theoryofdoom在2022-12-05~2022-12-11的言论

2022-12-11 作者: theoryofdoom

原文 #Reddit 的其它文章

424: I (f21) “spent time” with my student (m13) and my colleagues don’t think it’s okay, submitted on 2022-12-07 05:09:58+08:00.
425: Fiancé 24 (M) doesn’t want “Jew Shit” at our wedding, submitted on 2022-12-07 21:31:31+08:00.
426: [REPOST] My view on (gender) identity, submitted on 2022-12-10 05:54:40+08:00.
427: Move out to the suburbs tbey said. There’s more green space for your kids., submitted on 2022-12-10 14:30:33+08:00.
428: As a philosophy undergrad interested in philosophy of science what ‘science’ should I know and how should I learn about it?, submitted on 2022-12-10 22:09:04+08:00.
429: I don’t want to die, but I don’t want to be homeless’: Canadian man, 65, has a doctor’s approval for euthanasia despite admitting becoming POOR is a main reason he’s applying to die, submitted on 2022-12-11 00:56:57+08:00.

424: I (f21) “spent time” with my student (m13) and my colleagues don’t think it’s okay, submitted on 2022-12-07 05:09:58+08:00.

—– 424.1 —–2022-12-07 22:13:12+08:00:

I think the bigger “issue” for my colleagues is that I stayed with him for almost an hour (maybe 40-50 minutes) and they said it’s not appropriate to spent time with a student outside of school.

Your colleagues are idiots. You did not schedule an after-hours visit. You randomly ran into your student in a train station, and lent a helping hand. If your colleagues think doing so is improper, consider whether they can be trusted.

Imagine if you had not stayed, but there was some kind of emergency after you left. You would be consumed by guilt.

425: Fiancé 24 (M) doesn’t want “Jew Shit” at our wedding, submitted on 2022-12-07 21:31:31+08:00.

—– 425.1 —–2022-12-07 22:05:17+08:00:

As many others have suggested, do not marry this person.

426: [REPOST] My view on (gender) identity, submitted on 2022-12-10 05:54:40+08:00.

—– 426.1 —–2022-12-10 15:46:26+08:00:

There are exactly two sexes. There are also two “genders,” corresponding to masculinity and femininity.

Gender however, is currently seen by the mainstream as a spectrum.

Gender is not a “spectrum,” however. To explain why, I am noting a distinction between “gender” and “gender-related stereotypes.” Gender as such is not a “gender-related stereotype” and a “gender-related stereotype” is not a gender.

Some “gender-related stereotypes” might have some association with masculinity and/or femininity, particularly where they are expressed/embodied in ways some might perceive as heteronormatively archetypal (such as a “man’s man” or “centerfold”). But new “genders” do not take form due to the emergence of new stereotypes associated with them.

Notably, the “gender-related stereotypes” we understand to have currency in our societies became more complex over time.

For example, in the 1950s, essentially all such “gender-related stereotypes” fell broadly within the categories of “masculine” and “feminine.”

At that time, there were “beefcakes” and “broads,” one might present as a “ladies’ man” or a “homewrecker,” and so on. Now, those stereotypes have fallen out of social currency and the set of stereotypes peculiar to our moment in time are more varied and considerably more complex:

Instead of “beefcakes,” there are “metrosexuals” and “twinks.”
Instead of “broads,” there are “yaaas queens” and “basic bitches.”
Instead of being a “ladies’ man,” men are hypermasculine to the point of being meme-worthy (see, e.g., the so-called “liver king”) or so limited in their expressed masculinity they are hardly identifiable as such (see, e.g., so-called “cat boys” or “fembois” of TikTok).
Instead of “homewreckers,” women are encouraged by media to lead promiscuous lifestyles well beyond any context of a committed relationship (see, e.g., Sex and the City) or fantasize about subordinating themselves in the context of a “committed” relationship bearing no resemblance to any “home” that might be “wrecked” in any sense of that word (see, e.g., Fifty Shades of Gray).

Our current “gender-related stereotypes” have also been influenced by things that have nothing to do with gender whatsoever.

And for some reason, that extraneous influence has further complicated the stereotype landscape.

For example, some argue that advancements in gay rights required redefining social norms (read: gender-related stereotypes) related to “gender.” That idea is egregiously wrong.

Those arguments, in fact, misconstrued basic concepts, like performative expression for, among others, entertainment value (such as dressing up as a drag queen for a performance of some kind) or sexual gratification (such as crossdressing, for those into that kink).

