Now that was refreshing. And I will say no more except to mention that I recently went back and forth with someone who insisted that not voting or not voting for the proper party was racist, and therefore deserved to be called out as such. And when I properly pointed out that that's not what the word means at all, he went on to explain that it's not racist in the usual and defined sense of the word, but racist nevertheless. Which defeats the whole purpose of having words with meanings.
Yeah, I've advocated for a long name that words have meanings. That's why we have them.
I know that some words are very flexible, no problem, but others are more precisely defined. When enough people use concrete words in any way they choose, then those words start to mean less and less. I think that as communicators we have a duty to use words wisely and as correctly as we're able.
Ken, out of sincere concern for your mental, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing, I urge you to take a break from social media. The things you’re often describing, things which seem to cause genuine anguish and even despair, simply don’t exist once you shut the laptop or put down the device.
Nobody cares about ‘appropriation’ or 57 genders. The people who pretend to care deeply about it are just as annoying as the people who get upset at the people who pretend to care about it. There’s a multibillion dollar industry that relies on keeping everyone as outraged and upset as possible, and there are political movements which benefit from that outrage too, but the outrage itself just isn’t worth spending precious time and energy on.
I myself stopped using Facebook in November of 2016 and have never looked back.
I've noticed there are many things you think aren't true, Ned. You may think no one cares about gender appropriation, but evidently you haven't heard the voices of the thousands of women and girls (real women and girls. I mean) who are saying that they do care about it. And these real women and girls all have family members who care about it as well.
When these things become acceptable to say in day to day language, people eventually accept them in the physical realm as well. And we've seen that - over and over again.
That’s true. I shouldn’t presume to know how others feel about things. What I should say is that ‘caring’ about ‘gender appropriation’ and similar things is a choice. You can choose whether or not something bothers you if that thing has no real impact on you. Furthermore, many of the things that bother you are DESIGNED to bother you. If we simply stopped being bothered by them, they might just disappear.
Anybody who claims to care about hoop earrings being 'cultural appropriation' or that there are 57 genders is generally doing this because there's not much going on in their lives and because it gets them attention. It's performative, and the social media algorithms feed this narcissistic stuff more than anything.
You seem to believe that the freedoms and rights we enjoy are the natural state of things. Another area where you couldn't be more wrong. This is not the default position. History has also taught us that over and over. I care about it because obviously these things don't just disappear on their own. This particular issue (of trans rights) is a perfect example of a slippery slope. Conservatives are mocked all the time for talking about slippery slopes (sometimes with good reason) but this one's legit. That's why people care. And again, just because you happen to think I'm not really affected by it, doesn't make it so.
I can’t make much sense of it. You say “This particular issue (of trans rights) is a perfect example of a slippery slope”. What is the start point of this ‘slippery slope’?, and where does it go? When I think of conservatives and their ‘slippery slopes’ it’s about “ if we allow this one thing that seems relatively harmless, that will lead to the next thing and the next thing until we end up with something harmful”. Like if we allow same-sex marriage, then eventually we’ll have people marrying their pets or something. Is the type of thing you’re talking about?
1. At first it was: Oh, we just want to be recognized for who we are.🙂
2. Then: You must use the pronouns I have ordered you to use!
3. Then: Let me into your bathroom or you're a bigot!
4. Then: I will compete against women at the professional level because I say I can!
5. Then: I know I raped a woman, but I'm actually a woman too now so if you're going to put in prison for that, it really should be a women's prison.
Seems really weird to me that there's anyone on earth who hasn't noticed this. But really, that's not quite accurate, is it? Of course people have noticed, but for some reason we're not supposed to mention it, and so even intelligent people like yourself just fiegn ignorance.
Okay, that’s actually a very good example. The start of the slippery slope is ‘we just want to be recognized for who we are’, and the end is a rapist trans woman (biological male), in a women’s prison.
Your slippery slope argument here is that if we allow 1, we’ll inevitably end up at 5. I’ll accept that, (though I’m not so sure about some of the steps in between) but we have to look at the alternative as a society and run the cost-benefit analysis.
What does it mean to disallow the first step? ‘we just want to be recognized for who we are’. Okay, there are ways we could avoid the slippery slope by eliminating recognition for trans people, by banning surgeries, banning legal name and gender changes etc. That’s how they do it in many African and Asian, and middle eastern countries, but it’s unjust, and surely leads to a great deal of suffering in those places.
What does it mean if a trans woman rapist can end up in a women’s prison? Is there evidence that they would pose a more significant danger than a biological female inmate also convicted of rape? At what rate do such instances happen, and what measures can be taken inside prisons to mitigate any danger? (Personally, I think the way we manage crime and justice needs a complete rethink, our current model is cruel, depraved, and ineffective, that’s a whole other story.)
Now that was refreshing. And I will say no more except to mention that I recently went back and forth with someone who insisted that not voting or not voting for the proper party was racist, and therefore deserved to be called out as such. And when I properly pointed out that that's not what the word means at all, he went on to explain that it's not racist in the usual and defined sense of the word, but racist nevertheless. Which defeats the whole purpose of having words with meanings.
