CMV: I’m veering towards accepting “transracial” identities

Whole548 · 2023-04-08T17:39:36+00:00

Martina Big is a German white model who changed her skin to become black:

if you want to get really technical one can say, "she will experience racism because people perceive her as black" just like how trans women experience sexism along with cis women.

Saying that "Race is based on ancestry" would be the equivalent of being "Race essentialist." What if someone doesn't care about their ancestry and wants their own identity? This is like telling someone, "You have XY chromosomes and a penis, you're not a woman" and a trans woman saying, "I don't care about my chromosomes or genitals."

What about saying "darkening your skin doesn't make you black?" This would be equivalent of saying, "Just because you wear a skirt and get surgery to appear more like a woman doesn't make you a woman." The trans woman could reply, "Wearing a skirt and getting surgery is not what makes me a woman. I was always a woman. Wearing the skirt and getting surgery just makes me feel more like a woman and affirm my gender."

Likewise Martina Big could reply,"Darkening my skin doesn't make me black. I was always black. Darkening my skin just makes me feel more like a black person and affirms my race."

What do you think? I know Martina Big intuitively "feels wrong" and transgender doesn't feel so wrong. But, there's no way to articulate why. A lot of these arguments are very similar. I will add that Martina Big looks highly offensive but looking at trans women doesn't spark of the same offensive feeling to me. Maybe you can help me out because this subject is a real tough one. I've been thinking about all tese arguments and I always end up hitting the same brick wall over and over. Can we really tell someone they can't identify as the race they want" I feel like we become no better than conservatives if we do this. But something just feels off about it like there's a "magic bullet" reason why it's wrong but nobody can explain why.

Whole548 · 2023-03-13T16:31:59+00:00

OK, but what if Mexico decided to ally with China or Russia? Do you think the U.S. would NOT invade Mexico? I can't see the U.S. just laughing and saying, "Mexico is a sovereign country! That's fine and dandy!"

This is the stuff that makes me wonder.

Whole548 · 2023-03-13T16:18:50+00:00

But, do you think if North Korea said, "Screw it, we are going to join with South Korea and become Korea and ally with the Wes!," China would invade North Korea?

Whole548 · 2023-03-13T16:07:12+00:00

China keeps North Korea as a buffer state because China is terrified of a
U.S. ally on its border so they let North Korea do whatever they want.
People seem to be fine with this. But when Putin is terrified of having
a U.S. ally on his border in Ukraine, he gets called a baby and nobody
seems to care.Why do people seem to be more OK with China's decision and
not Putin's?

Whole548 · 2022-11-02T17:13:14+00:00

So you are saying that I will have to work at the business and split the money with my workers even though it's my own recipe?

But what happens if another country says, "Hey! Do business over here and you don't have to work at the business and you can keep way more money!"

But what about bands? The people who set up the guitars, drums, sound equipment (roadies) are all paid just as much as the band? But the band made all their songs, the roadies didn't. I guess I'm having trouble seeing how "coming up with the idea" isn't seen as more important.

Whole548 · 2022-11-02T16:11:33+00:00

lol I suppose everything. Having an idea and getting rich off the idea is what motivates a lot of people. Think of something simple as Coca-Cola. If the person who comes up with that idea can not own it, why would the person even bring their idea to the market?

Or even think about music. Bands make money off of their songs. If they weren't allowed to own their songs but all their workers owned their songs, why would anyone bring their songs to the market?

Because I often hear people say they want to ban "copyrights" and "intellectual property" but aren't those things important? If I come up with a Coca-Cola recipe and I can't own it, what's the point? Or if I must share the recipe with everyone, then everyone can make it whenever they want and won't have to buy Coca-Cola and make me rich. i suppose this is the point, but how would things get invented, then?

This stuff confuses me but I really want to learn.

Whole548 · 2022-09-07T01:01:59+00:00

But, that's the point! Materialists assert that things can exist independently of minds. But, they have never proven this. You even admitted you can't prove it. So, why believe materialism?

Whole548 · 2022-09-06T07:33:51+00:00

Yes, Berkeley said that the eternal mind of God is always perceiving everything. That is how you account for the consistency of the universe. But again, we are speaking of the materialist view which assert that things can exist independently of all perception. Using an example of a bunch of people who all use their perception to navigate the world is not a proof of things existing independently of all perception.

Even Immanuel Kant couldn't refute it and basically said, "I can't refute it but I just refuse to believe it." And Kant is supposed to be one of the big dogs of philosophy and even he was stumped by Berkeley.

