420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
transphobia by Isabella Danningstick - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208297 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15352
Why is there so much more visceral hatred of trans people than gay or bi people? I've noticed this for a while but comment sections of recent news articles really brought it to light. I keep seeing over and over again people saying stuff like "I don't mind gays but trans people are mentally ill blahblah SJWs something something free speech" and people making a million "logical" excuses as to why trans people shouldn't have certain rights that don't really make sense and do nothing to really hide their irrational contempt but why is that really? Is it just because trans people are more noticeable? Less physically appealing generally to most people? "Icky"? I feel like anti-SJW crusaders have made this the hill they want to die on and it doesn't make a lot of sense considering the amount of trans people in their own community is vastly higher than average.

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
>>
Esther Crobbercocke - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 20:13:06 EST ID:7RQyvIWs No.208298 Ignore Report Quick Reply
uh its not that hard to figure out man. if two dicks touching each other upsets people, you really can't grasp why cutting off a dick and carving it into a vagina upsets people a little more viscerally?

its a combo of "abnormal" sexuality but also the drastic alteration of genitalia, the whole pronoun thing, picking a new name, a lot of people just find the whole thing mystifying. and if humans fear anything it is that which they do not understand. your average cis normie can comprehend gays without too much effort, but comprehending the choices and actions of a transsexual takes more effort and empathy.
>>
Jarvis Pickshit - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:14:13 EST ID:UgAS1X+C No.208299 Ignore Report Quick Reply
memes commuting human nature to different points.

Different cultural scripts dictating different personal conflict that individuals use talent and subjectivity to get out of.

Plenty of republicans had to stand up for family and values without going bigoted or anti trans.

But cultural scripts can confound us. Philosophy once the gad fly prodding us into liberated thought weighs us down as well.

Allegorically though socrates demonstrates this in the end of his journey with the trial.

The key is after that many philosophers came about answering similar questions with great talent but it was incredibly difficult. Because they had to deal with thought in a literal way.

That's what it's like trying to be a creative type. Or a soul that loves communication. it's taking on a relation in a not so fun zon
>>
William Pockham - Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:41:43 EST ID:TZJ9pn2C No.208311 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297
it's a subconscious psychological threat to masculinity and a threat to masculinity is a threat to the social hierarchy. Homosexuality is as well but for the past ten years that slowly got accepted, all the hate against gays is just gettinng turned against transsexuals now.
>>
Albert Pittspear - Mon, 31 Jul 2017 01:13:34 EST ID:1kfT+DW9 No.208312 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1501478014709.jpg -(325267B / 317.64KB, 1000x1071) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I saw an "anti-sjw" transwoman basically say she misgenders other trans people because showing decency requires effort.

The whole "anti-sjw" philosophy I find to be mostly disingenuous. There are true believers among them, but most of the youtube set are just saying what they know gullible people want to hear, and even a guy like Mike "call everyone who disagrees with me a pedophile" Cernovich I think would have way less zeal if insecure men who have decided to blame all their problems "PC culture" weren't the perfect suckers for his poorly written self help books and snake oil supplements.

Transphobia is just another pillar of the status quo they can hold up while performing their mental gymnastics to some how see their actions as being rebellious.
>>
Walter Povingpack - Mon, 31 Jul 2017 03:46:43 EST ID:N0Eu5lTp No.208314 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because society needs scapegoats so that when people realize how fucked a world (even personal world) they live in, they can distract themselves by pouncing on them and feel powerful. We're slowly taking them away, as the scapegoats are talking back: disabled people, blacks, women, gays, etc. What's left, besides trans and fat people? And what's going to happen when bullying is no longer available as a denial tool? Sex dolls, probably.
>>
Angus Sinderdit - Thu, 03 Aug 2017 15:51:59 EST ID:BM6m5aTl No.208326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, they could be seen as trying to redefine the concept of sex and gender into something many people would say it isn't to protect their feelings, then insisting others accept this new definition, which could build resentment. If they can't pass then they're likely to just not look like someone worthy of respect, and it might make them seem mentally disturbed.
If you see an MtF who despite their best efforts just looks like a manly dude in drag, it's hard not to see them as just some poor deluded man, whereas you might feel differently if you don't even notice they're not biologically female until they tell you.

I'm not really sure either of those issues would inspire vicious hatred though, just mild resentment over political correctness and difficulty genuinely respecting them, but not necessarily in treating them with basic decency.
>>
David Greenson - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:56:17 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208328 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297

Well, a tranny is a person who wants to voluntarily mutilate their genitals and take hormones to make themselves look like the opposite gender. It is similar to Apotemnophilia which is the desire for the amputation of a limb. Both can be categorized under body integrity identity disorder as they both involve a mental state craving bodily mutilation.

At this point it isn't a sexual preference, it is a mental disorder.

I personally don't have a problem with trannys or people who have cut off their limbs on purpose, but to pretend that it's healthy to crave either is ridiculous. I don't hate these people, I just know that there is something wrong with their mental health. It isn't irrational contempt, it is intellectual honesty.

As far as limiting their rights, I believe that all people are entitled to the same rights across the board. However the mentally ill are mentally ill and should be subject to limitations based on their intellectual and emotional capacity.
>>
Betsy Snodway - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:23:38 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208328
>It is similar to Apotemnophilia

It's not at all though, it's a completely different disorder, with completely different causes. The most effective way of treating gender dysphoria in most people is HRT or SRS, and there's no reason it can't be utilized. You can't just cut off the limb of someone with apotemnophilia because there's no way to make that a safe procedure and it would be permanently debilitating

>pretend that it's healthy to crave either is ridiculous

No one's pretending gender dysphoria is "healthy" (to use the term as you use it). That's why it's in the DSM-5, the push you might perceive as "normalizing" mental illness is really just trying to humanize the mentally ill, in particular I found it striking that you said:

>However the mentally ill are mentally ill and should be subject to limitations based on their intellectual and emotional capacity

Which seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how mental illness works and how we should deal with it as a society. You seem to imply people who are mentally ill are inherently intellectually or emotionally stunted which isn't true but more importantly I'd be interested in knowing what limitations other than the ones given to them by their mental illness we should be imposing on the mentally ill? Obviously people who can't live independently because of some issue can't, and people who aren't fit to drive, operate heavy machinery, or own weapons shouldn't but I think the fact you left that so vague would indicate you believe the mentally to be people to be dealt with in the most efficient manner possible regardless of the personal rights you might afford "normal" people because it would require extra effort to elevate mentally ill citizens to the level of their peers.
>>
David Greenson - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 03:40:18 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208330 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208329

I was being vague because there are a variety of mental illnesses that have a variety of impairments, and I didn't want to say "ability to join the military," since that's what we're talking about here.

You insinuated that I believe that the mentally ill are below value in comparison to mentally healthy individuals. I believe that all individuals have equal rights except when those rights may cause harm to others. It would be in the best interest of the whole if violent people did not have access to weapons, narcoleptics didn't have drivers licences, and psychotics weren't left unsupervised.

I'm done addressing your strawman.

While body mutilation may be an effective treatment for GID, I don't understand why it should be treated differently from BIID. Whether or not the root cause is different, both result in the permanent loss of bodily function. I suppose that permanent reproductive loss could be considered non-debilitating, but self mutilation is self mutilation.

I would also like to point out that limb amputation is probably an effective treatment for apotemnophilia, and that drawing the line for amputation at the genitals is unfair and discriminatory towards apotemnophiliacs.

In any case, I wouldn't trust a person intent on self mutilation and actively altering their hormones/body chemistry to be able to make rational decisions in a combat environment, nor would I trust them with sensitive information.
>>
Lydia Blatherbury - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 07:55:06 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208329
It's healthy and it's not.

It's as healthy as the need to be authentic. Which can also lead people to suicide.

But yet was the number one inspiration means against suicide as well.

A search for purpose can still go on, a search for existence can still go on regardless of how far away it seems from reach.

Eventually you find that in authenticity, what once crippled you anxiety and dramtized you in adolescence.

The turbulence becomes apart of the weather, you're choices of millions become perceptible, and you feel human value/s, qulia, so many things that are questioned, problematized, and intangible through your own possibility and your own intangible

finding out your a woman as a man, and a man as a woman. Is also part of that but it's secretly an issue of self determinancy
>>
Betsy Snodway - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:40:04 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208330
>I wouldn't trust someone who does something I don't deem to be acceptable with doing something completely unrelated to their condition

Where is the concrete evidence that trans people shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions or hold secrets? What specifically makes them incapable? You can't just go off of feelings and hunches when you're talking about peoples' rights.
>>
David Greenson - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 18:17:27 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208333 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208332

Bradley Manning.
>>
Alice Shittinghall - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 18:28:55 EST ID:lPajOC8h No.208334 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208333
Anecdotal. There are plenty of leakers who aren't trannies and plenty of trannies working in the government who aren't leakers. Also you can argue that people who leak info the public has a right to know are patriots. Try again.
>>
Reuben Billywill - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 21:11:05 EST ID:B8uhe8Qm No.208335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208328
>equating Apotemnophilia with transgenderism.
This is why people laugh at and are horrified by the alt-right.
>>
Doris Brashgold - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 03:56:28 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208334

The military tranny community is a small population in the first place, so I'm working with limited figures here.

>>208335

>alt-right

Nice buzzwords you SJW white apologist stallion-lord hipster trash.
>>
Reuben Billywill - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 04:12:21 EST ID:B8uhe8Qm No.208337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208336
well done dodging the point with irony, m80.
>>
Doris Brashgold - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 12:47:33 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208337

What point? I thought we were saying things that mean nothing.

Also to expand on what I was saying, there is a limited population size of transgendered in the military which means one of two things:

1.) There needs to be a larger population size before drawing conclusions
2.) Bradley Manning is an excellent example of the transgendered community and their emotional shortcomings

If case 1, then I doubt we will ever know, without reasonable doubt, whether or not the transgendered are emotionally stable enough for service; I doubt a tranny corps will ever exist.

If case 2, then Bradley Manning is a significant sample of the transgendered community and should be used as measure to show the transgendered as a higher risk group of individuals in emotional instability and inability to safe-guard intelligence information.
>>
Phyllis Fanway - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:33:57 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208339 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297
Simply speaking, it's based on ignorance. Just as being against homosexuality was based on ignorance. It took decades for gays to gain more acceptance over time because the degree of understanding increased. That same degree of understanding doesn't apply to Transgenderism because it hasn't been a part of the public discussion as long.

Trans are now, what gays were back then. You don't need to overthink this. It's not really that complicated.

Also, going back to homosexuality, many don't like gays because of the promiscuity stereotype. Again, based on ignorance rather than understanding.

A study showing that since Homosexuals have greater risk factor involvement explaining the HIV rate differential between sexual orientations. Risk variables, not promiscuity is the cause of high HIV rates among MSM:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096799/

Study showing a link between public perception of homosexuals being promiscuous with opposition to gay rights:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178534

At the end of the day, it's plain ole' fashioned ignorance. Same reasons why people are against vaccinations, GMOs, climate-change denialists, et al.
>>
Clara Hebberhet - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:07:41 EST ID:ctvShMjA No.208340 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208338
>What point?
>equating Apotemnophilia with transgenderism.
>>
Lydia Bunkinshit - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 01:29:36 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208336
if there is an sjw, then perhaps you are stuck in contempary values, when seeing ethics and society.

Transgender is not new, it's old. thinking it's a condition or a disease is more of a modern hysteria reacting to the some idea that the world is the press, that is severly against the press.

Despite the movements that are new there subjects and remotely there objects are old.

The idea of a man who is a woman, and a woman who is a man. Is an old human feeling.

You are as mentally unsound in this belief as being the kid in a community that is amish who feels in his heart he could grow up to be a game designer.

We knew of them in stories and popular culture quite accessibly as far as number one hits like lola and get back in the sixties. It was a huge part of punk rock, disco, and the seventies in general.

it makes it's way into stimga because we can juxtapose this position of wanting to live with the fear of surgery or going under the knife. The idea that i would do something that radical makes its way into human drama and storytelling.

And it tends to become a metaphor for human politics itself discussed by many people not even remotely transgender-transexual. If you were to look at that you could easily see how gender really is a sociological phenomonen on the scale of robert gibson and philip k dick. Because essentially and entire conversation about something relating to our nation and society is centering around it for remote substance and mass communication.

It's people talking as if people changing their gender changes the fabric of society itself in such a way that implies interconnectedness to other people's independent choices even more than the belief that they question on the surface. Which is that this is a social issue, that gender is a social construction. So much so that it heightens to security and safety, and other examples of gender, as if there was a form or nebulus connecting them all.

