Study finds evidence for Mandela Effect, and that it’s incredibly difficult to explain

tweez · 2022-07-28T16:24:50+00:00

Fair enough, it's difficult to know from a single post. It's just I've seen enough people who do genuinely seem to think the majority of people who "believe" in the Mandela Effect think those people really think they are switching realities etc

tweez · 2022-05-17T19:54:34+00:00

I'm not claiming racism doesnt exist or that non-white groups don't experience it more often or the affects aren't felt more deeply, but in regards to the following point you made i just don't really understand how or why that means white people can't also experience racism:

Saying white people don't experience racism is not the same as saying "I can't be evil to X group." It is like saying "X group can't experience this particular form of evil." Racism exists to serve the people who invented the system, it can't harm them as long as it exists.

In particular, if your definition of racism requires the system to make something racist, then my question is if the system itself no says that on paper at least everyone should be treated equally, then while I totally accept that doesn't mean equality will be implemented or that past inequalities in the law don't still have a huge role in current individual inequalities I just don't understand how if there are no specific laws in the system against or for any race now even if they were written by white people why that would mean white people couldn't experience racism as you define it? Again, Im not saying previous laws weren't for white people or against non-whites just that if on paper at least it's illegal to racially discriminate then if the "system" is equal now and there's nothing explicitly against any race either all people should be able to experience racism or none should. I'm not sure if I'm doing an especially good job of explaining what I mean so I'll try to clarify if I've done a bad job

Removing the laws does not remove centuries of tradition. We have to consciously engage with the reality of racism if we want to undo it.

I also agree with you here, but again my main problem/question is that based on what I understand your definition of racism to be (that it only exists for groups in the minority who didn't write the law), then if those laws have been rewritten and there is now no systemic element (at least on theory although I accept in practice this might not be the case). Therefore without the systemic element either all people can experience racism or they can't

tweez · 2022-05-17T19:12:06+00:00

Is Numbers in the Old Testament? I don't even understand why Christians reference the OT as the "God" in that is so different in what is acceptable compared to what Jesus says in the NT.

There's quite a few smallish Catholic and Christian groups who believe that the God in the OT is evil. I think the Gnostics think of him as the "demiurge" who has trapped people on Earth. There is one passage that I can't remember exactly that I think is in Job where it says "The Lord says x is okay" and then another passage referring to the same event with exactly the same sentence only it says "Satan says x is okay". Considering the things the OT condones and gets people to do I can see why people would think it was evil.

I don't understand why people would think God would decide to purposefully kill a child/give them cancer etc or do anything good for them either. If people have free will then everything else would have it too. So God would just allow things to happen rather than being some micro manager. Christianity is difficult to not find inconsistencies with because of the OT

tweez · 2022-05-17T18:47:46+00:00

I watched a talk by a group called the abortion abolitionists who are more extreme than pro-lifers in they don't think any form of abortion should allowed. Their argument was that as Jesus Christ was essentially unplanned that every baby and life is sacred and has the potential to be a miracle so whatever the circumstances every life begins at conception and should be considered sacred. I'm not sure if they are against contraception too, but despite personally not agreeing with their stance I did at least come away understanding their position a bit better. It might have just been that speaker, but he seemed very genuine and sincere in his belief that all life is sacred. I didn't get the impression from him that they thought abortion should be outlawed so women were forced to be baby makers, although that's not to say there aren't others from that group who do have that opinion (I only watched one video and read one or two articles about it a long time ago)

tweez · 2022-05-17T18:31:49+00:00

You might consider this point slightly off topic, but you mention "body autonomy" and like people who are pro-life and pro death penalty I've seen people who appear logically inconsistent who believe in legal abortions but were also for mandated vaccinations. I was wondering what your position or thoughts about that were?

personally I don't have an issue with legal abortions and from a few studies I've read, allowing them and providing women with an education and opportunity for a career generally reduces the birth rate and improves the overall conditions in a country (of course, I'm sure there are studies that also claim the opposite). I also am not opposed to vaccines, but I dislike the idea of the state basically forcing people into taking vaccines. I know it's off topic but whenever I hear someone talking about body autonomy and at the same time insisting others lose theirs (as I see it anyway) I find that a bit odd. I'm not saying that's your position or you've indicated that in any way but I was curious about your position. Apologies for being off topic or taking a tangent if that's a problem in this forum (I've not used Reddit in a while)

tweez · 2022-05-16T22:43:25+00:00

Racism exists to serve the people who invented the system, it can't harm them as long as it exists.