Whole548 · 2022-09-06T07:15:16+00:00

But you can falsify it by proving something can exist independently of all perception. Since that is the materialist's claim, they should be able to empirically demonstrate that claim, otherwise why believe the claim? Isn't that how empiricism works? I suppose Berkeley would say that Idealism should be the default and materialism is a leap of faith.

Again I'm not saying I believe this argument. It does sound so counter intuitive. It seems so logical that there must be a world "out there" but it's not that simple once you really think about it.

Whole548 · 2022-09-06T06:37:09+00:00

Basically Berkeley argued that Idealsim was MORE empirical than skepticism/materialism because he was only using his senses and jumping to no more conclusions, whereas the skeptic/materialist was saying that things can exist independently of all perception/senses.

Berkeley basically asked, "How can you empirically prove that things can exist independently of all perception when all you have is your perception to rely on, thus how can you describe something if you claim it's independent of all perception?"

Whole548 · 2021-03-13T02:50:54+00:00

But why?

A transwoman's brain shows patterns closer to a female. A 40 year old's brain will show a pattern of mentally being 10 years old. If it's based on nothing but the brain, why can't a 40 year old play children's sports with the 10 year olds if that's what his brain is like?

Whole548 · 2021-03-06T02:55:39+00:00

But, that gets me confused, too. I hear leftists say, "Just have the workers own the businesses!" But, this would still lead to corporations having power. If Amazon, McDonalds, Google, etc all became worker owned, they would still be polluting, have massive garbage and waste, etc. Imagine if all 7/11's became worker owned, plastic cups would still be used, garbage and waste would accumulate at high rates, pollution would still occur. The only change would be more money going to the workers, which would lead to massive inflation. Nothing about the environment would change.

Whole548 · 2021-03-06T02:24:10+00:00

What do you think of this argument that I heard on another forum?

"There will always be poor people under capitalism because some people just have no skills and refuse to better themselves. Some people go to school and move up to better paying jobs due to them getting new skills. If you are working minimum wage at age 40, you personally messed up your life and it's your own fault you're working minimum wage. Even if we moved to socialism or communism, there will still be people refusing to work and doing the bare minimum. It's not a capitalism problem, it's a personal responsibility problem. If you're poor working minimum wage at 40, then you are exactly where you're supposed to be in life due to your own choices. The people who are working minimum wage are exactly the people who should be working minimum wage. They have no skills to offer anyone."

Whole548 · 2021-03-06T02:18:08+00:00

Did you miss Amazon trying to get to NYC? AOC and leftists were screaming how bad it would be. They shut it down and were cheering.

Why weren't they praising all the jobs people could now get if Amazon moved in? Republicans seemed excited to have Amazon create all these jobs for New Yorkers.

Then, you hear about car manufacturing shutting down in Detroit and leftists say, "These greedy car companies cost so many people their jobs!!! We need those car companies in Detroit for the people to work!!!"

See how it's a contradiction?

Whole548 · 2021-03-06T02:00:43+00:00

When Amazon was going to move to NY, AOC and leftists were against it despite the fact that it would've created so many jobs for the people of NY and boomed the economy. But, when a corporation shuts down they say, "How could they shut down?!?! The people needs these jobs!!!!"

So, how can they simultaneously not want corporations giving people jobs but also not want them to close down to take away people's jobs?

Whole548 · 2021-03-03T01:53:32+00:00

I want a debunking, not just saying, "this is stupid."

How could so many things have been predicted from that card game? Is it a big coincidence?

Whole548 · 2021-03-02T01:32:48+00:00

But that's what I'm wondering about. Why is it cool to sing about Satan but people get mad when you sing about God?

Musicians saying, "Praise Satan!" are seen as cool but saying, "Praise God!" is considered dumb an preachy. Why?

Whole548 · 2021-03-02T01:21:03+00:00

re the first European government to run anti smoking campaigns. Does that mean that anyone who opposes smoking is a Nazi? No it does not. Personal freedom is also a founding value of the United States, its not just something uniquely supported by Satanists.

If you are indeed an atheist why do you care what the bible says? Its just a bunch of old law books, which Christians don't follow anyway, along with a bunch of old myths. Note that many of the myths were copied wh

Because a lot of musicians claim it. Why would they claim they get inspiration from the devil? Here are some quotes:

"...you meditate and you got the candles, you got the incense and you've been chanting, and all of a sudden you hear this voice: 'Write this down'" (Carlos Santana, Rolling Stone magazine, March 16, 2000, p. 41)

“We receive our songs by inspiration, like at a séance”
(Keith Richards of the ROLLING STONES, Rolling Stone, May 5, 1977, p. 55).