It's somewhat what we learned through barthes and focualt. There is a norm, there are people walking around in conation so thoroughly that they don't bother to denote anything that they seem a walking ad because there argument implies the thing they are so against that subtextually. To put it in jungian terms, it's how everything looks when a political spirit of the times takes roots and divides everything into single digit teams and sides.

the shadow gets so dense we can almost see how we are actually having a conversation about an older issue we are working out through our projection while cloaked, because the older societal trauma is that deep.

We got that repressed on good and bad, that we are having this dialouge completely within that projection of those qualities on others that are more and more virtual.

The irony being thick enough that we could say we are having this public discourse in psychological drag.

those values and qualities that we block get so removed from us we miss parts of our intellect. and even names literal denotations. We can't remember them except for our opposition to them things like Plagiarism, collective thought, trans, these are essential parts of thought that we know remotely in western thought through there shared tangents with inspiration, collaboration, and authentic identity.

But even with those values we don't recognize synthesis/familiarity/dialectic, shared identity, and liberated sexuality.

Punishement and sexuality, and punishement in discipiline are that tied to heavy thoughts that obstruct open mind and cognitive learning, because we have demons for whatever time period we took public stigmitizing and humiliation as nightmare scenarios.

so often as person i find myself backed into a corner, and as a society finding myself with some corner to yell at.

Those are all really trenchant metaphors for punishments we got as kids, that weren't effective and were about the idea of exile and people disliking you.

Those became so outrageous they often became lenses that didn't see society sharing those qualities and how those qualities were often good productive meanings.

It's suprising because america's peak creativities historically revolve around iconclastic expressions and ideals or being in the wave of one, usually with the disfranchesed finding a union or synthesis melting pot of ideas of coming together that would give us a new philosophical horizon.

However we never get this idea into education. So we as a society never become more creative study the parrellels in physical expression of bohemians and hippies, the constant tradition of perjorative terms being turned by the people into liberative terms through understanding of rhetorical signification in critical talking like yankee doodle dandy, suffragette, and others. And as a result as an individual when we get stigmatized and picked on, we don't ever get past it without severe learning of a side of education that has been left out of the curriculum because essentially it was always being projected on the other side of town. Which is hard for us to understand with our missing conceptual understanding of relativity and how that's a shifting reality, which we had scientifically done at the turn of the last century.

We don't get we were comfortable with spanish when we were using aye carumba with bart simpson, we don't get that we were hyper stimulated by interchangibility and synchronization of culture through pastische and synthetic non analytic construction as kids through the power rangers and saban. And we don't get that that idea is the identical zeitgest to the recycling movement that was so ubiquitous at that time.

That thought is plagiaristic false winning you didn't earn your acceptance sjw.

When in reality it's about the recognition and use of everything you are and have around you. It's a whole side of your mind that's fertive and ironically conserving, that we black ball out of proclivity, because we think it's to mass communication. That it prevents indivduality and is the reason people don't work.

Well as long as we project it on the russians, in an inverse rheotric and distinct logic it is.

People out of self preservation will feel odd thinking they have to earn things from people they already have, that are put in hostage mode to prevent other things from being earned, because they still operate the idea of themselves as removed from the process through some layer of community that doesn't suffer. That by playing this way they play hide and seek without ever leaving home.

Except instead of being that cool guy who realizes he can take homebase with him in a wagon and help everyone. You know like buddha or jesus, they still do the thing where they try to keep you from home, in terms of trying to take yours or keep you out of one you are on your way too.

So you know until that day comes when you realize that existence is not all messed up because of a man who is a woman, and that the tyrannical "soccer" invasion of the nineties was actually decent.

You're gonna keep excluding people on some level of connatation whether literal or not that causes some problem because it's still the norm.
>>
Clara Hebberhet - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 09:09:50 EST ID:ctvShMjA No.208343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502024990819.jpg -(9352B / 9.13KB, 183x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208341
>>
Jarvis Bleddlemire - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:21:32 EST ID:VQ1c6Oy1 No.208344 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208343
I'm glad friends is still a thing.
>>
Caroline Birringson - Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:38:14 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208341

tl;dr

you win
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Tue, 08 Aug 2017 23:31:11 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208346

well i'm not trapped in a meme of abbrieviations with semi colons about assumed attitudes. But slow thought is often best bet for a cautionary subject, like contemplating how your longterm social thought isn't you.

Later on in life you'll be plenty haunted by legacy to wonder which thought is you.
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Tue, 08 Aug 2017 23:41:17 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208348 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208347
lespecially because it's self memory and the subject as object with pointing to the elusive subject of influence and correlation in shared subjective and objective communication.
>>
Clara Weffingshaw - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:13:52 EST ID:Fmljrjw2 No.208350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502252032007.jpg -(88123B / 86.06KB, 720x686) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208348
you and youre fucking shitposts, Fanny, fuck you!
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 07:41:20 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208352 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208350
that's memory you still have to search the categories even though it's immensely enfuriating.

It's like finding chuck mangione actually behind the towels.

Needless to say you finally got through to me in this post.
>>
Martha Nocklemen - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:07:22 EST ID:vJOwXLxB No.208353 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502287642299.jpg -(90651B / 88.53KB, 650x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208352
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:40:33 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208354 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208353
is a horse the next member on the evolutionary chain?

the memes go down and scale the previous burt and ernie one was good, but it's an exception to this image and ross from friends.

i'm sure the conversational attitude of i'm doing it best is not intended from the people who post you're doing it worst. but at some point the intention doesn't matter if they all exist at critical glare. Unless the speaker is stating that being in the position is description enough for the situation or hub bub being lampooned, but in a way that still suggests they think they could never be in this position.

Did anyone think that the rapid conclusions projected on writers and speakers was a good idea for a meme/imageboard/chang/internet culture that in 2017 pertains itself to be all about cbs theory and not the cryptic i'm being insincere pov of the past.
>>
Fanny Snodspear - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:59:27 EST ID:P+7faq3c No.208356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502294367675.png -(226396B / 221.09KB, 424x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208354
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:45:05 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208357 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208356
thank you for illustrating the point visually.

You can see in the example of stormy here, a depiction of something that represents the collective chaining of idea in a thread, around a moment/instance/person/idea etc all. In this case a person. In the past where the identity of that thought was cryptic or vague and constantly selecting over itself moments when it was sincere or insincere or provactive rhetorically to prove some point that it may or may not have sincerely achieved this made sense.

However when the shift from ideas like "for great justice" and "for the lols" which were often expressed as knowingly or baroquely costumed to literal internet justice and actual clear brief and sincere theory.

Stormy know longer appears on every occasion to be saying nonsensical gibberish from a nonsensical or non sequitur place. It doesn't even seem to suggest the sensical non sequitur that gave the thought it's efficacy. Because it's literally a proponent of the logical cbs theory.

Weighing down the ability to thread a thought with logical breaks with connections that are baroquely made often through exaggeration inherent vaguary, good nonsense, and connections that aren't logically made. The same way most good jokes work.

The mainstreaming of it so it can be used as a more regular tool for fast communication which is cbs ironically hurt it's actual credbility, because there are no lines with odd spaces much less the threads that wove through them.
>>
Albert Fishnurk - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:58:01 EST ID:P+7faq3c No.208359 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502341081921.jpg -(41592B / 40.62KB, 519x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208357
>>
Samuel Bunham - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:56:36 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208361 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208359
Alot of the you're in bad health because of your posts is disturbing too, even though it comes from some place and this picture offers a supportive touch and very comforting touch. Some are like the go home you're drunk non literal, and some become increasingly concrete in there assumptions.
>>
Wesley Dendlestone - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:40:33 EST ID:t9tUZilr No.208363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502412033872.jpg -(7514B / 7.34KB, 256x175) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208361
>>
Wesley Bunway - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:22:02 EST ID:aX2KHzGI No.208364 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208363
At this point I could have been ob confused as to who is who and what is what and which is which.
>>
Eliza Fanforth - Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:44:27 EST ID:plK4RKYM No.208365 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502459067470.png -(28922B / 28.24KB, 186x208) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208364
>>
Charles Faddleshit - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:18:15 EST ID:qum7+esS No.208366 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297
I think it's because most trans people really are mentally ill and the problem is socially normalizing a self destructive decision to undergo surgery and chop of bits or add bits to your body and take hormones which alter your appearance and personality.

Lots of people who decide to transition just do so because they feel like something is wrong with them, they don't fit in, they're different and they want to be accepted and coddled by people who will call them brave and instantly accept them into their social circle for their differentness. Not all of them are actually trans, in fact these people are in the minority. When you give someone hormones and surgery to fix a problem, you had damn make sure these people actually have the problem and that this will fix it, otherwise you're just turning them into a freak and they will go through life easily identifiable to everyone as a freak and if and when their support system falls apart they're going to kill themselves. It happens all the time.
>>
Jack Gimmlesid - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:31:53 EST ID:T7Wzpddk No.208367 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208366
Agree with what you said. Just to echo with my own datapoints
In 2nd hand contact with someone going through a transition (1 data point). Extensive hormone use has either exacerbated or caused serious mental health issues for said individual.

There is a reason suicide rates for trans people is so high. Its no joke
>>
Betsy Drorryspear - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:45:31 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208368 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208366
Except it's way older than that and the surgery and medicine is illustrative as your argument.
>>
Esther Durringway - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 04:06:15 EST ID:805FeSBo No.208369 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Most people dont give a fuck about gender issues.

What angers me is that much of the political sphere is based on gender issues when it should be based on class issues such as unemployment, lending practices, taxes etc.

So the media fills the communication arena with these non-issues that are important but not aa important. Society needs to get its priority right and quite frankly the social justice warriors arent helping because they arent aware of this game theyre playing.
>>
Jarvis Pattingcocke - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:11:28 EST ID:gtiC6Zs+ No.208370 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502547088561.gif -(815914B / 796.79KB, 400x474) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208366
you've got it ass backwards. You're a serious fucking idiot if you honestly think trans people are mentally ill. Don't you realise there have been trans people for millenia before there was any kind of surgery involved?
> don't fit in, they're different and they want to be accepted and coddled by people who will call them brave and instantly accept them into their social circle for their differentness. Not all of them are actually trans, in fact these people are in the minority. When you give someone hormones and surgery to fix a problem, you had damn make sure these people actually have the problem and that this will fix it, otherwise you're just turning them into a freak and [...]
> It happens all the time.
citation needed
>>
Betsy Drorryspear - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:51:40 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208371 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208369
Iconoclastic roots was how America progressed there being suppressed because that tendency once had a phobia of thinking it had become too big. And thinking it got a big head.
>>
Hugh Farringdock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:03:06 EST ID:qum7+esS No.208375 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208370
There's a difference between people who actually are transgender and people who aren't but want to change their gender anyway. I know actual transgender people exist but the massive increase in the numbers of so called transgender people now is not due to an increase in actual transgender people, it's due to an increase in mental illness that people try to fix by changing their social identity. You have people in their 20's now suddenly realizing that they totes must actually be a girl or a boy. That's not how it works. If you were actually trans you would have always known that your sex did not match your gender. The people who suddenly decide that they're trans are usually just riding high off the social acceptance they get by coming out to blindly supportive leftist groups who worship the ground trannies walk on and instantly take them under their wing and make them feel special and accepted which is all they really wanted. People are trying to fix loneliness, low self esteem, feeling different/like an outcast by changing their gender and having people support them, not trying to fix the gender of their brain not matching the sex of their body.
>>
Hugh Farringdock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:05:50 EST ID:qum7+esS No.208376 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208368
Well, the concept of hegemonic masculinity and hatred of anything abnormal pretty much cover it up until recently. It's not like it was a hot button topic until recently though, people just pretty much ignored it unless they were confronted with it. They dynamics have changed recently, as have the numbers of people identifying as trans.
>>
Cedric Sanderstock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:59:26 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208377 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208376
on the contraire, it's perhaps true that we were less insular. It was quite a known subject.

Alow me to use a metaphor, when we see a remote view that despite are differences creates an awareness of likeness it usually happens like the beatles.

The beatles didn't think everyone had to be the same, nor did they think everything was always the same everywhere in every way, but they also did often give detailed accounts of the past and noticed changes in the music climate, sometimes percieved ones that hadn't yet happened.

These often led to their greatest successes.

And also comparisons. For they were also once forged out of a similar public perception that got them rejected from i believe delta.

It wouldn't be that transvestite culture was never there much like the guitar group it reexploded and experienced an expansion that creates a newness on the political spectrum that itself has age old issues and memories.