Astonishingly, it turns out that new genders also do not take form by dressing up as a drag queen or other transvestite. New stereotypes might. But genders do not. And those are not the same thing.

As a further example, some even argue that biology itself requires redefining those same “gender-related stereotypes.” Few ideas so self-evidently wrong are expressed. But the people who come up with them are too incompetent to know how wrong they are. And their peers in the same or other normative fields are equally deficient.

As unmitigatedly audacious as unmoored from objective reality, they claim, for example, that genetic abnormalities, defects and congenital conditions are, in fact, no such thing. Instead, they contend that a baby born with an extra copy of an X chromosome (i.e., one that has Klinefelter syndrome) is a natural expression of gender variance. Even more nonsensical arguments have been made relating to sex.

And more astonishingly still, this lot argues the sum of these conditions is proof that gender and sex vary independently in nature.

This is what happens when someone with a Ph.D. in something that ends in “studies” talks about something that actually involves science. Or when some college kid sitting in an undergraduate class taught be one of these idiots gets a whole bunch of stupid ideas in their head.

Note: I could obviously say more about other gender-related stereotypes, from other cultures, dating back to antiquity (particularly ancient Rome, ancient Greece and others, and continuing through at least the Victorian Era, the source of our modern gender-related stereotypes).

What the mainstream is trying to explain is that each person has different characteristics of the male and female archetype.

You’re on the right track there. I think you are, at least. But here’s what’s going on . . .

People are engaging in acts of self expression, and they’re trying to convince themselves and the world that somehow the sum of those actions change what “gender” is, both at their levels as individuals and at the level of society as a whole.

For example, a blue-haired, overweight, self-styled “lesbian” with multiple piercings that maintains a tumblr page replete with feeder pig pornography that also describes herself as “non-binary,” demands that the world use her “preferred pronouns.”

According to this individual, “ze” does not “identify” with “heteronormative stereotypes of masculinity and femininity,” and she has presumably reshaped herself accordingly. Something is going on here. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

Rather, this person is seeking socially validated individuality, where she is both recognized by her external world according to the language that she chooses and on terms of how she presents (e.g., as a blue-haired lesbian, as described above), exclusively. This is a power-claim, before it is anything else.

As a further example, a bearded, overweight, self-styled “non-binary” self-styled “gay” man who is, ironically enough, both gay and also “non-binary” wearing a conspicuous display of makeup, among other things, demands that Matt Walsh use his “preferred pronouns,” whatever those are (I don’t remember).

According to this individual, he also does not identify with the male/female stereotypes even though he can’t even state what they are.

Again, by demanding others’ use of certain pronouns and acceptance of his norm-defying appearance, he is making a power claim, before he is doing anything else.

None of this changes what gender is. And it certainly doesn’t change what the sexes are.

Instead, people are just trying to find some sense of individuality, in a very misguided way.

Again, are exactly two genders (masculine and feminine), corresponding to the two sexes (male and female). No others. There are plenty of stereotypes associated with those genders, but those stereotypes are not genders and the two genders are categorically distinct from their associated stereotypes.

Moreover, how stereotypes are expressed by individuals does not give form to new genders. All that’s happening is that people are pushing the limits of any such stereotype, in their pursuit of individuality (and in some cases, demand for external validation of that pursuit).

NOTE: I have slightly edited this for clarity. I typed my original post late at night, and it wasn’t as clear as it I meant it to be.

—– 426.2 —–2022-12-11 01:39:49+08:00:

This either makes complete sense or none at all depending on how you define “gender”.

As it turns out, that preposterous game of “how you define ‘gender’” is the whole problem here.

There are people who use the term “gender” to refer to subjective expression of what, in reality, is absolutely nothing more than some expression of something tangentially connected to masculinity and/or femininity.

According to that lot, the array of those expressions amounts to a so-called “spectrum” of “gender identity.”

And then that same lot goes off to use the terms “gender” and “gender identity” as if they were interchangeable, which is how stupid ideas like “sex and gender vary independently in nature” emerge (and then enter our social discourse), from people who don’t even understand the concept of a chromosome.

That interchangeability in usage of “gender” and “gender identity” is why people think that the blue haired lesbian or self-styled “genderqueer” gay guy in my examples above can somehow be “non-binary.”

Here’s one of the most blatant problems: All being “non-binary” means is that you’re trying to express/embody something different than the conventionally understood stereotypes of “masculinity” and/or “femininity.”