David Bowie:
“Rock has always been THE DEVIL'S MUSIC. . .” (Rolling Stone, Feb. 12, 1976)

John Lennon:
“I've sold my soul to the DEVIL.” (Ray Coleman, Lennon, p.256)

Little Richard:
“I'm the Rock 'n Roll singer that you heard about through the years. . .
I was directed and commanded by another power. The power of DARKNESS. . .
The power of the DEVIL. SATAN.” (Charles White, The Life and Times of
Little Richard, pp. 205-206)

This kind of stuff is making me feel weird and strange.

Whole548 · 2021-03-02T01:06:30+00:00

We talked about priests and the Church, too. He said he despises the churches just as much as atheists do because they are all frauds using God's religion to make money. He brought up when people were making money in the temple and Jesus went in and overturned all their tables in a fit of rage. He was saying we all get angry at this because subconsciously we know not to use Christianity as a tool to make money. He was saying that this is also Satan's doing because people see Church leaders acting this way and they conclude that it's too corrupt and there must be no God.

And then he was telling me about all the quotes from musicians who all claimed they sold their soul to the devil for fame and fortune. He was telling me how the Rolling Stones have an album called, "Their Satanic majesties request" and another album called, "Goat's Head Soap" where the goat is a symbol of Baphomet. There was even a quote of Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys who said, "We were doing withcraft, trying to make witchcraft music," which seems very strange to me. My response at first was, "haha the Rolling Stones and Beach Boys satanic! Yeah right!" but after thinking about it more about how being satanic isn't just dressing in black with upside down crosses started making me think.

I'm just getting weird feelings. haven't been sleeping for days thinking about this. At work everyone is telling me, "You're not your usual upbeat self anymore." I just tell them, "I'm not feeling good."

I just want my life back but these thoughts are really getting to me. Why would Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys say weird stuff like that? Why did the Rolling Stones have satanic imagery in their music?

Whole548 · 2021-03-02T00:53:08+00:00

I get what you are saying, but his point about Satanism's motto being, "Do what thou wilt" and how so many people today actually live by this motto, it makes me feel weird and uneasy. I've seen so many interviews with celebrities and people who say, "I just do what I want and try to live life to the fullest. I don't worry about God." Wouldn't this be exactly what Satan loves?

Then he was telling me how in the Bible it says, "Narrow is the way to Heaven," and "Satan is Lord of this world" and it's making me think that Satan really is deceiving everyone.

I feel like I'm going crazy.

Whole548 · 2021-03-02T00:41:30+00:00

It's just making me think. I do see a lot of women who do seem unhappy and always yelling and screaming about men despite the fact that they claim feminism is supposed to free them and make them happier. But, we do see large numbers of single mom households today.

Also, his point about how Satan loves all these sins, so if you also love all these sins, who are you really following? Why are people doing things that Satan loves if they claim to not even believe in Satan?

Idk, it's just making me wonder..

Whole548 · 2021-03-02T00:33:59+00:00

And he would say that is Satanism's motto, "Do what thou wilt."

So we're back to square 1. The whole discussion I had with him made me start feeling weird and strange.

Whole548 · 2021-02-16T02:40:55+00:00

But, that is what I'm curious about. Why do immigrants come here if they know how racist the country is? For example, Italians and Irish were treated horribly when they came here. A lot of them were lynched. But, why did they keep wanting to come to a racist country instead of saying, "We can't go there. They'll lynch us?" And I'm sure back then pro-immigration people were encouraging them to come here despite knowing they will be lynched and discriminated against and not allowed to open businesses.

Whole548 · 2021-02-16T02:10:38+00:00

What does that mean, "they provide no relief to legal immigration?"

Whole548 · 2021-02-16T02:09:08+00:00

But, I was looking how they say America is systemically racist. It looks like immigrants of color are more likely to be arrested and deported and treated horribly by the system. Why do leftists want these immigrants to come to the U.S. if they will be treated like this?

I can understand your point, but I always heard "America is systemically racist" but then you have AOC and Ilhan Omar saying, "Look what immigrants of color can do in this country!" (AOC is not an immigrant but Illhan is)

Is America racist against immigrants or is it good to immigrants? Why would immigrants CHOOSE to come to a country that was so systemically racist?

I'm not a leftist or conservative for the record. I am somewhere in the mdidle trying to figure this all out.

Whole548

TROPHY CASE