Rupual was a hit show, back when mtv was ubiqtous, cher, donna summer, the rocky horror picture show, the drag queen itself, elmer fudd wearing garters...the list goes on.

So while it's odd to argue how we now public awareness by the acknowledgement of it as a phenomenon we can explore it's documents. We can at least know from this vantage point that whatever public awareness is and that it may like the nielson box not always line up perfectly with eyes and where they are pointed that it did exist in this phenomonen as complex and contradictory as fame and acceptance are hard to pin down, there easy to notate.
>>
Cedric Sanderstock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 15:06:44 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208378 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208377
People found rock n roll. People found rock n roll again. Artists who hadn't played it since there youth reconnected with there youth as roots. It's ethos then made it's way into poetry and folk. The concept of your youth being your actual past in the same since that ancient people talked to there ancestors, made it into america's fufillment in self and identity.

Many people found acceptance and belonging in it, many people found it helped lift repression.

Many people searching for acceptance looked there, and found it.

So it happens all the time.

They had the same ideas of hip and square which in the seventies became more of an issue as in punk, often explaining so stringently what it took to have integrity and an increasingly trenchant and not even agreed upon in name musical life it often sounded on some outsets because of the deep questioning of authenticity of self and others like it was anti punk.

Like integrity and self recognition were side by side with battles of self esteem and your direct opposition.

That's what the climate is like now.
>>
Shitting Cundernit - Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:06:55 EST ID:wHhTFxph No.208381 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208375
What the fuck is your source? you may have watched too much south park to realise mr garrison isnt real or representative of transgenders...
>>
Thor07834 - Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:11:29 EST ID:tZO25Yzk No.208383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I heard a shrink explain that "sex is between you legs and gender is between your ears". Most people believe that is you look like a duck, etc., etc. that it has to be a duck. In humans we all fall along the continuum of straight on one side, gay on the other. But Bi- sits between those two points. All of us fall somewhere along the continuum. I believe that people are terrified to admit exactly where they rest on the line. As a result you have stupid people who believe they are either 100% straight or 100% gay. Not true, and remember all embryos start off female. Hormones change everything along the nine months. Try to sell that to the Mormons.
>>
Hannah Turveyworth - Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:01:34 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208383
well i understand people can fear categories. Categories being imposed upon us often makes us act incredibly awkward. Somewhat like new situations. But situations are often fine but categories while often most sought after because when we categorize we often specialize. But in a long situation or even anight out a group or situation imposing categories implies we might have to struggle to endeavor in a long night. Just like getting relegated to a certain duty at a job dramatically specializes but potentially narrows the field.

However you need the detail of the the method you work out of. And the category and organization you use.
>>
Samuel Buzzbanks - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:36:35 EST ID:dTd47cE1 No.208428 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't hate trans people simply for being trans. I do, however, think they are making a huge mistake. Trans people who transition have an increased suicide rate. Also there is something inherently incoherent about the ideology supporting the treatment of gender dysphoria with hormones and sex reassignment surgery. When somebody has a delusion, such as a hypochondriac, treatment for them would not be to tell them that what they believe is true is what matters. You don't humor them, you confront their delusion and help them to accept reality. Transgender people have a delusion, a very serious and dangerous delusion that severely affects their quality of life. Despite overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a male, they believe they are female. And their inability to self actualize this perception, and be perceived as such in the eyes of society causes them severe distress. There is no way for a man to become accepted as a real woman, even by the most liberal and progressive circles. They try their best but they can't help but treat them differently, and think of them differently. And trans people themselves feel this especially acutely, and it eats them up when they look in the mirror and see what they've become. They also realize there is no turning back. Hence the suicide rate. I feel nothing bad sadness and pity for these people

The people I hate are the parents and psychiatrists who did this to their children/patients
>>
Sophie Grimman - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:40:15 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208429 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208366
It's interesting to see how delusional people can get when faced with anything that makes them feel threatened. It takes a lot of formulate an explanation like this that comes from thin air. It uses self-contained logic but omits any facts or realities of the situation.

One can see the same posturing from those trying to explain why some people are gay. "Well, you see, if only they had a strong male role model and didn't have a dysfunctional thyroid. I imagine some are that way because they are beta and can't get women so they go for the best next thing."

It's all tangential and based on personal misjudgment.
>>
Sophie Grimman - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:44:21 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208430 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208428
The DSM doesn't list it as a delusion. That's why treatment doesn't entail working around their delusions but by actually embracing it. Stop pulling nonsense out of your ass.
>>
Samuel Buzzbanks - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:18:01 EST ID:dTd47cE1 No.208431 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208430

Would you consider the possibility that most psychological and psychiatric associations and university departments are politically motivated in this matter? I think there is a high chance that in the future this will be looked at as a professional mistake. The strongest evidence for this is the suicide rate among transexuals. How could we possibly trust the psychiatric organizations endorsing a treatment plan which is resulting in 40-45% suicide rates?

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

And to the other poster, I think my view is not analogous to that straw man. Reason being, "lacking a male role model" is a vague and unsupported statement to make a generalization on. Compare that to the hard fact, suicide rates among these people are out of control. Notice how in those stats I posted, trans people who tell others they are trans or feel as though everybody knows without them telling, aka people who are trying to live as the opposite gender, people who transition, have an even higher suicide rate of 56% I believe. Something is going very wrong with their treatment. And I think that thing is the political-cultural notion that people get to define themselves in every conceivable way, this insane interpretation of the ideal of freedom that a person gets to personally determine facts about themselves, and it should be frowned upon or even illegal to challenge their perception of themselves.
>>
Beatrice Cebbernitch - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:21:33 EST ID:HNJfvXnY No.208432 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431
To clarify, when I say that liberals want this to be illegal or frowned upon, they are essentially implying it is actually injurious to question the judgment of a person that they are such and such gender. Which should be a matter subject to rational debate, no? Shouldn't all matters of fact be subject to discussion?
>>
Molly Worthingstone - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:27:51 EST ID:qFV6v+im No.208434 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431

Suicide can be caused by a lot of factors, marginalization being the first and easiest one that comes to mind. You want to push this direct causation between reassignment and suicide, and it really doesn't hold water except in your head.


What I wonder though is, they haven't really treated gender as a social construct. If you realize something is a social construct, meaning only imaginary, you detach from it, you fake it for your purposes, you realize it's not something you are but something you use, so you don't feel the need to change it.. At that point it becomes a matter of pragmatism, you use the tool you know how to use more, and the one you've always had is that: you've had more experience with it, so you know how to use it more.

So there's no sense in changing it. There is no transcendence if you change it, you're still treating it as real, as something you identify with. Why else would you change it otherwise?
>>
Sophie Grimman - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:53:47 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208435 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431
I can consider any possibility, but is it happening? I haven't seen any reason to think it's politically motivated. To go back to my example, the same exact explanation of political interference was the cause behind homosexuality being removed from the DSM as a mental disorder. It seems justified to make this comparison because we've seen this same line of reasoning in the past.

What's more likely? Some political infection spreading through international psychological/psychiatric institutions, or their being a scientific consensus of the proper course of action based on facts and experiences on how to treat gender dysphoria? Occams razor is on my side of things. The same logic is used by those that deny man made climate change; That it's some massive international trickery for scientists to make a few extra bucks and not actual scientific consensus.

Trans men and women were accepted in the military when they realized that they were using outdated information that considered transgenderism as a fetish. It wasn't some Obama liberal conspiracy to feminize men, but rather boring adjustments in management adapting to new information.

I find it hard to imagine that international psychological associations haven't thought deeply about the suicide issue. Your perspective entirely rests on your interpretation of why the suicide rates are so high without proving an exact link.

I can prove that homosexuals have higher instances of suicide, not because homosexuality is attached to mental disorder, but because social stigma and suicide rates have been linked. The same can be applied to the black community or the atheist community. People are social creatures. The mind breaks down when that one is excluded from an essential human need.
>>
Simon Bundale - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:26:05 EST ID:y8IvU11n No.208478 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's mostly the fact that people mutilate themselves because of a mental illness. I don't know how people became okay with that.

It's not irrational to be weary of trans people either. I simply don't want mentally ill people in my life. That extends to trans people. This leads to another reason for peoples dislike of them, the fact that you have individuals such as OP that feel it necessary to push this acceptance on to everybody, even those that have never met a trans individual.
>>
Simon Bundale - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:30:22 EST ID:y8IvU11n No.208479 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208435
Science is never concrete. It's always evolving. That's why we don't use x-ray machines to see our shoe size anymore, we found a better way. People saying that the current approach is the best way are going to probably be in for a rude awakening in a few years once all the negative effects of the trans lifestyle start coming out with age.
>>
Shitting Callybat - Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:54:07 EST ID:XU0wBvEL No.208482 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Have you ever met trans people? It's not even the fact that they believe in self-mutilation to achieve a desired look-- models may do that-- but it's also the fact that they parade themselves as an honest "man/woman" rather than their original sex because "I always chose dolls as a child instead of trucks"/"I liked the color pink as a kid"/"I just wasn't that girly" where you begin to think to yourself "Their parents/community/peers must have been awfully inconsiderate of their children to push things onto them to the point where they didn't believe they were their own gender" because gender is a social construct created to group things that **most** women like and **most** men like and then misc. others into three easy categories for marketing. People take it like something that chooses what gender their brain is which is simply not true. They disrespect women by thinking all women like pink, frilly dresses, makeup, and dolls. They stereotypicalize people's sex and further lock them into a concrete box that dictates what their gender should be.
Not only this, a lot of trans-people seem to dismiss any advice non-trans-people have because "They just don't understand." It's juvenile behavior that people usually grow out of but these people delve themselves so far into deluding themselves about their gender assignment project that they lack any self-image (how could you have any when your "peers" blindly agree with everything you do?), logical thought about WHY you believe dressing like a caricature of a woman will actually make you feel happier, or why you think other people would accept you for dressing like a flamboyant caricature of a woman, and why they can't even imagine WHY OTHERS don't like their lifestyle.
I understand that some men dress up as women to attract other men. That's difficult. I feel bad they can't be themselves around other men without societal pressures. It's just the ones who lack self-awareness of how disrespectful they are to women and their peers while claiming that their disapproval of their actions is them being oppressive on them.
>>
Nicholas Drirringstone - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:40:50 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208485 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208482

That sounds like the caricature of a transexual person..
>>
Ebenezer Pockridge - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:28:30 EST ID:XU0wBvEL No.208486 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208485
I've met dozens of transpeople because I live on the west coast and it's a popular thing here.
I don't know how it is in the other major cities and in smaller communities because I've heard they're different there.
>>
Priscilla Mublingcocke - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:24:44 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208479
So what should we base all of this on, your gut feelings? Anecdotal posturing? Stereotypical caricatures of how you personally think of trans folk? Sorry, but that's not how this works or should work. Everyone said science would change when people were starting to accept homosexuals. Sounds like you are hoping against hope that your side will one day be proven correct. And all the facts and knowledge we have now, will suddenly vanish is a puff of smoke. People are still waiting for the "science to change" concerning homosexuality; That it ACTUALLY is a mental disorder and all we've learned was false. That's a fantasy. If anything, time will allow us greater perception into transgenderism.
>>
Priscilla Mublingcocke - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:36:55 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208488 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So far your argument has been that transgenderism is a lifestyle, a disorder, and deleterious to society, but you haven't proven this or demonstrated how. The onus is on you to prove it, especially since there is a consensus among international psychiatric associations. If the best you could do is make a baseless prediction that one day, and somehow, what you say is true, then there isn't much else to say, because it's just speculation.
>>
Rebecca Worthingdock - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 04:35:04 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208491 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208486

You may have met them, but it doesn't seem like you really got to know them. You likely were fed the superficial parts of their story because they didn't feel close enough to you to give you more.. And can you really blame them? Just talking about them as if they were a homogeneous group says much about your attitude towards them, no wonder they gave you the normie version of their story. You just mistook their distance with superficiality.
>>
Nicholas Sondleson - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:21:32 EST ID:TkUnip9C No.208492 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208482
>>why they can't even imagine WHY OTHERS don't like their lifestyle.
check this out: no one gives a shit what you don't like. How are you so far up your own ass you think that you need to be protected from the mere *awareness* that other people are doing things you don't like. I don't like how you're being a bigoted piece of shit, but that doesn't mean I'm going to come to your house and try to tell you how to live in your life. Why is it that everyone who goes on these same identical rants against trans people have the same false belief: that somehow their feelings about their opinions which prop up their little charicature of the world are more important than the actual lives of other people? In the real world, the only thing you have any control over is yourself, and frankly no body gives a shit about what you like or don't like.

