your point. Their approach seems to be to try to find something, anything, that they can argue, no matter how unrelated to the point at hand, and to keep arguing forever. Points that they can't answer get silently dropped, with no admission that the other side has a point. I've seen this pattern before. At best it's someone so committed to a position that they are determined to do battle rather than actually have a conversation. At worst it's someone arguing in bad faith. Or, I suppose, most charitably, it's someone who lost the thread of the conversation and replied to the wrong person.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  > Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues? I'm not the person who setup a discussion by leading with a tactical argument. If you want an argument on substance, you should lead with a proposition that you have something of substance to give, not that you have tactics to offer because you don't trust real conversation. There are very few cases of transgender elite sports. Leading with that discussion implies that you have very little to say on actual transgenderism, and it implies your taste in curation or how you choose to lead in a discussion. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" I asked a question to invite display of expertise on the underlying primary subject -- actual transgenderism. The response is that medical suffering sucks. So far this debate has never elevated past the Joe Rogan level of discourse. You can look at any other branching thread to see the intellectually inspiring quality of opening discussion with trans elite sports.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    You're the person who entered the discussion by assuming that the original post was a tactical argument, rather than a good-faith post of a reasonable position. And, what on earth does Joe Rogan have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing him up, and he's irrelevant to Moodles' point. What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point. You're giving off this really strong "only here to do ideological battle" vibe. That's not what HN is for.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      You can choose not to offer people your faith. In this case it was validated by an admission that an argument was tactically made. > Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues? >> So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time? > The latter, but if you want to talk about the former we can do that too. But you're still focused on whether we afford good faith to tactical arguments. You're accusing me of bad character while espousing whatever it means to offer faith, but whether anyone is here to do ideological battle is easily confirmed by simply clicking on their account history. And what does Joe Rogan have to do with discourse on elite trans sports? He's a benchmark for conversation quality and focus and a major player in discussing trans issues. There are other branching threads here. See if anything ever rises above Joe Rogan's playground of debate. > What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point. And surely one does not ask, "What does transgenderism have to do with transgendered people in elite sports?" > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" This is what I wanted to discuss. An open invitation to discuss the course of medical debate across the west, one which squarely hits at "What is trans?"
      - 5y ago

pixxel 5y ago

Like racist, nazi, or phobe, Joe Rogan is used by certain types as a dismissive. They had that one locked and loaded without looking at the target.

Jotra7 5y ago
Anyone listening to Joe Rogan is showing the quality of their brain.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I think threatofrain is proving your point. Their approach seems to be to try to find something, anything, that they can argue, no matter how unrelated to the point at hand, and to keep arguing forever. Points that they can't answer get silently dropped, with no admission that the other side has a point. I've seen this pattern before. At best it's someone so committed to a position that they are determined to do battle rather than actually have a conversation. At worst it's someone arguing in bad faith. Or, I suppose, most charitably, it's someone who lost the thread of the conversation and replied to the wrong person.

threatofrain 5y ago
> Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues? I'm not the person who setup a discussion by leading with a tactical argument. If you want an argument on substance, you should lead with a proposition that you have something of substance to give, not that you have tactics to offer because you don't trust real conversation. There are very few cases of transgender elite sports. Leading with that discussion implies that you have very little to say on actual transgenderism, and it implies your taste in curation or how you choose to lead in a discussion. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" I asked a question to invite display of expertise on the underlying primary subject -- actual transgenderism. The response is that medical suffering sucks. So far this debate has never elevated past the Joe Rogan level of discourse. You can look at any other branching thread to see the intellectually inspiring quality of opening discussion with trans elite sports.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  You're the person who entered the discussion by assuming that the original post was a tactical argument, rather than a good-faith post of a reasonable position. And, what on earth does Joe Rogan have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing him up, and he's irrelevant to Moodles' point. What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point. You're giving off this really strong "only here to do ideological battle" vibe. That's not what HN is for.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    You can choose not to offer people your faith. In this case it was validated by an admission that an argument was tactically made. > Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues? >> So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time? > The latter, but if you want to talk about the former we can do that too. But you're still focused on whether we afford good faith to tactical arguments. You're accusing me of bad character while espousing whatever it means to offer faith, but whether anyone is here to do ideological battle is easily confirmed by simply clicking on their account history. And what does Joe Rogan have to do with discourse on elite trans sports? He's a benchmark for conversation quality and focus and a major player in discussing trans issues. There are other branching threads here. See if anything ever rises above Joe Rogan's playground of debate. > What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point. And surely one does not ask, "What does transgenderism have to do with transgendered people in elite sports?" > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" This is what I wanted to discuss. An open invitation to discuss the course of medical debate across the west, one which squarely hits at "What is trans?"
    - 5y ago