What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Tangent, Derail, and Argument Thread

Morphile

Well-known member
If your goal is to stop new members wandering into an echo chamber, then making said echo chamber harder to find is going result in fewer people wandering in.

Do you actually believe that deplatforming and censorship don’t work?
As should be clearly indicated by the message quoted in the post you replied to, the goal in question is to prevent mass shooter levels of radicalization. As mass shootings only take one nutjub, the better path is largely to leash the nutjobs in how far off the deep end they can go, rather than concentrate them so they can keep getting more and more extreme without warning. The more public the discourse, the better, because it can be monitored when it's public.

And if there is no echo chamber, because there's no need for it from not having the mainstream primary public discourse platforms banhammer dissent from Silicone Valley morality into the underground, then people aren't wandering into an echo chamber. They're running into crazy new ideas, and the counterarguments to those ideas. You're never getting rid of echo chambers to an effective degree without total censorship authority like China has, which no Western country possesses, and when the question is "how do we stop the radicalization into mass shooters", it's extremity that is what is being targeted with this questioning, not scale. It doesn't matter how many alt-right people there are in this case, what matters is how far off the deep end they go.

When we are talking about the extremes of radicalization, the solution is to prevent echo chambers where the extremes are driven further. To have disruption in radicalization from the opposed viewpoint being present. When we're talking the pervasiveness, how often people able to be considered part of some group, then confining them to echo chambers works better, as there will be fewer in absolute numbers, but there will then be a higher rate of outliers like mass shooters because these echo chambers breed genuine extremism. And if they manage to gain power despite such confinement, it will be used for far worse abuses, regardless of how limited it is. And they won't be fixable, because they justifiably assume conspiracy against them, where permitting them to speak in the most public of places (and get shitcanned by the public, but they're able to speak and being shat on by their peers instead of giant corporations they have no ability to impact) would undermine that assumption.

Ultimately, the reason Stormfront exists is because we already ban neonazis off all the major public platforms. If they weren't, they wouldn't have these highly-concentrated echochambers that people who only touch on some of the positions get forced into and made to adopt all the nonsense because they can't talk to people outside the echo-chamber. If you just oppose trans normalization, the advocacy of treating them as no different from cisgender persons despite their demands for medicinal treatment and wish for them to be recognized as a medical abnormality like every other case of needing medical intervention for a comfortable life, and get banned off Twitter and Facebook for this difference in why and details of how to accommodate them, then get stuck with /pol/ as your only place of discussing politics, you'll end up drifting to far more extreme positions, and far more of them. Because you no longer get exposed to the humanizing of transgender persons, and begin being exposed to the ideas of purging the lesser-able instead of accommodating for what they're below par in, alongside all the other extremism without opposition.

And yes, that's me describing my view own on transgenderism. Accommodate them as a medical abnormality. Like every other situation where people need chemicals pumped into them to feel comfortable with life. We do it for highly specific mental deficiencies in stress management and mood stability, what logical reason is there to not include people who feel an incongruity with social expectations of the sexes and which one they physically are that is severe to the point of impairing social function? Lets them benefit from all the existing systems for handling medical abnormalities, and the arguments that this is somehow dehumanizing are themselves arguments that dehumanize all the other abnormalities. Like my own autism. So if you think my position on transgenderism is "transphobic", you're implicitly ableist in a way that is specifically applicable to me, personally, by thinking that being categorizing as a medical abnormality for neurological abnormalities causing significant divergences from social norms is a bad thing in its own right. Or that abnormality is equivalent to inferior, which also disparages me and those like me for our fundamental difficulties with comprehending social interaction as it occurs among the neurotypical.
 

IndyFront

Yokkiziikzekker
Author
Saw an interesting and rather intelligent debate regarding democracy vs. authoritarianism in the SArS discord, then some idiot showed up and started misgendering people, accusing them of being anarchists and being an hysterical ass in general.
 

Kinetic

Vivere est militare!
I'll gust leave it here.
 