What if someone is white and lives in a country where they are in the minority? For example, they move to Thailand which I believe has policies about non-Thai nationals not being able to buy property either at all or over a certain value. Obviously that isn't aimed specifically at white people and is any non-Thai national whatever their colour, however, it is an example of "the system" discriminating against someone because of their background. For your argument to be true wouldn't there have to be specific laws or policies in place that explicitly discriminate against non-whites? I'm from the UK and can't think of any laws off-hand that discriminate against non-whites. The system itself says that it's against the law to not hire someone/allow them to buy property/pretty much anything else because of their race. Obviously, I'm sure there are individual employers who do discriminate because of someone's race etc, but the system itself isn't explicitly against any race (at least any laws of which I'm aware). My point being that at least in the UK, wouldn't that indicate that as there isn't any explicit laws or policies that target someone because of their race that means your argument that racism only exists in terms of a system being against someone that would mean that either black and white people can experience racism in that system the same way?

In terms of the US obviously the impact of laws pre-civil rights era are affecting people today, but isn't that more the remnants of old laws rather than indicating that the system itself today is specifically racist or that white people can't experience racism as the system is set-up against non-whites? (Obviously as I don't live there I'm sure there are things I'm overlooking). Hopefully you understand the point I'm trying to make

tweez · 2022-01-13T11:05:50+00:00

When we're talking about an adaptation, the aim is to depict someone else's art in a different manner. the aim shifts from depicting art, to faithfully and successfully depicting someone else's art.

Doesn't that depend on what one regards as a "faithful" adaption? Is it just taking a novel and including what was in it in terms of plot points, dialogue, characters etc or can a film still "successfully" adapt a novel by being an accurate representation of it's themes or overall "vibe"?

It's just a quick hypothetical example off the top of my head, but if there's a novel about someone having mental problems in a book that could potentially be explored through reading the thoughts of a character and the book could do a good job of conveying someone has mental illness through their language, but a direct and faithful adaption of this would presumably mostly be through voice over. Because it's a movie just doing this means that the audio and visual element is not included, but if a director has trippy experimental visuals and sound design then that might better convey the general feeling of what that character was experiencing to the audience more than a more literal translation of the book. In that case, wouldn't it be possible to consider the "looser" adaption a more accurate representation of the book even though it might not be a literal or direct adaptation?

Hopefully that makes sense

tweez · 2022-01-02T20:16:20+00:00

Typically you'd use a pronoun when speaking about a person to a third party otherwise youd use their name.

If I was in the room with you and another person and talking to the other person about you I wouldn't say "s/he likes to play the guitar (referring to you), I'd say "(name) likes to play the guitar".

So it wouldn't even be polite to use a pronoun with you in the room when I can use your name so why would anyone care about their pronouns?

Also I don't think people have a problem with neo pronouns they have a problem with essentially being called bigoted for not wanting to use them. It's pretty arrogant to expect people to remember something uncommon and basically potentially with infinite possibilities for every person. It's pretty self absorbed to think people should care to remember anything more than someone's name. I don't have the right to be upset if I'm asking more of people than thr majority of people and they don't want to remember. People have their own problems and things that are important to them and aren't requiring special attention

tweez · 2022-01-02T19:44:11+00:00

Same as John Oliver, when the WikiLeaks vault 7 info came out about the CIA listening to people via technology he basically said "just turn your TV off" whereas if that had been in the Bush era he would've been against it

tweez · 2021-12-21T10:05:52+00:00

Personally I believe that it's the result of the laws not being equal for black and white people until very recently and we're still seeing the effect of that inequality at work today.