Yeah, that's pretty rich.
Who needs facts to win an argument when you can just call someone a racist. 😁
I've had similar conversations as well. It's fun to laugh at these - even (or especially) when they're incapabable of getting the joke.
Yeah, I've advocated for a long name that words have meanings. That's why we have them.
I know that some words are very flexible, no problem, but others are more precisely defined. When enough people use concrete words in any way they choose, then those words start to mean less and less. I think that as communicators we have a duty to use words wisely and as correctly as we're able.
Ken, out of sincere concern for your mental, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing, I urge you to take a break from social media. The things you’re often describing, things which seem to cause genuine anguish and even despair, simply don’t exist once you shut the laptop or put down the device.
Nobody cares about ‘appropriation’ or 57 genders. The people who pretend to care deeply about it are just as annoying as the people who get upset at the people who pretend to care about it. There’s a multibillion dollar industry that relies on keeping everyone as outraged and upset as possible, and there are political movements which benefit from that outrage too, but the outrage itself just isn’t worth spending precious time and energy on.
I myself stopped using Facebook in November of 2016 and have never looked back.
And yet, here we are...
I've noticed there are many things you think aren't true, Ned. You may think no one cares about gender appropriation, but evidently you haven't heard the voices of the thousands of women and girls (real women and girls. I mean) who are saying that they do care about it. And these real women and girls all have family members who care about it as well.
When these things become acceptable to say in day to day language, people eventually accept them in the physical realm as well. And we've seen that - over and over again.
That’s true. I shouldn’t presume to know how others feel about things. What I should say is that ‘caring’ about ‘gender appropriation’ and similar things is a choice. You can choose whether or not something bothers you if that thing has no real impact on you. Furthermore, many of the things that bother you are DESIGNED to bother you. If we simply stopped being bothered by them, they might just disappear.
Anybody who claims to care about hoop earrings being 'cultural appropriation' or that there are 57 genders is generally doing this because there's not much going on in their lives and because it gets them attention. It's performative, and the social media algorithms feed this narcissistic stuff more than anything.
You seem to believe that the freedoms and rights we enjoy are the natural state of things. Another area where you couldn't be more wrong. This is not the default position. History has also taught us that over and over. I care about it because obviously these things don't just disappear on their own. This particular issue (of trans rights) is a perfect example of a slippery slope. Conservatives are mocked all the time for talking about slippery slopes (sometimes with good reason) but this one's legit. That's why people care. And again, just because you happen to think I'm not really affected by it, doesn't make it so.
https://open.substack.com/pub/kenhiebert/p/the-natural-state-of-everything?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=15ke9e
I can’t make much sense of it. You say “This particular issue (of trans rights) is a perfect example of a slippery slope”. What is the start point of this ‘slippery slope’?, and where does it go? When I think of conservatives and their ‘slippery slopes’ it’s about “ if we allow this one thing that seems relatively harmless, that will lead to the next thing and the next thing until we end up with something harmful”. Like if we allow same-sex marriage, then eventually we’ll have people marrying their pets or something. Is the type of thing you’re talking about?
Well, how 'bout we start here:
1. At first it was: Oh, we just want to be recognized for who we are.🙂
2. Then: You must use the pronouns I have ordered you to use!
3. Then: Let me into your bathroom or you're a bigot!
4. Then: I will compete against women at the professional level because I say I can!
5. Then: I know I raped a woman, but I'm actually a woman too now so if you're going to put in prison for that, it really should be a women's prison.
Seems really weird to me that there's anyone on earth who hasn't noticed this. But really, that's not quite accurate, is it? Of course people have noticed, but for some reason we're not supposed to mention it, and so even intelligent people like yourself just fiegn ignorance.
Okay, that’s actually a very good example. The start of the slippery slope is ‘we just want to be recognized for who we are’, and the end is a rapist trans woman (biological male), in a women’s prison.
Your slippery slope argument here is that if we allow 1, we’ll inevitably end up at 5. I’ll accept that, (though I’m not so sure about some of the steps in between) but we have to look at the alternative as a society and run the cost-benefit analysis.
What does it mean to disallow the first step? ‘we just want to be recognized for who we are’. Okay, there are ways we could avoid the slippery slope by eliminating recognition for trans people, by banning surgeries, banning legal name and gender changes etc. That’s how they do it in many African and Asian, and middle eastern countries, but it’s unjust, and surely leads to a great deal of suffering in those places.
What does it mean if a trans woman rapist can end up in a women’s prison? Is there evidence that they would pose a more significant danger than a biological female inmate also convicted of rape? At what rate do such instances happen, and what measures can be taken inside prisons to mitigate any danger? (Personally, I think the way we manage crime and justice needs a complete rethink, our current model is cruel, depraved, and ineffective, that’s a whole other story.)