Ravan

Gone
I'll gust leave it here.
Think you may be confused. This is the thread for continuing arguments from elsewhere that were derailing the original thread, not the random shitpost thread. We have one but this isn’t it
 

Kinetic

Vivere est militare!

t-dugong

Purveyor of Silliness, Esq.
And yes, that's me describing my view own on transgenderism. Accommodate them as a medical abnormality. Like every other situation where people need chemicals pumped into them to feel comfortable with life. We do it for highly specific mental deficiencies in stress management and mood stability, what logical reason is there to not include people who feel an incongruity with social expectations of the sexes and which one they physically are that is severe to the point of impairing social function? Lets them benefit from all the existing systems for handling medical abnormalities, and the arguments that this is somehow dehumanizing are themselves arguments that dehumanize all the other abnormalities. Like my own autism. So if you think my position on transgenderism is "transphobic", you're implicitly ableist in a way that is specifically applicable to me, personally, by thinking that being categorizing as a medical abnormality for neurological abnormalities causing significant divergences from social norms is a bad thing in its own right. Or that abnormality is equivalent to inferior, which also disparages me and those like me for our fundamental difficulties with comprehending social interaction as it occurs among the neurotypical.
Medical abnormality, eh. Is that another way of saying freak now?

Seriously by that standard eventually everyone not on some narrowly defined spectrum of behaviour will be put into an asylum because they're 'a medical abnormality'. You sure you want to use that argument, @Morphile?
 

Morphile

Well-known member
Medical abnormality, eh. Is that another way of saying freak now?

Seriously by that standard eventually everyone not on some narrowly defined spectrum of behaviour will be put into an asylum because they're 'a medical abnormality'. You sure you want to use that argument, @Morphile?
Are you suggesting that all people with mental disorders should be put in an asylum? Are you saying I deserve to be put in a mental asylum? Because in that very quote, I point out that I'm autistic myself. Which is a large chunk of why the sort of response you're giving here pisses me off. Because I find it demeaning to all the people like me specifically that you're implying have something truly wrong with them with your out-of-hand denial of even considering taking transgender persons as a medical condition instead of a demographic. Without any logic to why they shouldn't be among the same ranks. You are the one to bring up mental asylums, not me. All I mentioned was existing systems to handle such abnormalities. No details, that's all on you, and it says a lot about you that you immediately jump to mental asylums. At best, you presume extremely abhorrent behavior of me alongside a large failure of reading comprehension.

If trans people, both transgender and transsexual, have significant neurological abnormalities from the norm for their physical sex, the "female brain in a male body" claim, then it stands to reason that a neurological examination would be a straightforward diagnostic tool... Which implies them as having a neurological disorder, as it is a condition in need of diagnosis with neurological examination, with defined symptoms, both behavioral and structural. This is further supported as there is a demand of medical treatment, the usage of hormone therapy and reconstructive surgery to resolve the incongruity between their neurology and the rest of their physiology. All I'm saying is that, to my knowledge, trans people have been well defined with many properties of mental disorders, including the presence of claimed neurological differences from their biological sex's standards that form a diagnostic condition, and thus they ought to be accommodated under medical practice, not demographic legislation. It's a "what box do they go in, demographic or medical, so we can handle their needs properly" question, to me.

If the medical experts say the transition is the only treatment that gets anywhere and counseling is a wash, so be it, I'm perfectly fine with that. But that should be on the medical experts. Not minors. Not twitter-obsessed nutcases. Not people who just claim they should be a certain way, without any standards to be held to.
 

t-dugong

Purveyor of Silliness, Esq.
Nope, because you put 'medical abnormality' yourself. I just want to make sure you realize what a slippery slope that is.

Suddenly looking down your nose at transgendered persons doesn't seem so funny at all, huh?
 

Morphile

Well-known member
Nope, because you put 'medical abnormality' yourself. I just want to make sure you realize what a slippery slope that is.
I'm autistic. I'm pretty damn sure I'm in the line of fire a hell of a lot before them, or not exactly far off in the slightest.

If the point was to bring up where the train of logic ends, then this is something that needs mentioned in the same post, instead of as a way of dismissing everything I said. If you're not actually making that argument yourself, then this must be clarified within the same post, otherwise I'm incapable of arguing against your point because you gave no indication of what it was.