If today you feel entitled enough to control trans people's lives based purely on your sense of aesthetics, what group are you going to next try to control and oppress based purely on your personal opinions, mein fuhrer?
>>
Isabella Barringbore - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 16:23:22 EST ID:XU0wBvEL No.208493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208492
I don't speak German.
That said, I also don't care about aesthetics. I've seen enough women and men with their faces injected with plastic surgery that I'm unphased by how they look. But transgendered folks usually have the absolute worst personalities I've ever been around. I have heard that it's different in different parts of the state/country but from my experiences I rather not hang out with these upper-class hedonists whether trans or not. There's nothing but bullshit and "me, me, me" attitudes.
>>208491
I don't care about their life story. I care if they're doing their job, nothing more and nothing less. And I especially hate it when anyone tries buttering me up with the friends-act since that just gets in the way with work, especially the rich snubs who think I care about how much money they want to give me.
I know the difference between being distant and being superficial and I know the ones around me are the latter. If I had unknowingly met a transperson who actually acted properly, then that's great. Unfortunately, they don't have any influence on the louder group so I don't see a reason why I should be blindly accepting them all.
>>
Fucking Turveyson - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:22:14 EST ID:TkUnip9C No.208494 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208493
By aesthetics I don't just mean the colloquial definition of the term, I'm using it in the technical philosophical sense; the study of the pleasing and the good, affinity and dislike, not just physical or visual beauty. And that's what your whole argument boils down to: "I don't like trans people or find them disagreeable because of x, y, and z reasons, and because of that, they are wrong, or shouldn't exist, or something." Your only evidence is your own visceral aesthetic response, so your argument is circular, regardless of whatever other merits it may have. none

Which brings me back to my original point: no one cares about what you like or dislike, it's totally irrelevant. If you're advocating against the existence of a kind of person, or telling them how to live their life solely because your can't manage your own emotional reaction to them, then you're the problem, not them.

>> upper-class hedonists
Trans people and LGBT people in general are disproportionately poor compared to the general population. So either you're deliberately hawking a fabrication, or your saying 'I hang around some X-description assholes, and because of that, I believe all X people are assholes.'

Besides, you're conflating a legitimate thing, disliking someone because of their attitude or disposition, with disliking someone because of their inherent characteristics like race or identity (it's totally okay to not like hedonists, although I would disagree that you should, but that would be an argument in aesthetics, rather than ethical debate like you're casting it as.)

If you even sought out the very trans people who inhabit this very chan, you would see that no one stereotype fits, and aren't very much like the image you're painting. So my tl;dr: point is; even if so, even if trans people were worse than you're describing and you disliked them twice as much as you actually do, it wouldn't change the fact that some people *do* like and accept trans people, and you would'nt have even made a compelling argument about why they should or shouldn't, just ranted about how an easily targetable group with well documented problems 'are like, totally weird, and that shouldn't be allowed!' What comes of that other than pumping your ego as a certified non-tranny 'normie'?
>>
Simon Ninkinmurk - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 00:08:45 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208499 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208488
>transgenderism is a lifestyle
Just like heterosexualism is a lifestyle. The only difference is 99.xx of humans choose the former(which is progenerately viable) vs a evolutionary dead end. If you want to redefine the species, expect the breeding members of that species to object. There have always been transgendered people in human society, and they have always been accepted as a public secret, as long as they also conformed to societal parental roles. Theres always been the man who likes to dress like a women and get barebacked at the Christmas orgy, or the woman who likes to put on a fake beard and dj women. As long as the rest of the year he dresses in a suit in public/raises children and doesn't upset the necessary human breeding society.

>transgenderism is a disorder
If you are unable to create offspring, that is a genetic disorder because you cannot continue your genetic line.

>transgenderism is deleterious to society
If you cut off your genitals and remove the ability to pass on your genes, you are deleting your genetic line from the first spark of life until you from the human gene pool.

Trans and homosexual humans are welcome to start and run their own society, I don't know why they think they deserve a seat at the table that hetero humans have built to further the human race, especially since we are no where near the technological level to make that possible, or worthwhile.

I don't hate trans people, my aunt is a MtF, and my sis is a lesbian who looks butch who gets missgendered as a male by people trying to be "politically correct" and hates it. I just don't understand why someone who has left the bounds of humanity wants to change the status quo of those still abiding by the rules.

Trans/homosexual humans can only procreate and have children through heterosexual means. My trans aunt has adopted, and my lesbian sister already has multiple guys lined up to be sperm donors. Until I see science be able to have any two humans have one child with only themselves, these humans are lowing our birthrate, demanding social services which are to ensure new taxpayers without delivering, and generally fucking up to social image humans have worked thousands of years to build to further, you guessed it, human society.
>>
Esther Blemmlesod - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 04:26:18 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208501 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208499
>Just like heterosexualism is a lifestyle

I mean, not really? Heterosexual people and transgenders coexist peacefully in other cultures you might call more primitive, so it's definitely not being heterosexual that defines our own. It's just the specific traditions we blindly repeated for fear of reprisal by our neighbors and the state. Hell, if anything I think that blind, fearful acceptance of traditions defines us way more than heterosexualism.

> If you want to redefine the species, expect the breeding members of that species to object.

This is a great example of that. If all that mattered was breeding, well, what would you have to fear from people unable to breed? As you said, it's a dead end, a temporary issue that will fix itself by them not replicating themselves. If anything, by forcing them to exist as breeding members of society, you make them more numerous, because their children will be gay or transgender too. If we had let them not reproduce in the first place, there would have been way less of them, so if you want to keep the breeding running smoothly, the best thing you can do is to NOT worry about them. The only way they're not a dead end is if they breed against their will, which is what we made them do for millennia.

>I don't know why they think they deserve a seat at the table that hetero humans have built

Maybe because the society they come from is where all their loved ones live? I mean, you can see why they'd try to remain close to people they love, right?

> to further the human race, especially since we are no where near the technological level to make that possible, or worthwhile.

Your narrative that we did all this to further the human race is just that, a narrative. Another narrative is that the human race got furthered because sex feels fucking good and we didn't have decent contraceptives.. Except in ancient Greece we had a plant which acted as one, and then we used it so much we ate it out of existence. Why would we have even used that, if all we wanted was breeding? And when males will get a decent contraceptive that won't impact feeling (example: https://www.parsemus.org/projects/vasalgel/ ) you will see how your theory is flawed with your own eyes. When having children will require a decision that needs planning and time (going to the doctor and remove the gel, in my example), we'll see how important breeding is in our list of priority. Spoiler alert: not very. Hell, I bet we'll discover fucking will trump having a stable relationship, in our list of priorities.

>these humans are lowing our birthrate

And? I mean, aren't we enough? We're past 8 billions, and even if we had food for all of us (and we do), space is not infinite. Do you think it's normal that we live like ants in buildings stacked right after another? Don't you think our numbers are depriving us of a quality of life that we would all be better for having? I mean, if we live badly, what's even the point of breeding anyway? Are we in a secret competition with an alien race and the ones who pops more babies win something or some shit?
>>
Simon Ninkinmurk - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 07:40:11 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208502 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208501
>Heterosexual people and transgenders coexist peacefully in other cultures you might call more primitive, so it's definitely not being heterosexual that defines our own.
I believe your referring to the island or w/e with the third gender? I can't exactly remember their name or anything, but I specifically remember the part where as Auntcles they supported their hetero family members children giving them an advantage, which was why they were accepted, and therefore resulted in the much higher then normal rate of transexualism(it was like 4-7%?). Still, your dealing with an outlying tribe of people on a much smaller scale, which has been proven to fail on civilization scale with the fall of Rome. And even still, like I said before, if you would like to change the breeding pattern that almost all of society(human collectivism) conforms to, expect resistance at the idea, and at the extremes war for the form of human identity.
>so it's definitely not being heterosexual that defines our own
Except that, it does, and since the majority of humans agree on that, I'd even call that a democratic subjective truth. Homosexuals still observe all the right of a sentient human, and for the most part are still completely considered human. But no one will ever say that they can reproduce sexually as humans, and that is a intrinsic part of humanity in most peoples eyes, so even the "activists" that are promoting and helping these things don't really drink the Koolaid.
>It's just the specific traditions we blindly repeated for fear of reprisal by our neighbors and the state.
When the monkies beat up the monkey going for the banana, they aren't being evil. If reaching for something hurts the group, and the group responds by stopping the offender, is that not a correct social immune system response? I'm not saying there aren't blind traditions that we follow that we lost the meaning of, I'm just saying that there is a very high possibility that it isn't some random hogwash but probably something that really helped us gain an advantage over every other group of humans with their traditions.
>Hell, if anything I think that blind, fearful acceptance of traditions defines us way more than heterosexualism.
I will agree, only if you agree that blindly throwing out traditions without understanding them is equally as bad. Am I misunderstanding this, are you just saying humans follow traditions? That's just what society as a whole is, the collection of traditions of each cultural group expressed in everyday interaction. Language is a tradition, the maths are a tradition, workmenship, engineering, every single facet of society is a single piece of information passed down, grown, refined, expanded, generationally, which is outside the reach of trans/homosexuals unless they concede and breed heterosexually, at which point they need to just human the fuck up and stop trying to promote something that just doesnt work.

>what would you have to fear from people unable to breed?
I never said I fear them, I'm pretty sure I stated it, but again. I just want them to shut up and stop demanding special protections and an equal media presence. I don't want them to have a gay character on every show, I don't want to give them free reign over which bathrooms they get to choose which has never been a right any other human has ever gotten.

They exist, they are not a cultural element that furthers society, therefore they should be censored from children, and children should learn that they are free to be whoever they want to be, but that that doesnt mean that they should remove the option for heterosexual reproduction. Proper socialization requires proper propaganda, and other agendas trying to butt in on the londstanding human rearing techniques we've evolved over the span of the human race to elevate our offspring to adult level is causing massive failures in adults across the board from skill level, emotional stability, mental stability, you name it.
>If anything, by forcing them to exist as breeding members of society
Every human is forced to exist, no one gets a choice, the only other choice is to an hero. Like I said before, we had a working system where gays and transgenders were all part of society and accepted, as long as they kept it private and did not disrupt the social face of humanity. Also, most of them are largely rational humans, and whos to say in 1000, 10,000 or even a million years later these genes won't prove to be useful in creating the next species to evolve from us as asexual beings that are part machine dna etc etc genetic diversity. But in the here and now, those genes are shit(not to exactly say being gay is genetic, but you have to have a brain where that decision is possible, therefore genes) so they should be accepted, but not promoted.

> I mean, you can see why they'd try to remain close to people they love, right?
I do, I never said they couldn't interact with their family. I just don't think media should pander to them.

>our narrative that we did all this to further the human race is just that, a narrative. Another narrative is that the human race got furthered because sex feels fucking good and we didn't have decent contraceptives.. Except in ancient Greece we had a plant which acted as one, and then we used it so much we ate it out of existence. Why would we have even used that, if all we wanted was breeding?
I never said that the only thing being done to further the human race was breeding, or that breeding at an uncontrolled rate was somehow a great achievement. Every single invention or piece of knowledge that we have obtained, that every one enjoys, is the social child of everyone who has had children. I'll even admit that non-hetero humans have contributed to this, but in a very hetero way of making their projects their child and then passing that into hetero society, the only place that will continue its existence for their future generations. If the total amount of humans breeding is not high enough to replace and add, the total amount of humans in that society is going to shrink, and it will not be able to maintain the structures it built at higher population levels.

If genital stimulation was the peak of pleasure, we'd all be monkies masturbating in the canopy of some jungle. Theres a reason they ate it out of existence, because it was useful, therefore economically/socially viable. You tell me, is there a correlation between the discovery of this drug, the rise of Rome, and the extinction and fall?
>we'll see how important breeding is in our list of priority. Spoiler alert: not very. Hell, I bet we'll discover fucking will trump having a stable relationship, in our list of priorities.
And this is why western countries birthrates are plummeting. This is why quality of life is dropping, why societies cannot be maintained anymore, why social programs are going to start to fail and we see more and more dangerous people slip through the weakening social net.

>And? I mean, aren't we enough? We're past 8 billion
Yes. I do agree on this point. And if you could get every human to agree on this we could all shake hands and begin a true human eugenics program and really improve the stock. But until that point, if you allow your opponents to gain an upper hand on you, you lose by default.