Which is really to say, all that’s going on is people are pushing the boundaries of stereotypes (according to the current norms of masculinity and/or femininity) in an effort to express their individuality.

So, the term “gender identity” is totally incoherent.

The “identity” part of that phrase is just an individual’s description of how they decide to present themselves to their external world.

And the “gender” part of that phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with “gender” as such, only the current stereotypes of a given society/culture at some certain point in time.

To illustrate that point: Nero was not “non-binary” because he adorned himself with the attire of a bride and took a passive role with male concubines, any more than the blue-haired lesbian in my example above is non-binary because some of her behaviour parallels something our current norms would more commonly associate with masculinity.

It doesn’t matter the least whether they truly are that gender - as gender is a made up concept anyway, it’s not like sex which is biologically defined and definitive

This doesn’t make sense. You can’t “truly” be any “gender.”

But I think you’re on the right track, to the extent you mean gender is a social construct based on biology, and specifically the biological differences between “male” and “female.” That is correct.

The issue we’re talking about relates to how those constructs are, in fact, socially constructed.

And the points I’ve made above relate to why that process of socially constructing them has resulted in a a lot of complete nonsense . . . which I think you are also agreeing with, even though we’re using different words:

. . . everyone just chooses what they think gender really means based on whether the idea of these “new” genders seem appealing or uncomfortable to them.

It’s significant that even in having this conversation, we are not using language in the same way.

We should recognize the reason why, too. That reason is because of all this stupidity in conflating:

the biological: male and female (i.e., sex);
the socially constructed, based on the biological: masculine and feminine (i.e., genders);
the stereotypes, based on those social constructs: what we’ve been talking about above (e.g., beefcake, ladies’ man, broad, homewrecker, catboy/femboi, yaas queen and so on); and
how individual people express themselves, and the degree to which that expression aligns with or deviates from the set of such stereotypes that are peculiar to their society/culture.

Note that I have edited this for clarity, too.

—– 426.3 —–2022-12-11 02:18:29+08:00:

I do not understand why you thought, on the one hand, sexual orientation; and on the other hand, gender or gender identity, have anything to do with one another. They do not.

I also do not understand why you thought some peoples’ opinions about gay marriage has anything to do with gender or gender identity. These concepts also are unrelated.

If you’re trying to make a point about how obnoxious it is that some people cite a text as ostensibly “irrefutable proof of . . . rightness,” then we aren’t really talking about gender.

That’s an epistemological argument which has nothing to do with the OP whatsoever. It’s also a bad epistemological argument, because the point you’re (fairly dogmatically) making is that everything is just an opinion.

But I assume you’re making that argument because these differences between what is biological, what is socially constructed (on top of the biological), what is also socially constructed on top of those social constructs and how individuals play around with those concepts (as well as misuse language to describe them) has not occurred to you. Or if it has, you haven’t sorted them out for yourself.

I encourage you to do so.

—– 426.4 —–2022-12-11 02:26:02+08:00:

No.

—– 426.5 —–2022-12-11 03:07:47+08:00:

Thank you.

I don’t contribute to platforms like TikTok, Tumblr or Twitter, but their weirdness is fascinating. Almost as fascinating as the weirdness of some of their users.

I barely even contribute to Reddit these days, but it and many of its users also fall into the same category too (if you were curious).

—– 426.6 —–2022-12-11 09:00:47+08:00:

This idea that the modern leftist undergraduate matches your description is laughable.

You have failed to state a single coherent point in rebuttal to anything I said.

You have characterized what I said in a variety of ways, such as the quote above. But it doesn’t seem like you have a clue what’s going on here.

—– 426.7 —–2022-12-11 09:30:20+08:00:

I think you should rewrite your commentary and see if you can make a point that addresses what I wrote.

If you can do that, I’ll respond to the substance of what I wrote. If not, I won’t.

—– 426.8 —–2022-12-12 01:09:55+08:00:

I pointed out your use of a caricature as right-wing propaganda, straight out of a 2016 SJW “owned compilation.

That’s not rebuttal. And the fact that you think it is, is why you cannot be taken seriously.

If you cannot comment on literally any of that

Whether I can comment on anything is not the issue. I have “commented” on your incoherent rant which did nothing more than characterize arguments with various descriptions.

Characterizing something is NOT THE SAME THING as rebutting it. All you basically said is that I was an alt-right jackass, which is self-evidently absurd.

Negate a single premise I said and I will take you seriously. Until you do that, you’re irrelevant.

