5 ms·

> Increasing acceptance hasn't done anything positive for their depression rates, drug use rates, suicide rates, either. Bold assertion. What are you basing i

by mftrhu 5y ago

> Increasing acceptance hasn't done anything positive for their depression rates, drug use rates, suicide rates, either. Bold assertion. What are you basing it on, the PIDOOMA institute report? > Trans culture, at least in part and mostly why it's slanted so far MtF is because autism affects men more than women and they internalized the porn differently in that they'd just tther be the women seen in the porn. > Trans and Incel culture are two sides of the same coin Imho. No, you just have no bloody idea what you are talking about, and are blindly parroting talking points that you decided sounded right: you started out with a falsehood, followed by a bunch of not even wrong assertions, throwing in a couple of articles - very loosely related to at most one of your assertions - to give them the appearance of respectability. > Why do you think trans people call people bigots for not wanting to sleep with them.? If you simply cannot control your need to engage in culture war bullshit - targeting an already extremely victimized minority to do so - could you kindly do so in a less boring manner?

kelseyfrog 5y ago
I'm on the fence on whether luring people like this out with "tell me more(about your incredibly naive and bigoted takes)" is worth it. On one hand they are clearly bursting at the seams with garbage and cannot hold back at the opportunity to implicate themselves. Never stop an opponent from making an error. On the other hand, it has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse.
- notch656a 5y ago
  And thus your disingenuous Socratic method is revealed as not genuine curiosity but rather a veiled method of (in your own words) "luring people."
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    I don't owe you (nor anyone) genuine Socratic methodology. This is the internet after all. :) I will happily guide people into earnestly saying terrible things and then point it out. No one is being forced to say anything they don't believe.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      You don't. I admit I mistook your "drivel for substantive discourse." You fooled me. Have fun with whatever it is you're doing.
  - mftrhu 5y ago
    "Revealed"? I'm sorry? The only person who can display "genuine curiosity" over the nth dimwit making the same set of already thoroughly debunked claims for the hundredth time - claims that get repeated, only infinitesimally changed, over timeframes measured in years to decades - is someone who suffers from heavy memory problems. Engaging with them is frankly pointless: even if they are willing and able to learn - which is a big if - there's always another person around the corner ready to take their place, and argue the inarguable. Oh, sure, there are probably a lot of people, at any point of time, who are willing to engage with them in good faith, but bullshit is fundamentally asymmetric: they do get tired of it. At that point, the only real solution is to either stop engaging - and let them appear unopposed, while other people burn themselves out in an effort to bring them the light - try to shut them down, or - in loosely moderated places - deploy mockery and use them as a teaching tool: people who think themselves rational do not, as a rule, want to be associated - even in their own minds - with people who are absolutely foaming at the mouth to spew easily-debunked bullshit, and who get ridiculed as a result. Most of these bad actors do not possess a lot of self-control, and are easily riled up, or otherwise convinced to go mask off in a way that makes them unpalatable to the general population - say, by simply asking them to discuss their beliefs further - which makes this method very effective in limiting the spread of their memes. TL;DR: "revealed"? I'm sorry?
    - notch656a 5y ago
      You're relying on the (inaccurate) fact that this tactic is designed specifically in mind to shut down trans-haters/trans-disinformation (I lack the right word here, but you know what I mean, people who are seen as spreading damaging and likely untrue information about LGBTQ). Ignoring the debate about whether our methodologies should be applied uniformly, even to trans disparagers or even people like Nazis, this turns out to be a false assumption. Kelseyfrog repeatedly engages in this ("luring" Socratic methodology) behavior on a variety of topics, including ideas that don't involve disparaging trans population such as on property and the state. Usually they are not so straight forward about their intentions, but as you have proven in a crystal clear fashion, this topic has provided perfect cover for 'frog to reveal their true intentions. After all -- anyone questioning them can be accused of interfering with some sort of process meant to limit "spread of memes" about trans persons. A convenient way to offload blame from the self and onto an unsavory other.
- mftrhu 5y ago
  > On the other hand, it has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse. The thing is, not engaging with them - in non-moderated communities - also has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse, both by way of familiarizing them with it - mere exposure effect - and by making it appear like their assertions are not being challenged because they cannot be challenged. That's why the engagement really needs to happen on two fronts: both on their own level - assertions met with demands for proof, unrelated or misunderstood papers pointed out as such, counter-assertions backed with proof - and on a meta level. If you only do the former you will run afoul of Brandolini's bullshit asymmetry principle, while letting them choose the field of engagement: there is a literally infinite number of bullshit claims they are able to make - be that "trans people are just incels, really" or "transsexualism [sic] is a sexual addiction, which is why epileptics never transition" - and attempting to disprove them will perforce require much more effort than it takes them to shit them out. Helping them can be very satisfying, also. I still fondly remember that time when I decided to engage with a Nazi who was denying the existence of the gas chambers, asking them for proof, only to receive a link to a report, hosted on Nikzor, which went about debunking their own claim.