>I mean, if we live badly, what's even the point of breeding anyway? Are we in a secret competition with an alien race and the ones who pops more babies win something or some shit?
Yes. The name of these aliens are the universe and time, and they always win. You forget one very simple but very powerful truth. We. Are. Still. Here. Every single dna machine from the beginning of life is dead except for the ones that arent right now, because they put in effort to do so through so many hardships that it would probably take multiple human life spans just to enumerate them.

And honestly we need a few billion people to throw at a planet at a time in the future, need to spread our eggs into more baskets before our planet gets gamma rayed back to primordial ooze or some other catastrophic event.
>>
Priscilla Pennernerk - Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:45:29 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208505 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208502
You have conflated a bunch of ideas about natural selection, eugenics, human evolution, etc. into a mish-mashed lump of hogwash. Your central insight seems to be 'homosexual people cannot reproduce heterosexually' and from that you've built this whole system of thought that boils down to 'you're useless if you're not fucking.' Which is frankly quite ignorant of the history of the world and the reality of how it exists right now, which would be bad enough. You then go on to use this idea to prescribe a social program of isolation and oppression. Off to a pretty bad start altogether for this ideology! Let's break it down piece by piece and see if we can find where you went wrong:

>> As long as the rest of the year he dresses in a suit
This is a very primitive and inaccurate mischaracterization, your whole little image of how society 'traditionally' dealt with trans people. For one thing, in many societies, third genders were permanent members of society in that role, not this idea of people crossdressing only on a holiday that you suggest (although there are certainly some patterns of that.) These people would often have roles as shaman or medicine workers, and their status as being outside of the normal gender dynamic was seen as being integral to their ability to see outside of the normal mores of society to obtain help and healing for the tribe from the mystical forces. Thus in many 'traditional' societies the 'traditional' role of trans people was very much present, and not at all contingent on them hiding or minimizing their identities, and was seen as being an integral part of the health of the society (even to the extent that -- you'll love this -- the knowledge of how to be third gender spirit workers was passed on, generation after generation. Funny how humans, being intellectual beings, have the capacity to pass on things other than genetic material, and that these informational patterns are even *more* coherent and long lasting than mere assemblages of nucleic bases?)

>>if you would like to change the breeding pattern that almost all of society(human collectivism) conforms to, expect resistance at the idea
Why? We changed all human breeding patterns when we invented the contraceptive pill. If you want to look at the force that caused population growth to go negative in the West, then that's it, if you think it has anything to do with increasing acceptance of LGBT people then you simply don't understand the population numbers involved. LGBT people barely put a dent in the overall fecundity of the west, contraceptive technology changed it radically. Why does this not cause an 'extreme war for the form of human identity'? Oh right, because human society is about more than raw breeding numbers, and most humans other than you are smart enough to pick up on that.

>>since the majority of humans agree on that, I'd even call that a democratic subjective truth.
Truth is not a democracy, get your shit straight.

>>But no one will ever say that they can reproduce sexually as humans, and that is a intrinsic part of humanity in most peoples eyes
[Citation needed] on the 'most peoples eyes' bit. Also, can you explain to me how so many gay people have children that is the biological child of at least one of them if 'no one will ever say they can reproduce sexually as humans' ? Hmm lets see, we're talking about humans so check on that part. One of the guys splooges into a cup which one human takes and inserts into another human, that human carries half of that splooge mixed with another human's eggs to term, and the resulting human infant is raised by the guy whose splooge they were made out of, with splooge-mans values, beliefs, hopes and dreams. Sounds like human sexual reproduction to me, man. Are you saying adopted people don't count as actual humans because they weren't raised through your cookie cutter family model?

>>When the monkies beat up the monkey going for the banana, they aren't being evil
More appeal to 'the truth as whatever the mob enforces with violence.' You're essentially saying 'humans enforce their norms with violence, so isn't violence the correct thing for humans to enforce their norms with?' It's painfully circular, and oversimplifying to boot. From the idea that this is a norm that humans enforced with violence, you go on to say that because we enforced it with violence, there's a high probability that there was a good reason to. You've managed to circle around twice on your own premise without bringing in any actual evidence outside of your own circle of reasoning, but, like the dog chasing its own tail, you seem to imagine you're actually getting somewhere. This is borderline incoherent at this point.

>>blindly throwing out traditions without understanding them is equally as bad.
Yes, blindly throwing out a tradition as you describe would be bad. However, that's not what we're doing. We do understand these traditions -- you are trying to present a spin on that understanding as a dogmatic 'truth' along with a propagandized social control objective, and so really the onus is on you as to why we should accept this vision of 'human society as mass breeding project.'

>>which is outside the reach of trans/homosexuals unless they concede and breed heterosexually,
Are you seriously suggesting that gay people can't use language or math unless they acquiesce to heterosexual dominance? How do you imagine this works? Or are you saying that gay people are dependent on the continuation of human civilization in order for there to continue to be a human civilization? In which case that statement is so obvious and self-referential as to say nothing. If you're suggesting that because gay people don't 'contribute' to the production of new generations and so don't deserve to have new generations pass on the informational contributions they make, well, that's just stupid and I'll assume that's not your intent, but even if so, again, with reference to adopted people or children brought about through surrogacy or artificial insemination, it's also totally inaccurate, as gay people do contribute to the production of future generations.

>>stop demanding special protections and an equal media presence
The only mechanism that brings this about is democracy and capitalism. If you believe in democracy, then you believe that every person has an equal voice. If they have an equal voice, then they will have an equal presence. We live in a capitalist society, and there is a capital incentive in giving such people voices. Who are you to say we should throw out that system, and for what?

>>I don't want to give them free reign over which bathrooms they get to choose
Nobody wants that. What we want is for people who look like women to go in the womens bathroom, people who look like men to go in the mens bathroom, because that is a safer situation for everyone than doing the opposite, where women and men with vaginas go into the womens bathroom, and men and women with penises go into the mens bathroom. If you don't understand why that is an inherently dangerous and untenable situation, then wake up.
>>
Priscilla Pennernerk - Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:46:15 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208506 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208502
>> they should be censored from children
Uhm, why? First of all, LGBT people do further society by any metric you could possibly analyze society under. Why exactly should the existence of a group of people be hidden from children? Why are you advocating lying to children? Who is going to run this oppressive system which controls how parents raise their children and chooses what information you are allowed to teach them?

>> that doesnt mean that they should remove the option for heterosexual reproduction
How much of a fucking nutter are you that you believe someone is trying to outlaw being straight?

>>Proper socialization requires proper propaganda
Are you some kind of crypto fascist? Where do you get the idea that society needs MORE propaganda?

>>causing massive failures in adults across the board from skill level, emotional stability, mental stability, you name it.
Late state capitalist post-industrial society has tremendous problems across the board, which exacerbate all the cultural changes you just described, which really began at the beginning of industrialization. The constriction of fixed capital into tighter and tighter pools, along with the globalizing power of high-tech are largely responsible for this. If you think that gay people are the reason western society is crumbling, then unfortunately the victim of propaganda is you.

>>we had a working system
Oppression is not a working system. A system that can only survive by keeping down a lower class can only remain stable for so long. Censoring the existence of people does nothing good for anyone, and only exacerbates the tension between the classes. Our system of acceptance is working pretty well right now, except for people like you who are so entitled as to think their own sense of order is more important than the lives of other members of society. You are wrong about that.

>> whos to say in 1000, 10,000 or even a million years later these genes won't prove to be useful in creating the next species to evolve from us as asexual beings that are part machine
Wake up and smell the coffee. We are becoming post-sexual, post-gender, post-biological machines this century, or else, there won't be any humans left. The reason this is all coming to a head right now is because this is all coming to a head RIGHT NOW, in our lifetimes. You can't kick the can of figuring this shit out further down the road, we're already at the end of the road. LGBT people's genes are manifestly useful because LGBT people are manifestly useful in the current environment, and those ideas will become more and more essential to the average human throughout this century. The fact that you acknowledge that there will be a use for this but then have to do a shell game with what we all know to be the current situation of the world in terms of the rate of technological advancement suggests intellectual dishonesty to me.

>>Every single invention or piece of knowledge that we have obtained, that every one enjoys, is the social child of everyone who has had children.
This is moronic. Are you saying that only parents are capable of benefiting from or using technology and culture? No, culture is the child of human society, and all humans have equal rights and access to that culture. We do not determine who is or isn't a member of society based on the degree to which they breed; we've never done it that way, and so you are advocating to us a change from the traditional to this new breeding based world order you suggest, and again, why? The world is already overpopulated, there already aren't enough jobs for the people who are alive right now, and soon robots will be doing everything. Biological evolution stopped seriously modifying our DNA as soon as we got to the agricultural revolution, so that's all over man. You're trying to fight stone age culture wars in the post-information age. It looks really exhausting, and is totally futile and meaningless.

>>You tell me, is there a correlation between the discovery of this drug, the rise of Rome, and the extinction and fall?
Yes. So let's see what lesson we can take from that; uncontrolled reproduction is very dangerous, and humans are too stupid to not do it to the point that it destroys themselves. The rate of people being LGBT is a genetic hedge against that phenomena. And it's not useful then because....?

>>And this is why western countries birthrates are plummeting.
Why do you think that? There is no causative correlation between birth rate and economic prosperity, but every time you bring it up you conflate the two. Maybe society is crumbling because the idea of an economy based on endless infinite growth is inherently untenable for a finite planet full of dumb, greedy humans, did you ever think of that?

>>begin a true human eugenics program and really improve the stock
Ah, so the cryptofascist shows their hand. So who gets to determine what is the 'master' kind of human in this social order? I guess we look to you, clearly the arbiter of what is true and good, as to who lives and who dies in this clearly 'enlightened' planetary breeding chamber?

>>need to spread our eggs into more baskets before our planet gets gamma rayed back to primordial ooze or some other catastrophic event.
Well, sure, no one can argue with that. Did you know that LGBT people are disporportionately involved in STEM fields? Did you ever think that your testosterone-drenched social policy might brain-drain you of the very kind of people who have the knowledge and skills to solve the very problems you complain about, much like how the Nazi's anti-Jewish policy caused all Jewish scientists to flee and thus lead to Germany ultimately failing to win the technological race -- and thus survive at all? Can you not see how following the eugenic, propaganda driven social program you describe might not have the exact same effect but on the scale of our entire species?

Do you think gambling that it wouldn't is worth it when all that comes of it is that you don't have to be exposed to a kind of people that, for your own personal reasons, you find icky, and thus try to dream up massive systems of social control and oppression just so you don't have to think about things you don't like thinking about? Maybe that kind of need for insularity and homogeneity is the deadly weakness of our species, rather than that just sometimes we don't like to fuck exactly the way you think we should? If you were to choose which property is more likely to bring about the end of our race; that sometimes we fuck the wrong hole, or that we are unable to accept and integrate difference healthily, which would you think? Which makes more logical sense?
>>
Esther Tootshit - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 01:10:40 EST ID:9k2Lr/yb No.208507 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Did you know that LGBT people are disporportionately involved in STEM fields?

Did they achieve anything?
>>
Lillian Chiggleworth - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 01:43:29 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208508 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208507
Mhmm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_scientists
(This list is far from exhaustive, excludes major notable figures like Turing, etc.)
>>
Nigel Fondlewon - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 06:37:30 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208509 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208506
>LGBT people do further society by any metric you could possibly analyze society under.
Not without all the resources that hetero society invests in them, with no return. Especially since the lifestyles/professions they choose are largely useless(statistically), and they spend the investment in them in furthering their social ideal, at the expense of the rest of humans social cohesion.

We lie to children all the fucking time for their own good, don't pretend that this isn't a part of human society

>Who is going to run this oppressive system which controls how parents raise their children and chooses what information you are allowed to teach them?
Preferably an A.I. or something along those lines, that simulates what helps humans breed at managable but replace+ level.

> How much of a fucking nutter are you that you believe someone is trying to outlaw being straight?
I think you misunderstand. I think It should be illegal to outlaw mutilation of your reproductive system. Regardless of whether or not you think you are a man or a woman. Either "gender is a social construct" or "I need x genitals to be x gender." And a mutilated non functional organ is NOT the genitals of the other gender.

>Where do you get the idea that society needs MORE propaganda?
To propagate. No seriously, its not that society is hurting for propaganda, and I'd guess its been going on since the beginning of human culture. What that means is, either the propaganda is controlled by you, or someone else.

>If you think that gay people are the reason western society is crumbling
I didn't say that. Western Society is crumbling because we've forgotten the basic of how to raise a good human being. Gay/transexual people are more of a symptom and feedback cycle, then the cause.

The cause is things like gay(or any really) propaganda taking the place of our regularly scheduled human rearing propaganda.