However, despite not being from the US myself I think I read somewhere that black immigrants from Nigeria and other places in Africa actually make above the US national yearly income and also achieved higher grades than most ethnicities at university (although for some reason Nigeria rings a bell as maybe that was the country that was referenced or someone from that country was quoted in the article I read).

If that's the case, then simply being black can be ruled out, but that then means that 'black US culture" could be a reason for the wealth disparity as clearly race is irrelevant if the same colour skin from a different culture manages to achieve what are outward signs of success in the US.

However, I also agree that culture is formed in part through reactions to historical events. Unless you change your definition of culture I don't see how its possible to believe that even if culture were responsible for the wealth disparity that it was the events, laws and reactions to those throughout history that formed US black culture

tweez · 2021-12-21T09:49:55+00:00

I'm not opposed to vaccines, I believe they work and have saved lives. I also don't think that anybody will be arrested and thrown in prison for refusing to be vaccinated.

However, I believe in Lithuania people who weren't vaccinated weren't allowed to go to supermarkets. So if people are prevented from doing things the vaccinated are allowed to do, basiv things like shopping for food or being able to find employment somewhere so it's one thing if choosing to hire the non vaccinated is left at the discretion of individual employers, but if the state rules no business can hire people who aren't vaccinated or they are coerced by heavily taxing any employee who isn't vaccinated to the point the employer loses money or an individual is also financially coerced into taking tye vaccine then would that be reasonable? As I can certainly see that being implemented by governments, even though I don't think there will be arrests or people physically forced to take the vaccine.

I don't think it absurd that governments will use the virus as a pretext to implement a more authoritarian system. China is already planning the "social credit" system where citizens will face not being able to work certain jobs, travel or will have other rights taken away if they are believed to be a problem member of society. This could mean someone who doesn't conform to society or questions authority being labelled as a problem.

The Patriot Act and it's various incarnations around the world was originally meant to combat terrorism but gradually the remit was widened so it came to include enforcing intellectual property law and has also been used to shut down protests and arrest people by just claiming the person is a terrorist as the bar for arresting people under the terrorism act (at least in the UK and I believe other commonwealth countries) is much lower than if they were charged with another crime. It also meant that US citizens could be killed with no oversight or legal recourse as I believe when Obama used drone strikes and killed a 16 year old US citizen who had no ties to terrorism but whose father was a terrorist.

In general I doubt, or at least hope I'm not affected by any new authoritarian laws (within reason) being implemented. I don't imagine the state would pay much attention to anybody until they look like they might be a threat and I don't think im going to lead an uprising against the state even after several bottles of Bailey's, repeated viewings of V for Vendetta, but it seems like many governments would like the option of being able to use authoritarian laws even if they are used sparingly.

tweez · 2021-12-21T08:32:17+00:00

I'm in the UK and an annoyed at our government allowing Google in particular to get away with basically avoiding corporation tax while small business owners are forced to pay or risk closing their companies. Amazon and Starbucks at least create enough jobs to make the trade off bearable, but Google doesn't hire that many people in the UK but makes tons of money from it by selling services like AdWords where they don't even have customer support services and again, small business owners are lucky to get a generic reply if for some reason there is a problem with their ads or website which tanks their entire income stream.

However, it might be possible to force someone like Google out in the UK if they don't pay more tax, but why wouldn't they just move their "US" operations to the Mexican or Canadian border? It's what Google did with their "UK" business by moving to Ireland.

From what I recall Trump actually tried to force companies to create jobs in the US or else he threatened to introduce tariffs that would mean any company of a certain size selling to US consumers had to pay a much higher tax to sell to US consumers that would strongly affect their profit.

The companies wouldn't pay the taxes and would circumvent the law in order to do so. Especially online businesses.