—– 426.9 —–2022-12-12 03:31:35+08:00:

Bottom line, try not to use propaganda

This nonsense is getting old. You are clearly failing to understand the concept of “rebuttal.”

—– 426.10 —–2022-12-12 08:18:09+08:00:

you got downvoted by a TikTok femboi.

lol oh my . . . you’re probably right

—– 426.11 —–2022-12-12 22:26:17+08:00:

Perhaps we should sit you down in front of one of those children’s toys to see whether you are capable of recognizing whether the square peg fits into the round hole.

—– 426.12 —–2022-12-13 12:14:20+08:00:

A small part of me hoped you would rewrite your comments. My expectations were too high, but I suppose they always are. The reason I held out hope was because you approached a coherent thought, in recognizing the distinctions between sex and gender (as such).

Yet, you abandoned that path in your attempt to distinguish between “gender identity,” “gender expression” and “gender roles.” You have simply drawn distinctions without differences, but to whatever extent there are any such differences, they are neither drawn nor drawable.

You have drawn no non-tautological distinction between any one of “gender” (1) “identity,” (2) “expression” or (3) “role[].” For example, no line between any particular of “gender identity” or so-called “gender expression” is cognizable. Nor is any line between “role” or “expression” cognizable. As you have defined each of gender “identity,” “expression” and “role[],” all imply that each are discrete conceptual categories to which individuals may belong, yet the particularities of each arbitrarily converge (rendering all totally incoherent).

Nor, for that matter, have you defined or used those terms consistently with the published literature (to which you ostensibly claim some level of non-specific expertise). As it turns out, you haven’t even conceptually distinguished the stereotypes (that I identified) from whatever you meant to communicate with those definitions. To whatever extent you tried, it seems like you missed that all such stereotypes are, to use your exact words, “a complete social reality and is not biological.” What it seems like you actually meant to say was simply that “gender is a social construct.” Which I said initially. But you failed to ascertain. One wonders why.

In any case, maybe this will be a learning exercise for you. Try to keep yourself on topic if you decide to respond.

The remainder of what I am responding to in this post is unmitigated trash you should have known better than to write. Frankly, I am embarrassed on your behalf that you wrote it. But you did. So here we are:

your description comes straight out of a 2016 SJW “owned” compilation.

I described two people whose actions reflected their efforts to pursue, and seek social validation of, their particular individuality in extreme ways. In characterizing what I wrote as so-called “propaganda,” you at once concede the extremity of their actions (where extremity is measured by the extent of their non-conformity with social norms) and reinforce the validity of both examples (for the same reason).

These people don’t exist en masse in the way you think they do, and to the degree that some person does exist in this regard, they are not representative of a majority.

Nothing I wrote made any claim relating to any degree of prevalence or representativeness of either example I cited. I’m going to play this in your ballpark, since you missed it the first four times I summarily dismissed everything you wrote:

Nothing in what I wrote even addressed the subject of how many people exist, that are like the examples I cited.
Nothing in what I wrote even addressed the subject of whether any such people might be “representative of a majority.”

I can’t even comprehend how you might have rationally misunderstood what I wrote to think I was addressing either of those subjects. This is a basic reading comprehension issue of yours. Don’t do that again. That garbage may fly with your intro to philosophy professor, but it doesn’t cut it here.

Although if you thought trying to make a point about how those examples aren’t representative of any supposed majority actually rebutted what I wrote, we’ve got bigger problems. What I said had nothing to do statistics, representativeness or anything of that nature.

But make no mistake, I was poking fun at both because of the absurdity of each of their situations. That absurdity is both hilarious and engaging, after all.

you are playing into the right-wing propaganda of the “trans agenda.”

This is probably the stupidest thing you said.

First, you didn’t even define what the so-called “trans-agenda” is, so I have no idea what you’re even talking about.
Second, neither of the people in my examples were even transsexual. In fact, the only word I used that even contains the “trans” prefix was “transvestite,” which does not mean “transexual.” So, either you just conflated all transexuals with transvestites (seriously, how ignorant/bigoted of you), or you made the — glaringly wrong — assumption that non-binary meant “trans,” which would place your first category into the same basket of incoherency I identified above. I really thought you’d catch that if you re-read your comment and re-wrote it. Clearly you failed to do so.
Third, there is no “trans agenda,” and even if there was it is beyond obnoxious of you to assume that there is any coherent “right-wing propaganda” relating to it. Not to mention laughably absurd for you to assume I was “playing into it.” I assume you made that nonsensical assumption because I referenced Matt Walsh and that episode of Dr. Phil where the second individual in my examples above appeared.