Suddenly looking down your nose at transgendered persons doesn't seem so funny at all, huh?
Again, I am autistic, you goddamn moron. I'm wanting them level with me. Explicitly so, in the medical abnormality box with me, because they fit the box, to my knowledge, drawing from the trans rights movement's own data. Not placing myself above them. Seeing where they are now as ridiculous because it's arbitrarily above me, without any logical reason for that, and I hate the philosophy and religious reasons brought up because they're unfalsifiable belief-based reasons based on spirituality and metaphysics. And the emotional arguments, as mentioned previously, read of an awful lot of ableism demeaning to me, specifically, and a hell of a lot of other people.
 

t-dugong

Purveyor of Silliness, Esq.
Dude you're autistic, not debilitated. Stop saying you're a medical abnormality like you're some kind of figure of sympathy. One of my younger sister is lower on the spectrum than you to the point where she have to be looked after her whole life.

Also, stop putting transgendered people into your category, whatever that means.

Edit:

tumblr_inline_pap5xpq6ak1tvyhwt_400.gif
 
Last edited:

KeresAcheron

Asocial Quasisocialist
As should be clearly indicated by the message quoted in the post you replied to, the goal in question is to prevent mass shooter levels of radicalization. As mass shootings only take one nutjub, the better path is largely to leash the nutjobs in how far off the deep end they can go, rather than concentrate them so they can keep getting more and more extreme without warning. The more public the discourse, the better, because it can be monitored when it's public.

And if there is no echo chamber, because there's no need for it from not having the mainstream primary public discourse platforms banhammer dissent from Silicone Valley morality into the underground, then people aren't wandering into an echo chamber. They're running into crazy new ideas, and the counterarguments to those ideas. You're never getting rid of echo chambers to an effective degree without total censorship authority like China has, which no Western country possesses, and when the question is "how do we stop the radicalization into mass shooters", it's extremity that is what is being targeted with this questioning, not scale. It doesn't matter how many alt-right people there are in this case, what matters is how far off the deep end they go.

When we are talking about the extremes of radicalization, the solution is to prevent echo chambers where the extremes are driven further. To have disruption in radicalization from the opposed viewpoint being present. When we're talking the pervasiveness, how often people able to be considered part of some group, then confining them to echo chambers works better, as there will be fewer in absolute numbers, but there will then be a higher rate of outliers like mass shooters because these echo chambers breed genuine extremism. And if they manage to gain power despite such confinement, it will be used for far worse abuses, regardless of how limited it is. And they won't be fixable, because they justifiably assume conspiracy against them, where permitting them to speak in the most public of places (and get shitcanned by the public, but they're able to speak and being shat on by their peers instead of giant corporations they have no ability to impact) would undermine that assumption.

Ultimately, the reason Stormfront exists is because we already ban neonazis off all the major public platforms. If they weren't, they wouldn't have these highly-concentrated echochambers that people who only touch on some of the positions get forced into and made to adopt all the nonsense because they can't talk to people outside the echo-chamber. If you just oppose trans normalization, the advocacy of treating them as no different from cisgender persons despite their demands for medicinal treatment and wish for them to be recognized as a medical abnormality like every other case of needing medical intervention for a comfortable life, and get banned off Twitter and Facebook for this difference in why and details of how to accommodate them, then get stuck with /pol/ as your only place of discussing politics, you'll end up drifting to far more extreme positions, and far more of them. Because you no longer get exposed to the humanizing of transgender persons, and begin being exposed to the ideas of purging the lesser-able instead of accommodating for what they're below par in, alongside all the other extremism without opposition.

One disagreement I have here, purely from reading space battles, is that multiple shooters had active Facebook accounts where they loudly announced their politics and talked with like minded individuals, and were not de-radicalised by the general public. ("screw your optics, I'm going in").

Also Facebook already cloisters people into media bubbles, and is frequently criticised for driving political polarisation in the USA. Facebook already allows "nutjobs" to congregate and share ideas as well as well as acting a vector to find sites that incubate horrible ideas and advocate terrorism (e.g. 8chan, private discords.). Twitter is horrible for detailed discussion, but great at starting flamewar.

And social media sites, without a pre-programmed report button for extremist content, struggle against this content since they have a limited staff of human moderators to this, lack standardised rules for dealing with said content as well as a way to alert them to said content, and are faced with a problem that cannot be automated. When Tumblr off all sites has a nazi problem, can tell reporting needs to be updated.