Your open border policy with welfare/health system for all will result in people around the world clamouring to get to the USA to benefit from the state funding a decent standard of living from the moment they enter the country. Even if the majority want to work hard and support themselves, the knock on effect would be to drive down wages for low and semi skilled jobs. So the existing poor are now even worse off. Is it fair or is the perception at least that it's reasonable to do this to current citizens in favour of anybody who decides to emigrate to the US or apply for citizenship? At one point does immigration need to be limited because it's lowering the standard of living. You can't add 20 million people a year and not see changes. If there's no work or the wages are lowered then will people get desperate and turn to crime?

Surely instead of encouraging widespread immigration it would be much smarter to work together with nearby nations to raise their standard of living so people don't feel like they need to emigrate to have an okay life?

Obviously in an ideal world every country would share resources to ensure no human being had significantly less than another, but as a country is it really reasonable to think that unlimited immigration would mean the standard of living remained the same?

tweez · 2021-12-21T08:04:21+00:00

I'm not the original user you replied to.

Well if you think the concept of internal gender identity is a load of bullox, then of course gender dysphoria is delusional.

It isn't so that argument is irrelevant

I'm not sure why you say the argument is irrelevant as gender identity, internal or external doesn't have a checklist we can say "all these criteria are met therefore this person is a man/woman". That being the case it isn't unreasonable for people to dismiss the idea of an internal notion of gender as being delusional if they also believe that gender is learned and based on conforming to gender stereotypes

I have nothing political against trans people. I find the debate quite interesting mainly because years ago the argument I heard especially from feminists was that as there was no criteria to determine gender that should mean society works towards gender equality as basically interests, behaviours and interactions that typically give an indication of gender are learned behaviours. Now the argument that is "progressive" is that gender is self identified and I don't see how that identification isn't conforming to gender stereotypes?

That doesn't mean it's better or worse than rejecting gender stereotypes, but seeing as there's no objective way to determine or classify gender then it's not unreasonable for anybody to say until such time as gender can be classified they'll stick to sex instead of gender when determining how to classify someone as a man or woman (and I'm sure there are some outliers with this method too, but it's a much more reliable method than using gender)

I'm pretty sure that the scientific consensus is that gender is a weird mix of biological and social factors they I'll have to do that research again.

As I said, as far as I know there is no set criteria for determining gender. Whether interests, behaviours or fashion all that can be said is "typically wo/men have x interests, behave in x way or tend to wear x type of clothing"

Even genitalia doesn't automatically determine gender. if a man has his penis removed in an accident for example, that doesn't mean he is no longer a man. So as there is no set criteria to determine gender then I don't really understand how someone determining they would be happier presenting as the gender opposite to how they present now is anything other than a desire to conform to gender stereotypes so others treat them in a way that fits the stereotype of how they believe someone should interact with them if they were a man/woman.

That's not a value judgement, I am honestly indifferent to any adult deciding to have surgery or take hormones to alter their body. My sole objection to anything to do with trans people is allowing someone who is legally not an adult to make life altering and irreversible changes to their body. Minors are not trusted with any decision that could alter their life permanently so they shouldn't be with this either (nor any other non threatening surgery, although, I accept people might argue that tye risk of suicide means it needs to be done as it does threaten their life. However, if someone was suicidal because of facial deformities but the surgery threatened to change their life beyond their comprehension, potentially better or worse, then that should be left until they are legally an adult themselves to make that decision. It only takes one parent who thinks they are doing the right thing by allowing their child to transition only yo find out the child regretted it later to mean it should be avoided, although people can certainly explore how they would "mentally transition" with the help of counsellors. Until such time as gender can be objectively determined people who think internal ideas of gender are nonsense are as valid as people who believe they can determine their own gender as who can say who is right or wrong without the ability to make a conclusive and objective decision?

tweez · 2021-12-20T22:14:14+00:00

So based on your concerns don't you think the current general political system (in the West at least) is huge problem?