>except for people like you who are so entitled as to think their own sense of order is more important than the lives of other members of society
Except for people like you who are so entitled as to think their own sense of order is more important than the lives of future members of society. So its ok for you to oppress a large portion of society with your veiwpoint, but not them?

>We are becoming post-sexual, post-gender, post-biological machines this century
We are becoming yes. But we are becoming another species, and to not understand that the majority of people who are happy being human beings are rejecting it, at this point in time where it doesn't have a positive evolutionary advantage is beyond me.

LGBT people's genes are manifestly useful because LGBT people are manifestly useful because LGBT people with LGBT people's genes get us ready for LGBT people with LGBT genes being part of humanity. This is circular logic and pretty weak if this is your only argument for why they're useful.

I mean, its pushing it to say I acknowledge its useful. All I said is I have no idea whether or not in 10 million years it WILL be useful, so I don't think its smart to remove it from our gene pool. And not only that that we are moving towards not being sexual at all, so different sexual profiles are useless.

Heterosexuals are pushing the majority of technological innovation, if homosexuals and trans would band together and actually work on genetic manipulation to further their new species it'd be a completely different story. And every cent they get directed away from heterosexual medicine is a net loss to that society.

> Are you saying that only parents are capable of benefiting from or using technology and culture?
No, only children. If you dont have multiple generations, then that knowledge dies with the group that made it. Its only because parents have a vested interest in keeping social gears oiled that it happens, and when you remove that incentive more and more people just don't care.

>We do not determine who is or isn't a member of society based on the degree to which they breed
Maybe, but we have certainly built a system that rewards them over others. And we definitely have/had social hierarchy that up until recently also measured your social status partially on that. Heck even words like bastard are a direct result of this. And its also not a coincidence that since this have been changed, the quality of life around the globe(as a total) began to go down for the first time in hundreds of years.

>uncontrolled reproduction is very dangerous, and humans are too stupid to not do it to the point that it destroys themselves. The rate of people being LGBT is a genetic hedge against that phenomena. And it's not useful then because....?
>There is no causative correlation between birth rate and economic prosperity, but every time you bring it up you conflate the two. Maybe society is crumbling because the idea of an economy based on endless infinite growth is inherently untenable for a finite planet full of dumb, greedy humans, did you ever think of that?

Yes, uncontrolled breeding is stupid. Letting all the stupids fuck you into a minority is even stupider. If you aren't here anymore, you lose. Also, I'm not the one conflating GDP and birthrate, the biggest argument out there for immigration from the 3rd world is lowered birthrates maing social programs nonviable.

>So who gets to determine what is the 'master' kind of human in this social order?
The maze. If you make it out alive, you get to breed. obstacles set to median human IQ, every 50-100 years the difficulty is increased.

>Did you know that LGBT people are disporportionately involved in STEM fields? Did you ever think that your testosterone-drenched social policy might brain-drain you of the very kind of people who have the knowledge and skills to solve the very problems you complain about
I don't believe it. people in the stem feilds are largely non-sexual workaholics nerds. LGBT people are overwhelming represented in the "soft" social sciences, and focus only on their goals and problems of their communities.

See I can do that too, citation please.

>https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/opinion/manil-suri-why-is-science-so-straight.html
Statistics are hard to come by, but an analysis by Erin Cech, a sociologist at Rice University, of federal employee surveys found 20 percent fewer L.G.B.T. workers in government STEM-related jobs than should be expected.

There's no doubt it would need to be kept in check so that it doesn't come down to just paranoia and stupidity like Hitlers eugenics program which was only about aesthetics .

>Do you think gambling that it wouldn't is worth it when all that comes of it is that you don't have to be exposed to a kind of people that, for your own personal reasons, you find icky
I think its silly you think I'm gambling, but your the one taking a chance on a none genetically viable lifestyle in a time where technology cannot bridge the gap. I don't find all gay people to be icky any more then I do hetero people. A large percent of people are shit anyways, but at least they have a chance to make a decent human being by accident.
>>
Lillian Chiggleworth - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:25:06 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208510 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208509
Hmm...I don't know man. I'm inclined to think you're just a concern troll at this point. I can't believe you seriously hold such a ludicrous world view, and you slip up on your character from time to time, like with the maze bullshit. Who seriously would think something like that? The fact that you post links to articles that, if you even bothered to read them, you would see disprove your own point -- like this article, which contains juicy nuggets like
>>the L.G.B.T. STEM work force is closeted (43 percent, according to a 2015 estimate)
means you're just rage researching from Google's top results, so you can't have thought these ideas through very clearly or hold them very deeply.
So either you're an edgy 14 year old who thinks a world order based on a eugenic fucking maze sounds cool, or stimmed out of your mind, or something, because you sound like a fucking psycho if you look at the picture you're painting from an objective standpoint. On the off chance you're sincere, I will answer the points you bring up, but at least try to stay in a more sensible concern troll character for me to take you seriously m80.

>>with no return.
You seem to be under the impression that the contribution of human beings to the creation of human society is limited to our production of genetic material and breeding stock. This is false, the value of the mere mechanics of reproduction is a very small part of the economy, whether you measure the economy in dollars, calories spent, hours worked etc. LGBT people have and do contribute both to the furtherance of present society and participate in the education and training of future generations, so I don't see how society isn't getting a return on them. Again, to most peoples' non autistic minds, there isn't a 'hetero' society and a 'homo' society like you've been programmed to believe, there's just one 'human' society, and creating false divisions within it like you're trying to do here is one of its most insidious cancers.
>>Especially since the lifestyles/professions they choose are largely useless(statistically)
There are gay people in every single profession at statistically significant numbers. You lie, or you believe some kind of 4skin fantasy about what gay people really do.

>>they spend the investment in them in furthering their social ideal
The ideal of a unified peaceful diverse human society is an ideal shared by many straight people, so again, this is work in furtherance of human society, not 'homo' society.
>>at the expense of the rest of humans social cohesion.
Actually, the mere fact that a LGBT person (or any kind of person different from you) exists doesn't do shit to human social cohesion -- it's when people like you start getting so triggered by the mere fact of their existence that you have to start imagining AI propaganda planetary breeding machines to erase their existence (only for a million years or so, you're so generous) and thus start trying to agitate other humans to behave repressively and violently against each other, that human social cohesion is damaged. The splinter you see in your brother's eye is the beam in your own.

>>We lie to children...
Yeah, some parents do lie to their children, but it hasn't always been that way, apart from fairy tales and things...however, unless you're talking about Santa and such, I would incline to say that in general we think it's appropriate to teach children what the world really is, rather than fill their heads with some false fiction, right? We would be bad parents if we trained our children for a world that didn't exist, rather than giving them every possible skill to cope with life.

>>Preferably an A.I. or something along those lines...
Along this line, we should not assent to condemning our children and all future generations of humanity to be controlled by the propaganda of an all encompassing information censorship and control AI. Are -- you -- fucking -- insane? It will be hard enough to prevent such a thing from coming about naturally (we will hopefully rely on a natural ecosystem of AIs where no one AI is all powerful) but you want to create one specifically for the purpose of indoctrinating humanity -- and for the laudable goal of, get this, fucking, obviously something humans have been unable to achieve here to fore and need a super sapient AI manipulating us into doing. Can you even fathom how quickly we would end up in a rule 34 version of Nick Bostrom's Paperclips?https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
This is an insane idea, and I can't believe you hold it sincerely. 'Please breeding-farm my planet, AI God!'

>>I think It should be illegal to outlaw mutilation of your reproductive system.
Ah, here comes the straight set of trolling statements, unvarnished and gleaming in the sun. Those ideas are all stupid, that's as much evidence as is needed to dismiss them because that's as much as you offered, that the state should be able to control what we are allowed to do with our genitals, that you think we need to enforce some kind of universal genital homogeneity through the violent force of the state,..
>>a mutilated non functional organ is NOT the genitals of the other gender.
... and then you make a metaphysical claim about semantic qualities of descriptors of human body parts and human gender, without any evidence -- merely asserting that it is so. Well, it's not so, and there are a lot of good reasons why, just from a logical standpoint, the statement you made is easily deconstructed and meaningless. Consider that the concept of an organ as well as the concept of sex are both social constructs, in fact all biological knowledge, while it may attempt to describe a physical reality, is in fact just itself a social construct. In reality, all there are are aggregates of nucleic acids encased in protein sheaths tumbling across a thin shell of stone enveloping a liquid sphere of iron, hurtling through space around a ten billion year explosion. All our semantic understanding of the world being relative to our primitive protein based cognition, if gender is a construct that describes a condition of a person, and the physical configuration of the genitals are referred to by their shape, then calling a person with one gender and one configuration the genitals their aggregate of protein molecules most closely visibly resembles, rather than the one a very small percentage of one part of their nucleic acid chains resembles is at least as good of a way of talking about things than doing what you're proposing, and whether it is or isn't is entirely an argument in relative semantics, which is itself a social construct, so what's your statement really getting us other than more trolling?
>>
Lillian Chiggleworth - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:25:33 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208511 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208509

>>either the propaganda is controlled by you,
No, that's why we invented the scientific method in the first place. We are just barely crawling out of the dark ages and you want us to go back. Living under a state of constant delusion and informational coercion is not a given, and the suggestion that it is is dangerously wrong.
Besides, you seem to think propaganda has always existed. Propaganda is a relatively novel concept for humans. Hell, relative to how long humans have been breeding, any kind of written language is a novel concept, and we got along breeding just fine before that so...I think humans and all sexual lifeforms really have enough incentive to fuck without you MK-Ultra'ing the planet's whole noosphere.

>> So its ok for you to oppress a large portion of society with your veiwpoint, but not them?
You are suggesting the oppression of a large group of people in a literal sense; you want them erased and hidden, and AIs to hide evidence of their existence from children. I and civil society just want all people to be able to live together in peace. How is someone else's mere existence oppression to you? How can a VIEWPOINT be oppressive? You're saying that, if there are more X people than Y people, the mere *idea* that X and Y people should live together somehow takes away from X people, simply because there are more of them and their configuration is somehow more normal (I'm just reading in that reasoning between your lines, you don't really give much in the way of reasoning.) It's nonsensical, you're saying that wanting no one to be oppressed is oppressive to people who want some people to be oppressed, well, sure, but then the only real problem is you, the person who wants oppression. How long until it's not gay people we're talking about, but the disabled, or minorities? What about language, region, or social class? Where does the entitlement of the chosen of the master race stop?

>> at this point in time where it doesn't have a positive evolutionary advantage is beyond me.
Except it does. Has it occurred to you that if it didn't have a positive advantage, evolution would have eliminated all traces of LGBT behavior millions of years ago? Yes instead we see it evolve independently over and over again, in species that don't even have culture or propaganda. Plus, we don't run society based solely on genetic fitness, cultural factors have always been more important, at least since agriculture.

>>LGBT people's genes are manifestly useful because LGBT people are manifestly useful because LGBT people with LGBT people's genes get us ready for LGBT people with LGBT genes being part of humanity.
Oh man that's so not what I'm saying. It's like you're seeing your own circular logic everywhere, but you have to repeat the same point which I never say to make it sound like a circle ('LGBT genes') when I'm specifically talking about technology and its advancement, the outside force. If society is transitioning to a state where , because of technology (not anything genetic), identity is inherently more flexible and fragmented, where we have gene-line and mass-data driven control over all expressions of human possibility, then necessarily all kinds of social structures will start to break down and re-orient. LGBT people aren't precursors to this in the sense that they are causing it (although there are, of course, many influential queer futurists like Martine Rothblatt who have done more as individuals to further these kinds of goals of protecting the future of humanity than whole scores of your supposedly more useful 'breeders') but will be better suited to adapting to that scenario, on average, simply because they have more experience adapting to ambiguity of identity in general.

>> every cent they get directed away from heterosexual medicine is a net loss to that society.
Again, only for autists who think that there is a 'homo' and a 'hetero' society instead of a human society i.e. the opposite of the opinion of that 'vast majority' you keep referencing. For most people, society is not a zero sum game, advances in medicine for one kind of people can lead to non-linear unexpected gains for other kinds of people, and in general we're all in this together, because that's what makes humans strong and great, is the expansiveness of our spirit, rather than the miserly character you're presenting.

>>And its also not a coincidence that since this have been changed, the quality of life around the globe(as a total) began to go down
Well no, it's not a coincidence, but this is a case of 'correlation does not imply causation'. Changes in the laws around the social status of children born of out wedlock, say, and the economic boom of the 19th-20th centuries had a common cause; the industrialization of the West. During that entire time living standards increased, whereas they have only ever decreased in the past handful of years, decades after all these changes had been long cemented. So your suggestion is anachronistic, the timing doesn't add up.