by mftrhu 5y ago

kelseyfrog 5y ago

I'm on the fence on whether luring people like this out with "tell me more(about your incredibly naive and bigoted takes)" is worth it. On one hand they are clearly bursting at the seams with garbage and cannot hold back at the opportunity to implicate themselves. Never stop an opponent from making an error. On the other hand, it has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse.

notch656a 5y ago
And thus your disingenuous Socratic method is revealed as not genuine curiosity but rather a veiled method of (in your own words) "luring people."
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  I don't owe you (nor anyone) genuine Socratic methodology. This is the internet after all. :) I will happily guide people into earnestly saying terrible things and then point it out. No one is being forced to say anything they don't believe.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    You don't. I admit I mistook your "drivel for substantive discourse." You fooled me. Have fun with whatever it is you're doing.
- mftrhu 5y ago
  "Revealed"? I'm sorry? The only person who can display "genuine curiosity" over the nth dimwit making the same set of already thoroughly debunked claims for the hundredth time - claims that get repeated, only infinitesimally changed, over timeframes measured in years to decades - is someone who suffers from heavy memory problems. Engaging with them is frankly pointless: even if they are willing and able to learn - which is a big if - there's always another person around the corner ready to take their place, and argue the inarguable. Oh, sure, there are probably a lot of people, at any point of time, who are willing to engage with them in good faith, but bullshit is fundamentally asymmetric: they do get tired of it. At that point, the only real solution is to either stop engaging - and let them appear unopposed, while other people burn themselves out in an effort to bring them the light - try to shut them down, or - in loosely moderated places - deploy mockery and use them as a teaching tool: people who think themselves rational do not, as a rule, want to be associated - even in their own minds - with people who are absolutely foaming at the mouth to spew easily-debunked bullshit, and who get ridiculed as a result. Most of these bad actors do not possess a lot of self-control, and are easily riled up, or otherwise convinced to go mask off in a way that makes them unpalatable to the general population - say, by simply asking them to discuss their beliefs further - which makes this method very effective in limiting the spread of their memes. TL;DR: "revealed"? I'm sorry?
  - notch656a 5y ago
    You're relying on the (inaccurate) fact that this tactic is designed specifically in mind to shut down trans-haters/trans-disinformation (I lack the right word here, but you know what I mean, people who are seen as spreading damaging and likely untrue information about LGBTQ). Ignoring the debate about whether our methodologies should be applied uniformly, even to trans disparagers or even people like Nazis, this turns out to be a false assumption. Kelseyfrog repeatedly engages in this ("luring" Socratic methodology) behavior on a variety of topics, including ideas that don't involve disparaging trans population such as on property and the state. Usually they are not so straight forward about their intentions, but as you have proven in a crystal clear fashion, this topic has provided perfect cover for 'frog to reveal their true intentions. After all -- anyone questioning them can be accused of interfering with some sort of process meant to limit "spread of memes" about trans persons. A convenient way to offload blame from the self and onto an unsavory other.
mftrhu 5y ago
> On the other hand, it has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse. The thing is, not engaging with them - in non-moderated communities - also has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse, both by way of familiarizing them with it - mere exposure effect - and by making it appear like their assertions are not being challenged because they cannot be challenged. That's why the engagement really needs to happen on two fronts: both on their own level - assertions met with demands for proof, unrelated or misunderstood papers pointed out as such, counter-assertions backed with proof - and on a meta level. If you only do the former you will run afoul of Brandolini's bullshit asymmetry principle, while letting them choose the field of engagement: there is a literally infinite number of bullshit claims they are able to make - be that "trans people are just incels, really" or "transsexualism [sic] is a sexual addiction, which is why epileptics never transition" - and attempting to disprove them will perforce require much more effort than it takes them to shit them out. Helping them can be very satisfying, also. I still fondly remember that time when I decided to engage with a Nazi who was denying the existence of the gas chambers, asking them for proof, only to receive a link to a report, hosted on Nikzor, which went about debunking their own claim.