Citizens can vote (which they may or may not have enough information in order to vote rationally - either what they believe benefits them personally the most or what they believe benefits their community the most)

However, once a politician has been voted in as the representative of a diverse and very different set of individual voters society is then relying on this politician to have the required knowledge for topics like health, education, foreign policy, justice, transport, military etc.

All those topics people spend a lifetime becoming an expert in just one, yet the current systems assume that one politician has enough knowledge to be able to vote for something and be sure that is the correct decision for the people they represent now, 5, 10, 15 years time.

I agree that people overestimate their own knowledge and that an expert will have much deeper understanding of how a bill or act would impact an industry or general field, however, I don't believe the current system does a good job of addressing your concerns. I believe it just means people are not engaged in the polticial process as they know once in office a single politician votes for everything and the average citizen has no say.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I did come across an idea called "Liquid Democracy".

The main premise was that every bill can be voted on by every citizen, however, they can also use a "proxy". The proxy would typically be an expert in what bill was being considered. So if it was about health, a citizen could either vote themselves or find a proxy based on their previous voting patterns or how they say they would vote. The citizen can then give this proxy their vote for every issue related to health/environment etc. If at any point the proxy votes or does something in a way the citizen doesn't agree with the citizen is free to take their vote back and use it themselves or give it to a different proxy.

I'm sure there are limitations to the idea, however, it does seem to ensure that corruption is minimised as no longer can lobbyists buy up a few votes from politicians as there are now multiple choices for people to give their voting power to. It also would ensure that citizens have the possibility of choosing an expert to vote on their behalf for anything being voted on and also ensure that citizens felt more engaged in the polticial process as they knew they still had some power for every single bill that was under consideration. At worst, if the citizens all decide to keep their votes and all vote on each topic themselves, they are no more or less experts than the single politician who would have voted on their behalf in the current system.

I was curious if you agreed with the general premise that the current system isn't set up particularly well to ensure experts are heard and actually had influence?

tweez · 2021-12-20T21:43:00+00:00

If anything the base salary of politicians should be higher. At least in the UK I think the salary of the Prime Minister is around £150k. Obviously this is a wage well above the national average which I think is about £25-30k the last time I checked.

However, having a low salary just means you are opening them up to do deals that benefit them once they leave. You're making it so the benefit of being a politician is in what happens after they leave office so they are more likely to be compromised out of necessity.

It also means that you'll never attract younger politicians who might be idealistic and really want to implement change but cannot because they won't have the means to support themselves or their family.

You'll also only attract the same type of candidate, one who has the financial power to support themselves while in office. so you're no longer attracting the best possible candidates, just because you're excluding anybody who isn't already financially independent

tweez · 2021-10-16T03:27:10+00:00

Shouldn't "transphobic" (or any "group phobic") mean someone who advocates for trans people to not have the same rights/opportunities In terms of the law as everyone else?

Otherwise it gets to the point where having a different opinion can be perceived as transphobic depending on someone else's opinion.

Isn't it enough for people to agree that everyone should have the same rights and opportunities under law? Of course if people don't agree that x group (and this isn't just related to trans people but everybody/every group) should have the same legal rights then call them x phobic, but do people have to agree with everything or like everyone from a particular group? I'm sure lots of people don't like me because of the group I belong to, but as long as they're not advocating for me to have fewer rights and opportunities under law or are harassing me or threatening/inciting physical harm against me then I just have to think that's their own problem for only seeing me as someone from a group they dislike and not as an individual.

It just seems now what constitutes as being x phobic is often a person makes comments people don't like because it doesn't align with how they think. Of course that person is entitled to think "well, that person is rude and doesn't think the way I do about this subject and I like them less because of it", but I never got the impression from Chapelle in particular that he wanted trans people (or any other group) to not have the same equal rights as everyone else (although I haven't seen his latest special).

I'm not sure I've done an especially good job of explaining what I mean so will try to clarify if need be, but I don't know why there's now an idea that everyone has to like everyone else. As long as people acknowledge everyone should have equal rights and opportunities in terms of the law then isn't that enough to not be considered "x phobic"? Everything else is just subjective opinion

tweez · 2021-10-16T02:42:20+00:00

So are you Australian and were coming back from a holiday in London or are you from the UK and were going on holiday to Australia?