>>Letting all the stupids fuck you into a minority is even stupider.
More unvarnished cryptofascism. Who are these stupids we're railing against now, I thought this was about killing off the gays?

>>immigration from the 3rd world is lowered birthrates
You have no idea what you're talking about. Immigration goes down as birth-rates go down, because again they have a third causative factor; economic prosperity and industrialization.

>>The maze. If you make it out alive, you get to breed.
Lol no I trole u.

>>in a time where technology cannot bridge the gap
False, technology bridged the gap you're worried about thousands of years ago. If you sincerely think there is some technological problem, please talk about that instead next time instead of giving us a run again through the hackneyed old culture warrior talking points (with spicy new dystopian eugenics flavor.)
>>
Rebecca Nicklefuck - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:02:15 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208512 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It would be in the best interest of the whole if violent people did not have access to weapons, narcoleptics didn't have drivers licences, and psychotics weren't left unsupervised.

None of these things are done in society. It's like saying hurr prosthetics is bad because it allows the armless to drive. If we can fix it, there's no functional difference from a normie.

You people scream at psychologists and then pull out desperate armchair theories like this out of your ass. How about actually helping your fellow man instead of shitting on them constantly and wondering why they don't like you?
>>
Nigel Fondlewon - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 18:00:51 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208513 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208508
Eric Anderson (born January 18, 1968) is an American sociologist and sexologist
Jacob Appelbaum (born 1 April 1983) is an American independent journalist, computer security researcher, artist, and hacker
>>Polly Louise Arnold OBE FRSE FRSC is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Edinburgh in the School of Chemistry
Gavin Arthur (born Chester Alan Arthur III; March 21, 1901 – April 28, 1972) was a San Francisco astrologer and sexologist
Sir Edmund Trelawny Backhouse, 2nd Baronet (20 October 1873 – 8 January 1944) was a British oriental scholar, Sinologist, and linguist
>>Sara Josephine Baker (November 15, 1873 – February 22, 1945) was an American physician
Robert Hayward Barlow (May 18, 1918 – January 1 or 2, 1951[1]) was an American author, avant-garde poet, anthropologist and historian
>>Ben A. Barres is an American neurobiologist at Stanford University
Joachim Bartholomae (born 1956) is a German author and sociologist
Ruth Fulton Benedict (June 5, 1887 – September 17, 1948) was an American anthropologist and folklorist

3 of the first 10 are actual STEM, 2 of which were married heterosexually at one point, the rest are soft sciences with 5/7 focusing on their sexuality.
>>
Charlotte Chublingstock - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:04:24 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sir Issac Newton never had kids, so according to this guy, his usefulness to society was null and void. What a dunce.
>>
Charlotte Chacklelock - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:29:17 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208515 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208513
Do you think that somehow proves your point, 'well I didn't even read your source, but out of the part I skimmed, even though 100% were the thing you described, because I'm going to dismiss an entire branch of the sciences as not really being sciences, then only about half were the thing you described, even though my assertion was that there were none of the thing you described.' oooo, how damning.
Do you have anything else at all to say in defense of your pathetic argument, or is this your last gasp?
>>
Sidney Hommlechot - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 04:01:38 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208516 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208511

I don't agree at all with the other guy's points, but I feel this is a good springboard for another discussion that I think is related.

>It's nonsensical, you're saying that wanting no one to be oppressed is oppressive to people who want some people to be oppressed, well, sure, but then the only real problem is you, the person who wants oppression.

See, but you admit that you're still oppressing a human being, no matter how backwards his viewpoint is. And it's not like waving away his viewpoint as backwards will make his reaction to your oppression nonexistent, quite the contrary. By not even acknowledging his position as a valid position, you're treating him as less than a human being, which is something no one likes, even people who effectively act as less than human beings. So you HAVE become the oppressor, you just don't feel like that's the case because, like any oppressor, you don't really think the oppressed deserve to be heard or respected. You think of them as less than human. Even if the only reason for them to exclude trans people were that they find them "icky".. I mean, would you want something you find icky forced upon you? Do you think you'd react favorably if everything you said against it would be dismissed and handwaved? Or do you think your tendency would be to make it an even bigger deal than it is just to spite the insensitive asshole that didn't even bother to acknowledge your ickiness as a human feeling that deserves to exist like any other?

THIS is why Trump happened. Not because the white race is actually in danger, but because suddenly the backwards people suddenly saw a huge number of people treating them as if they were less than human. Can you really blame them for hating you and everything you represent? However open you are, you're not open to having a dialogue with them, you don't even consider them people like you, needing to be addressed and acknowledged, and since that viewpoint is that of an oppressor, you were surprised when they reacted like any oppressed human being reacts. It's like they were reminding you "Hey, you're wrong, we're people too, we exist, and we live here too".


>How long until it's not gay people we're talking about, but the disabled, or minorities? What about language, region, or social class? Where does the entitlement of the chosen of the master race stop?

The opposite side uses the slippery slide argument against your position too. Like, tomorrow we'll marry dogs and brooms, where does the inclusion stop? That's just dumb, let's everyone stop it, what do you think?
>>
Sophie Mozzleman - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:11:14 EST ID:B821HT2m No.208517 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
While I appreciate you coming at the idea from a more sensible angle, I think this also invites dragging the conversation pretty far afield of its intended scope. Nevertheless...
When someone oppresses someone else, and is thus oppressed in turn from continuing to do so for the health of society, the person responsible for the oppression that the oppressor experiences is...the oppressor, not those protecting others from oppression. It's simply the law of karma, of causation in action; by attempting to oppress, the oppressor sets up an inevitable circumstance in relation to the rest of society where inevitably they will eventually become the 'victims' of oppression themselves...but only in the same way that a murderer ends up becoming the 'victim' of murder at the hands of the state, yet humans call that justice. Do I wish we could have our cake and eat it to? Sure. It would be grand if it were possible for our friend here to have his exclusionary fantasy and live fulfilled in it to the maximum extent...unfortunately, his fantasy includes the extinction of what many other people would like, and thus we arrive at the tragedy of the commons. But certainly it is not the fault of the groundskeepers that the commons become soiled? And who would you blame if you let the commons be utterly destroyed on the principle that preventing their destruction is its own kind of oppression?

Put another way, it's not the person who points it out's fault when someone else wants something that's inherently logically inconsistent. To want to oppress, but not want to experience oppression yourself, is an intrinsically incoherent position, and the universe will ultimately correct it wherever it occurs. Put another way, of course I acknowledge the humanity even of someone who denies the humanity of another person, but that doesn't mean I might not try to expose them to a taste of what they themselves are dishing out. Isn't that one of the most fundamental techniques of rhetoric?

If you think I'm implying people who don't agree with an inclusive philosophy don't have the same rights as everyone else, you're just projecting. Of course there's nothing wrong with people feeling icky, or not liking anything. However, the idea that we should use the power of the state to legislate around what people find icky is horrifically dangerous. It's the reason, for instance, that alcohol was prohibited -- and how did that turn out?

tl;dr: why is it that every time someone points out that having the right to exist is not the same thing as having the right to force other people out of existence, someone has to say basically 'telling people who believe logically inconsistent things that what they want doesn't makes sense is the reason they are mad at you' well that's obvious -- but maybe the most dangerous idea is coddling the notion that oppression is an equally valid philosophy just in order to seem even handed -- when, if we just corrected the behavior, if people's ideas and behavior were consistent and examined rather than based on propagandized emotional furor, we could move past these tribal trivialities and everyone (yes, even the 'white race') could get on with their lives.
>>
Simon Crittingville - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:26:17 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208518 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
This position is garbage. If you take a stance in public, expect to get critiqued by SOMEONE. Have you never heard "everyone's a critic"? You can't just expect to force your opinions down people's throat and expecting people to go "o-oh okay that's nice everyone has a right to an opinion". That's circlejerking, and it doesn't the factors that brought together such a divisiveness in the first place. All you're saying is, you should be allowed to shit on people without people being allowed to shit on you. Free speech for you but not free speech for the people who take offense to you. You can have whatever stance you want free from the evil critics in private, but as soon as you voice your concerns in public it becomes a public matter. Period. All you're doing is the typical stormfag "i should have the right to oppress people without being oppressed myself because I'm special and superior and whiittee".

Nobody's buying it these days. And I'm sorry, but so many internet kiddies pretend they know how Trump was elected based on internet psychoanalysis I've seen the lot by this point. Can't you just accept the fact that clinton stuffed it? Because if you're going into the full "hurr gamers gate elected trump /pol/ did it's all actually YOUR FAULT stupid liberals for inspiring us!!!", it's not an argument.
>>
Edward Toothood - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:33:08 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208519 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208517

I wasn't really talking about the guy per se, but rather the people who have been opposing all these social changes and ended up voting Trump.. Which I think is more on topic than that lunatic's world domination desires.

>It's simply the law of karma, of causation in action

Ehh, that sounds like washing your hands of it and pinning the blame on the universe. If in the causation chain there's you, you have free choice, responsibility, and that means nothing is set in stone, no matter how many times it happened a certain way.

>To want to oppress, but not want to experience oppression yourself, is an intrinsically incoherent position

And yet, you're holding it? You (and I, this part at least) want for trans people and gay people to be out in the open freely and live their lives the way they want to, but at the same time you don't give a fuck if some people are going to feel uncomfortable by the change. And yet you don't want them to stop you enacting that same change. You're oppressing some people, and yet don't want to be oppressed.

>If you think I'm implying people who don't agree with an inclusive philosophy don't have the same rights as everyone else, you're just projecting

Your actions prove it by themselves, if you voted. Sadly, using the state is inherently oppressive toward someone. It's just that this time yay for the state because you're not on the losing side.


>>208518

Problem is though, you're not really having a direct confrontation with these people, once you get the state involved. You're basically going to mummy and daddy and asking them to threaten the opposing side with their force (the police). You're not really criticizing in the sense of having a dialogue, it's more of a whine to the state, a request for abusing who "deserves" it. Or rather, it's not a discussion you're having, it's a race to get the other side to shut up by acquiring the ultimate censoring weapon: the threat or force and/or death.

And my point wasn't to imply "oh we should let the bigots have whatever they want because they're special snowflakes", but that the way these changes happened was just brutal, for them, and it underlies the fatal flaw of any government: by acting as an arbiter and an enforcer, it takes away the chance for these people to work it out among themselves. The ability of the people to talk to each other, reason with each other, and arriving at compromises and mutual agreements, gets weakened more and more, because the state does it for them. And they also get more and more divided, because they remain stuck at the point of the conversation where there's just animosity toward each other, without understanding. The winning side remains angry at the losers for having a different opinion, and the losing side the same, with the added humiliation of having been abused by the state.

Am I for anarchy? But we're already in it. It's just that in this particular anarchy we decided that we can't be trusted to make, and respect, agreements we make with each other, and thus asked a gang, or rather, paid money to a gang, to force one side's position onto the other. Then the gang rebranded themselves as government, got more paperwork to organize our requests, then we gave up on our ability to organize ourselves even in matters of resources, and paid the gang to intervene there too, and so on. Depending so much on this gang is making us weaker as a society, and every win, even for the side I agree with, seems bittersweet, because we pay a heavy price for it.
>>
Hamilton Clivingmedge - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:02:36 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208522 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
It's not oppression or treating them less than human when people say, "Hey, stop it, we are trying to have a functioning society here. Kicking a gay couple from your restaurant hinders the freedom of the public space."

You're trying to reverse the blame but it isn't going to work. The reason Trump won is numerous. I'm sure part of it is that a select group people felt oppressed. I don't doubt that at all. But is it oppression, or is it bellyaching over losing their complete grip on society? I'm sure the KKK feel very much oppressed that they even have to share the same street as a black person. It doesn't make their complaints valid.

No one is stopping them from voicing their opinions. The reason why people shout down people with these views is because people with these types of views are completely oblivious to how they appear to others or are completely unapologetic and unwavering about their views. They simply don't listen to reason because many attempts have been tried, and you can't blame people for losing their patience. Sometimes you can reach out, but many times you can't.

Just give me one example of being "treated less than human". If the harasser is being talked down, the harasser isn't being oppressed. The harassed is. Talking down the harasser is a reaction by these ones being harassed.

If the worst thing they have to experience is feeling uncomfortable, or getting an ear full, I'd consider them lucky. You can't compare that to being completely excluded and stigmatized by society as a whole. That's what it looks like when things are balanced, and power isn't centered on one side of the scale. At the end of the day, who doesn't get an ear full once in a while? Who doesn't feel uncomfortable in various social situations? I don't like a lot of things in society, but I deal with it.