Your speculations about my politics are absolutely irrelevant to the points I made. Why you would even mention the subject, I can only speculate (that you thought you would somehow win brownie points by some pedestrian effort to discredit what I said because it purportedly aligned with some free-floating notion of so-called “right wing propaganda”).

Further, your lamentations about so-called “right wing propaganda” are unhelpful to your cause. Do they not teach that ad hominem is fallacy, in your little philosophy program? Please ask that your school refund your student loans, if so. As it also turns out, I’m also gay, quite fond of Euphoria (including Hunter Schaefer’s character, Jules) and I voted for Hillary Clinton. I came here for a proper discussion, but you were too busy talking nonsense.

—– 426.13 —–2022-12-14 03:55:49+08:00:

I was on topic. The length of my response does not indicate that I’m “not on topic” because I am. I also know that you are saying this because of the whole propaganda thing, which you have taken great issue to, so we will get to that.

Nowhere in your four-part missive have you explained how your initial definitions are non-tautological. In reality, all you managed to accomplish was situate your perspective amidst greater incoherency.

It is assumed that you conceded my other points, however. After all, you have dropped your initial (irrelevant) points relating to proportionality and representativeness. Now, you have changed the subject(s) again and proceeded down entirely different paths, even further removed from my initial points concerning the example individuals’ pursuit of their own individuality.

But I’m waaaayyy past an “intro to philosophy” course . . . .

That certainly can’t be ascertained from your writing. You began you’re missive focusing on issues that are irrelevant to the points I’ve made, to advance circular arguments based on concepts you can’t even coherently describe. It’s not obvious even you understand what your point was. With that in mind, how could anyone else?

a racial antisemitic caricature of a Jew . . .

Reading your bullshit reminds me of what I would expect from a high school kid engaged in policy debate, on a saturday morning where I’d rather sleep in.

First, you bigotedly conflate transvestites and transgender persons.

Now, you’re alluding to “racial antisemitic caracatures.”

When it turns out, the whole discussion was about gender identity . . . a subject that concerns neither, for reasons I have already said.

427: Move out to the suburbs tbey said. There’s more green space for your kids., submitted on 2022-12-10 14:30:33+08:00.

—– 427.1 —–2022-12-11 03:31:27+08:00:

If hell is other people, then its ninth circle is other people in the suburbs.

428: As a philosophy undergrad interested in philosophy of science what ‘science’ should I know and how should I learn about it?, submitted on 2022-12-10 22:09:04+08:00.

—– 428.1 —–2022-12-11 02:32:53+08:00:

I think actually understanding what it is like to design and run an experiment and then muddle through the results will make you so much better informed on an intuitive level.

I agree with this.

429: I don’t want to die, but I don’t want to be homeless’: Canadian man, 65, has a doctor’s approval for euthanasia despite admitting becoming POOR is a main reason he’s applying to die, submitted on 2022-12-11 00:56:57+08:00.

—– 429.1 —–2022-12-11 03:43:35+08:00:

Canada’s expansion of “euthanasia” (read: suicide, as readily accessible when facilitated by others) is the issue.

To make this point explicitly clear: we are not disagreeing that people have, and ought to have, complete bodily autonomy. Instead, we are disagreeing about how you incorrectly framed the issues raised by Canada’s expansion of “euthanasia.” Your error is in assuming that bodily autonomy is the issue, when it is not. Further, his reasons, whatever they are, are irrelevant to the ethical issues raised by Canada’s normalization of suicide and lowering its barriers to entry.

—– 429.2 —–2022-12-11 08:10:08+08:00:

You agree with body autonomy but only as long as it conforms to your definition of ethics?

That is the exact opposite of what I said.

It is amazing how stupid people on the internet can be.

Let me remind you of what I wrote, since you clearly failed to comprehend it the first time:

To make this point explicitly clear: we are not disagreeing that people have, and ought to have, complete bodily autonomy.

Once your that concept has registered in your brain, try your comment again.

If it didn’t register, read it over and over again until you get the point.

Because I expect you to fuck this up again, let me hold your hand through this very simple exercise:

only as long as it conforms to your definition of ethics?

My concept of ethics has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any individual person’s bodily autonomy. The fact that you so stupidly concluded the literal opposite of what I said is astonishing.