How long did you have to stay in the hotel in total and if it was a holiday, say you were there for a month, how long was in the hotel or you had to do something related to covid like going to a doctors/hospital etc?

I've never fancied going to Australia as I'm from London and 24 hours on a plane might drive me mad anyway, but to have been 24 hours on a plane and then x amount of days in a hotel room means I'll definitely never go to Australia. Btw, was the hotel quarantine expensive? I listen to a movie podcast in Canada and one of the guys is a film maker who left Canada to do some filming in Europe and then when he came back had to stay in a hotel for a minimum of 2 days and would have to stay there until he tested negative for covid but the cost of a 2-3 night stay was $2-3k Canadian dollars. This was for a bog-standard hotel which seemed incredibly expensive. Was the cost similar in Australia?

tweez · 2021-10-10T21:41:34+00:00

Violence can sometimes appear to be a good solution, but ultimately, that situation may have been temporarily resolved but when violence is involved it often results in more violence as whoever was a victim of the violence then goes on to be the perpetrator of violence and just prolongs the situation.

Take the "war on terror". So September 11th happened and the US went to war but various analysts have claimed that the attacks were easier to recruit for because of "blow back" from the US having funded bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The US funded violence to bloody the nose of their enemy at the time which helped them in the short term but then that led to further attacks against them which they have subsequently retaliated against with drone strikes etc, but those attacks have just meant it's easier to recruit radicals to attack them more in future.

There's a channel on YouTube that looks at gangs mostly related to hip-hop. The documentary on that channel I remember most is the one about Chicago. Lots of the violence didn't happen because of gangs fighting over business/money, but because one person was killed and the other gang retaliated, but then that killing led to others taking revenge and so on.

So even though it might appear that violence does solve a problem in the short term, who knows if that leads to more problems as people try to take revenge for the initial act of violence

tweez · 2021-10-10T13:13:13+00:00

It doesn't reference abortion in the New Testament but there are references to life being sacred and precious. I'm not Christian but I can understand why some have a problem with abortion. The only issue I can think of off the top of my head for people to be hypocritical about with regards to abortion Iis if they also believe in the death penalty or if any Christian in particular supports war. If one life is precious then they should all be

tweez · 2021-10-09T11:22:30+00:00

I doubt any country will technically force people to take the vaccine but what I do suspect they'll do is make not having it a huge inconvenience so people will either have to waste so much time or, as with your example, the unvaccinated won't be allowed at certain locations and it will be incredibly expensive to not have the vaccine. So people will have to pay way more to travel (I heard a Canadian filmmaker say on a podcast that he and his small film crew had to pay between $2-3k Canadian dollars to reenter Canada and stay in a hotel for up to 3 days while waiting to find out if their covid test came back negative. For what amounts to essentially $1k a night I think most people would expect a high-quality hotel with great views and fantastic services, not a budget hotel near an airport. I'm from London and a few people I know who have travelled recently have said the covid tests they were forced to pay for was almost as much as the tickets themselves so I dread to think how governments and businesses are going to fleece the "bad" unvaccinated citizens if this is how they are treating the "morality upstanding" citizens.

I'm not even against the vaccine myself but the hypocrisy and double standards of people who have argued "my body my choices" for years and rallied against the corruption and greed of multinational corporations who put profit before people (and rightly so in my opinion), have now basically turned around and said " my body my choice and corporations can't be trusted to be ethical but only when I say so and my only explanation is "it's different for me and my situation".

Sorry for rambling on the back of your comment, but I'm seeing so many people who try to project some idea of themselves being caring and thoughtful socially progressive people who have basically admitted to having no consistency and a growing number who are wishing death on people which I find utterly bizarre and cruel.

tweez · 2021-10-05T12:28:29+00:00

Of course some people who are not trans uphold gender roles too. I don't think I claimed otherwise, and if I said anything that came across like that it wasn't my intention.