If you can show me anti-homosexuals (Or whatever politically correct phrase you want to give to homophobes) having the same suicide rates as minorities (blacks, gays, trans), maybe then I'll consider the validity of their oppression.
>>
Hamilton Clivingmedge - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:18:37 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208523 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
> So you HAVE become the oppressor, you just don't feel like that's the case because, like any oppressor, you don't really think the oppressed deserve to be heard or respected. You think of them as less than human

No one's stopping them from being heard. Your definition of oppressor is a bit odd. It's almost a slippery slope. Maybe we should allow burglars the right to rob peoples homes without the threat the mummy and daddy state interfering with threats of jail/death? So you HAVE become the oppressor, because you didn't allow these robbers to oppress your home space.

That's essentially what you are saying when you try to say preventing people from oppressing others creates oppression of the oppressors. It's asinine. You don't view kicking minorities out of their homes, employment, public space, marriage, etc as oppression, so of course you would view enforcement to prevent rights abuses as oppression.

"You murdered my husband! Get him officers/judges/jail system!"
"HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!".
>>
Hamilton Clivingmedge - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:26:41 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208524 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
> I mean, would you want something you find icky forced upon you?

I have to deal with Trump supporters all the time. It's pretty icky but it's a free society, so sure. Why should my feelings of ickiness circumvent their rights?


> it underlies the fatal flaw of any government: by acting as an arbiter and an enforcer, it takes away the chance for these people to work it out among themselves.

Or it'll never "work itself out" and it'll just continue on mistreating groups of people. We aren't going to stand around and wait for you guys to change. We have laws for the very fact that it forces people to play nice.
>>
Frederick Smallspear - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:06:05 EST ID:1S+QAQOX No.208525 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208522
>It doesn't make their complaints valid.

When I say "treating people as less than human beings", this is the kind of arguments I'm referring to. We might disagree with their complaints, but to say they're not valid and proceed to shut them up is just a refusal to understand what's going on with them.

>Kicking a gay couple from your restaurant hinders the freedom of the public space

But it's your restaurant, don't you find it intruding that an external entity forces you to choose how to run your business under the threat of violence/incarceration and all that entails? It's the same as if government would force you to exclude black people, except now the polarity is reversed. Can we really complain if we'll end up under a fascist regime, considering we're all right with these tactics when they serve our interests? Wouldn't it be better to not have that external entity at all?

>They simply don't listen to reason because many attempts have been tried, and you can't blame people for losing their patience.

Actually that's the only time when judging how people behave has any meaning. Everyone can act nice when they haven't lost their patience. It's what you do when you have lost it that defines you.

>You're trying to reverse the blame but it isn't going to work

When have I said that it means these racist bigots have no blame? All I'm trying to show is that you effectively act the same way. I'm not saying their ideas are good, yours are bad, I'm saying they're all bad, because they're the same idea. No sin, first stone, and all.

>You can't compare that to being completely excluded and stigmatized by society as a whole

But isn't that what they're watching happen? The whole of society trying to exclude and stigmatize them for having certain opinions? Isn't that the whole reason they banded together as they have?

>If you can show me anti-homosexuals (Or whatever politically correct phrase you want to give to homophobes) having the same suicide rates as minorities (blacks, gays, trans), maybe then I'll consider the validity of their oppression.

Well of course it hasn't happened NOW, because they're not socially isolated like blacks, gay and trans are and were. But if it happened, they'd kill themselves too, because, you know, they're humans, and all humans would react that way in that position. And really, you'd consider their position valid only after suicide among them increased? Isn't their feelings of being uncomfortable enough for you to sit down and listen? And if you don't have any problems for dismissing their feelings, don't you really see how them dismissing your feelings makes you more alike than you're comfortable with?


>>208523
>Maybe we should allow burglars the right to

Still, you're implying the intervention of the government. I'm saying we shouldn't have the power to "allow" or "deny" anything, not through means of a gang at least.

>You don't view kicking minorities out of their homes, employment, public space, marriage, etc as oppression

When have I ever said that? Of course that's oppression too, the argument wouldn't make any sense if I wouldn't consider that oppression. I just really have a bad taste in my mouth when the oppressed become the oppressors.. Kind of like victim of sexual abuse becoming abusers. You'd think they'd develop understanding of the pain they had gone through, but no, apparently they were just waiting for an excuse to become the monster.


>>208524
>Or it'll never "work itself out" and it'll just continue on mistreating groups of people

When have I ever said that without external intervention we'd leave the resolution to fate or to wait for them to change their minds on their own? This is really just another demonstration of how the presence of government have warped our thoughts, you don't even consider for a second confronting them personally, maybe with some friends, with the power of empathy or understanding. I didn't say "it'll work itself out", read again, I meant "they'll work it out among themselves". And of course I mean in your local area, not the world. If everyone took care of their own little place like that, these things would happen less. And really, if you don't want to take care of it personally, what are you there for? If all the efforts you're going to put in is paying for the police to deal with it for you, did you ever really care at all?

>We have laws for the very fact that it forces people to play nice.

We have laws because we avoided dealing with our neighbors for too long and now we need someone else to do it for us because we're too chickenshit to do it ourselves.
And from the government's point of view, we have laws because they enjoy the power and status they get from being the ones enforcing them, either directly (cops), or by making decisions (judges, lawyers, etc).

What you actually have is an entity with massive, concentrated force, that when, not if, will turn its back on us and become fascist, we won't know how to stop. Even more if our relationships with our neighbors are dependent on that force and not actual relationship and mutual respect. It's a disaster waiting to happen, and it happened countless times throughout history already.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:33:29 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208526 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208525

>this is the kind of arguments I'm referring to. We might disagree with their complaints, but to say they're not valid and proceed to shut them up is just a refusal to understand what's going on with them.

Disagreeing with someone is not akin to mistreatment. I understand what is going on with them. They were brought up to think a certain way about gay people. There's a reason why people become less homophobic when exposed to homosexuals. We don't need to baby your emotions.

>But it's your restaurant, don't you find it intruding that an external entity forces you to choose how to run your business under the threat of violence/incarceration and all that entails?

No. We have laws to ensure peaceful comings and goings of peoples. I would no more want to kick out people wearing MAGA hats from my place of business than a homosexual. In order to ensure freedom of the public space, we enact and enforce the Civil Rights Act.

Of course it would be ideal had we no need for such an enforcement, but things are far worse without them, so thus we have it in place.

Your example of forcing to exclude people misses the point. The Civil Rights Act is a maximization of freedom and peace. The reverse is a limitation of peace. Your right to kick people out doesn't supersede the whole.

>. It's what you do when you have lost it that defines you.

Anything short of violence is permitted. Freedom of speech doesn't entail you the right of a platform and doesn't entail you the right from being excluded of others viewpoints.

> I'm saying they're all bad, because they're the same idea.

But they aren't. One is designed to include more people. The other is designed to exclude the most people. It's exclusive by design, while Civil Rights is inclusive by design. It's not equal. Civil Rights Act is justice, and it's balance. The other way around in imbalance.

It's an important distinction that anti-Civil Right Act proponents don't quiet get. All we'll do is have an eternal back and forth and hope against hope that you gets one day get it.

>The whole of society trying to exclude and stigmatize them for having certain opinions?

I think it's a good thing when society stands up against certain viewpoints. Just as I wouldn't at all feel bad if the whole of society pushed back against neo-nazis and white supremacists. Some ideologies are inherently inferior and dangerous to the maximization of peace and stability.

We are definitely having a cultural clash. But it's not so much stigmatization as it is balance. There is no compromise with the neo-nazi worldview. Because if we give them an inch, they will take it all then design a system of exclusion against our system of inclusion.

> Isn't their feelings of being uncomfortable enough for you to sit down and listen?

I don't think they'll have the same emotional baggage as though with genuine grievances. You can't compare society fighting back against a dangerous ideology as equivalent to homosexuals literally being treated less than human. Again, like I said, I'd consider them lucky if the worst thing they have to worry about is that society is fighting about against their ideas. They can still do everything a citizen, not treated as second class, can do.

I do tend to acknowledge their feelings. I know exactly what they are feeling, but at the end of the day a person is responsible for their own emotions. I'm acknowledging their views by even communicating with them. That doesn't mean that I have the sugar coat my opinions about their worldview. I give them the harsh truth of their views and hope that I put them into a sense of cognitive confusion so they are forced to think about their views. It's the only way they'll ever get it, because their views aren't tied to logic; It's all gut.

The times that I changed my views the most was when I was directly challenged to the point of feeling shaken. What you do with that momentum is up to you.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:52:11 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208525

>Still, you're implying the intervention of the government. I'm saying we shouldn't have the power to "allow" or "deny" anything, not through means of a gang at least.

I just want to say that I appreciate these responses even though I disagree.

I mean; how else do we keep the peace? The gang is what society wanted. We pay them with our taxes because a majority believe it's better than not having it. That's all government really is in the end. If you tear this all down, you will end up with the same system at the end of it eventually. We'll go through the civil rights movements all over again then come to the conclusion that we need a Civil Rights Act.

Ideally, people would just play nice, but people can be extremely childish and need something in place to make sure this thing holds. We all need each other.

>Kind of like victim of sexual abuse becoming abusers.

Come on, man. Are these two things really equivalent? It's more like friends stopping their friend from getting raped. It's preventing the abuse in the first place. Because that's what being excluded from public space is, it's abuse of a group of people that don't deserve exclusion.

Apply your empathy to these one's like you would want me to apply my empathy to shop owners forced to allow a black couple in their place.

I get the shop owner feels uncomfortable and apoplectic over not being able to keep this one out. I sense that furry, but the furry of being removed from a significant portion of public space hurts far worse. That white gentleman can still go down to his local pub and meet his friends. The black guy can't even be exposed to the opportunity.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:20:44 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208525
> I meant "they'll work it out among themselves". And of course I mean in your local area, not the world. If everyone took care of their own little place like that, these things would happen less.

You didn't outright say it but the logic leads down to it. When we leave it to people to handle it, many times we find it's never handled. If anything, they band together to make sure they exclude groups of people.

What do you do when you are a black man or gay man living in a time and place that completely excludes you, and everyone there is against you? What do you do when you have no one to help you?

It's nice to think that society would just handle it, but it doesn't work this way. It just ensures groups of people remain second class.

It'll happen far less to none if it's enforced. No black man should ever run into a situation where he is barred from stepping foot into a public domain. Like I said before, we aren't going to wait around for you guys to take care of it because many times, they WILL take care of it. Just not in an inclusive way.

>nd from the government's point of view, we have laws because they enjoy the power and status they get from being the ones enforcing them, either directly (cops), or by making decisions (judges, lawyers, etc).

The government is an extension of the peoples will. Getting together to try to figure out everything from what type of roads we should have, to what you can and cannot have on your front lawn, to what should be done if one person scams another.

It's the culmination of millions of peoples wills crashing into each other. The only time it becomes fascist is when the people no longer get to influence their governance. Someone like Trump and Pence are a threat towards that goal of literal fascism, or autocracy, or oligarchy.

Civil Rights Act is certainly not fascist. It's anti-fascism. Ensuring that corporations can do whatever they want and letting people hash it out among themselves ensures power is taken from the people.


And going back to the above stated points in your reply, concerning listening to people. At the end of the day, people on the far right view your compromise and earnest communication as a form of weakness. They use this against you in order to control the conversation.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:45:59 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Group A wants to include blacks, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Gays, Trans, seniors, women, whites, asians, et al

Group B wants only to include white people, and let most of the influence fall to men of that singular group.

Group A is protecting their view of society

Group B wants to eliminate all but their race from their society.

Which one is superior, and how do you think Group A will react to Group Bs demands? Which one is more inclusive?

Which one is worth protecting and dying for?
>>
Nathaniel Fogglepet - Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:39:40 EST ID:yZAkBhxT No.208531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208519
>>And yet, you're holding it?
No, I'm not. I keep claiming 'A and B are different things.' You keep reiterating that 'A and A are the same thing!' without any new argument for why what I'm calling B is actually A. Until you come up with an actual response rather than reiterating your same claim, I have nothing further to say to you.
>>
Nathaniel Fogglepet - Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:41:29 EST ID:yZAkBhxT No.208532 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208531
To be clear, I'm referring to A and B as arbitrary variables, nothing to do with >>208529 's use of 'Group A & B.' nb
>>
Martin Wadgebanks - Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:39:23 EST ID:F9/5mVqX No.208538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208529

"include" in what exactly?


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.