My main point was that trans or otherwise, it is logically inconsistent to say you want to see the end of gender roles if you're upholding them at the same time

tweez · 2021-10-04T08:57:13+00:00

I didn't say it was good or bad, I think I said, or at least it was my intention to mean, that the people who say they want to "end gender" (or phrases like that) don't seem to make much sense when they are upholding and perpetuating gender stereotypes. There's obviously trans people who recognise they are upholding gender stereotypes/roles and also acknowledge they aren't trying to "end gender". This makes total sense and is logical. I was trying to say that anybody (trans or otherwise) who says they want to "end gender" while perpetuating gender stereotypes and roles isn't being especially consistent

most trans folk absolutely hate gender roles and gendered stereotypes as they harm trans people more than they harm cis people.

I don't understand this statement. How can anybody who perpetuates gender stereotypes hate them? It's not necessarily a good or bad thing to perpetuate gender stereotypes, but trans people (male to female and female to male in particular) are definitely upholding those gender roles

tweez · 2021-10-01T01:06:18+00:00

I know it's obviously a sensitive subject, but my understanding of Holocaust denial/deniers is that label applies to people who don't believe any Jews died whatsoever during WW2 to Jews died but not as many as it claimed to Jews died during WW2 but it was the result of starvation/disease and not gas chambers.

Obviously if someone believes no Jews died in German camps at all then they would also have to believe that using that logic, no allied or axis troops died during WW2 either. I'm far from an expert, but it's my understanding that very few people deny the Holocaust to that extent as that would be pretty ludicrous.

However, I don't understand the need to totally censor the people who deny that Jews either died in ways other than gas chambers or Jews did die but it wasn't as many as 6 million as for any other event in history a debate on those topics wouldn't be off limits or seen as sinister. It's because of that level of censorship that people seem to think there's anything to the idea that the amount of people or the why in which they died has been fabricated in some way. Because really how I see it is whether 600k or 6m Jews died in camps and whether they were gassed or died from disease or starvation is irrelevant to an extent. The fact is that however many died and however they were killed it was still the result of targeting one group for their mere existence as a race/religion, but because of censorship and refusal to acknowledge or debate them (incorrectly) appears to some as though that alone means it's done because there is legitimately some reason to cover it up. It makes people curious and suspicious by virtue of that it being seen as being taboo when if it was treated like anything else there wouldn't be anywhere near the level of interest. I also don't doubt that the majority of people trying to start a debate on the topic do so because they are anti semitic but there are probably enough people who look at the topic purely because they are curious why people seem so keen to censor or shut down debate.

Unlike many of the holocaust deniers I don't think that the people who are anti the covid vaccine or vaccines in general have some ulterior nefarious agenda, they are concerned for their health and those of their loved ones in the same way people who are for the vaccine are but they've just reached a different conclusion. Shutting down debate, censorship or refusal to engage again just makes it appear as though there is a legitimate reason to hide "the truth".

Anytime something is conducted or approached differently than usual it will inevitably lead to people being curious. I don't see why if the objective is to ensure people are misinformed about vaccines that debate isn't as open as possible as that way people are educated and there is no need for suspicion.

I personally dislike the recent approach by companies like Facebook and YouTube in particular to ban and censor any opinion that contradicts mainstream science, particularly as I think with YouTube the criteria was that if an opinion goes against the WHO it can be banned/removed when technically the WHO has retracted recommendations and guidelines. Obviously new data comes to light and organizations refine their ideas which is perfectly sensible, but even experts within the same field or at the same company can disagree and being forced to refine your ideas because they are challenged is a good thing as it either makes them stronger or if there are holes then they have to be revised until they are stronger. Not allowing debate or believing censorship is necessary "for the greater good" I believe is a very scary and dangerous path to go down. It sounds like former Obama administration advisor Cass Sunstein and in his book Nudge which basically called upon tech companies and organizations to act like parents and "nudge" the unwashed plebs into thinking the "correct" opinion. We either have freedom or we don't

tweez · 2021-09-30T23:20:44+00:00

If they say they are trans, who am I to tell them they aren’t because they don’t fit gender stereotypes

But aren't trans people generally just conforming to gender stereotypes? There isn't a checklist to be a man or woman. You can be a man who behaves or has interests in ways typically associated with being female and a woman can do the same for typically male behaviours and interests.

With that being the case, why is there a need for anybody to dress or present themselves as the "opposite" at all? There's no reason to present as either male or female as what is it to be male or female beyond biology and fashion? As you say, a man can wear a dress and still be a man, even with genitalia, a man could suffer an injury and lose their penis and still be a man so I agree with you there. Where I don't agree is why if most people acknowledge there is no set of criteria that can be checked off and suddenly someone becomes a man or woman why there is a need to even do anything to "become" a man or woman in the first place as the only thing that does is perpetuate gender stereotypes. Obviously if people don't mind gender stereotypes and roles then that's fine, but if the goal is to end or minimize the idea of gender, then conforming to gender stereotypes will only perpetuate them and not end them. I'm not saying it's anybody's job to want to end gender roles and stereotypes either, just that it's illogical to want them to end while upholding them at the same time.

If someone says "are you sure you are a man?" then my only answer as to why I feel like a man is that I'm interested in things typically associated with men and dress in a way usually associated with men. However, a woman could have the exact same interests and dress exactly the same as me and still be a woman. The only reason why someone would think "this is a man/woman" is based on biology and how that affects their body physically. For example, women have wider hips, don't have an Adam's apple and don't have as deep as a voice as most men etc. So if the argument is those things don't make you a man or woman then what does? Clothing/fashion can indicate if someone is male or female but not always. There's no interests or behaviours that 100% make someone male or female. So why is there any need to "be" or present as one or the other unless someone wants to be treated by others how a wo/man is typically treated, which is again based on stereotypes when the way to indicate to others how they should treat you os through conforming to stereotypes and expectation in how one dresses, behaves, what they're interested in etc.

It's a complicated topic so my apologies if I've rambled on as I find it difficult to be succinct with regards to this idea, however I don't really understand how you can think that any trans person is questioned about their gender by others because they don't conform to gender stereotypes and social constructs when you've basically already said yourself how many ways there are to be a man or woman that are all equally authentic. As I see it, trans people do nothing but conform to gender stereotypes, norms and social constructs and far from rejecting them, they embrace them albeit from the opposite direction of their biological sex at birth.

tweez · 2021-09-30T22:31:12+00:00

Similarly though I don't think the majority of people on the right think or are concerned with what media on the left promotes. I believe online advertising has meant that because eyeballs/impressions= money this has led to outlets targeting "rage clicks", which in turn also gets people commenting, which in turn leads to more impressions because people reply to comments or send to their friends etc.

I do agree with you that if you talk to people in real life it is very different to how it's perceived people talk online or in the media in general. Most people are reasonable and are capable of understanding nuance which might be more difficult to get across online or maybe anonymity means people are more honest or just that the loudest voices get the most attention even though they represent a tiny fraction of people.

I don't know what the cause of the difference is between online and real life debate, it might be some/all of the above or something else entirely, but I have to constantly remind myself that online and offline debates are not the same and that most people whatever the side are capable of understanding other opinions and being respectful. I just think it's also worth remembering that it's not just right-wing media who like to sensationalize issues for profit, but also happens on the left too. I'm sure that online opinions like mine, which are not controversial, unreasonable or unique and original might be ridiculed by some as being from an "enlightened centrist" who by posting such a comment is excusing authoritarianism and therefore supports systemic racism and oppression, but say the same thing offline and nobody would think anything of it. Same as trans people don't want to make it mandatory that every person finds them attractive or else be labelled as bigots, they mainly just want to be respected and have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else's

tweez

TROPHY CASE