I also am less concerned with the risks of a social media ban hammer due to the sites past and present history. The opposition to Islamic terrorism has barely worked, and has nothing to remove a thriving muslim community from the site. You can still find a ton of horrible ideas and practices on the site, like giving children bleach enamas. I do find the threat of large numbers of conservatives being force off such sites to be credible due to said sites past history and their nature as profit seeking entities.

I frankly do not find the scenario of people only partially agreeing with the far right, getting kicked offsite by a freshly recruited hyper-vigilant left wing moderator team, being able to find far right sites and unwilling to post anywhere else, to be particularly probable. I also have a different view to you on the nature of social media sites.

I also do not believe allowing sites like Storefront public outreach groups on sites like Facebook to be an effective way of radicalisation. I in fact believe it will have opposite result.

And yes, that's me describing my view own on transgenderism. Accommodate them as a medical abnormality. Like every other situation where people need chemicals pumped into them to feel comfortable with life. We do it for highly specific mental deficiencies in stress management and mood stability, what logical reason is there to not include people who feel an incongruity with social expectations of the sexes and which one they physically are that is severe to the point of impairing social function? Lets them benefit from all the existing systems for handling medical abnormalities, and the arguments that this is somehow dehumanizing are themselves arguments that dehumanize all the other abnormalities. Like my own autism. So if you think my position on transgenderism is "transphobic", you're implicitly ableist in a way that is specifically applicable to me, personally, by thinking that being categorizing as a medical abnormality for neurological abnormalities causing significant divergences from social norms is a bad thing in its own right. Or that abnormality is equivalent to inferior, which also disparages me and those like me for our fundamental difficulties with comprehending social interaction as it occurs among the neurotypical.
In which I ramble on unresearch and probably get a lot of things wrong:

I do not believe people wth abnormalities are inferior, and am not neutrotypical myself.

I will point out there good political and historical reasons for trans individuals to oppose this label. And I will warn you, this will involve discussions "intersectionality".

For example, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the USA, with many people alive today who still remember this. And then it was removed from the DSM in the 1970s, long before the Gay Rights movement had political power, by professionals who pointed out that homosexualities negative effects on the person came from outside persecution rather the official definition of what constitutes a mental illness.

I will then point out to day this day in the USA you have parents involuntarily sending their children to conversion camps to "cure" their homosexuality. I will point out children who do not conform to official gender roles are also sent there involtunary, including trans individuals, and treated in ways with horrible and illegal until they learn to act normal. And the supporters of this idea tend to be members of the Republican Parties political big tent, which in turn blames mass shootings on the mentally ill, opposes child rights and is willing to tolerate the child beatings.

I will remind everyone that mental illness is legally defined by how it impacts the users wellbeing and function, not psychological abnormal. And a standard conservative argument is that trans people are mentally ill because they are conflicted with social rules, with the trans individuals are in the wrong and must be "cured", which tends to involve treating them like garbage until they mentally break and surrender to the consensus, living an unsatisfying life to avoid further bullying. (Which ironically is an argument against trans individuals being mentally Ill, since they can adapt to social environments and by doing so they are by definition high functioning. Low functioning mentally ill people are far less able to fit in to avoid bullying than someone who can successfully blend in.).

In practice, wether or not to classify trans individuals as mentally ill or not is a political minefield due to the runoff of the previous generations political battles.

I will counter argue trans individuals can transition, and upon transitioning they cease having a mental disorder and become neurotypical. Most legally recognised mental disorders are not permanent, and having a mental disorder and being neurodivergent are not the same thing. Also most trans individuals do not identity themselves as being mentally distinct from ordinary people, and so I have decided to do the politically correct thing and treat them as ordinary people.

PS: Can you provide me with a definition of mentally abnormal. I used the term mental illness/disorder because I am aware of said words definitions, but I am unaware of one for mentally abnormal and therefor ignored it in the above.
 
Last edited:

KeresAcheron

Asocial Quasisocialist
so bigots are mentally ill? well that makes sense
My knowledge of the mental health field is purely amateur so do not take me for an authority.

But no. Most terrible people do not have mental disorders. Mistreating others is an all to human trait, as is the banality of evil, as well as stupidity and ignorance. Blaming social problems on the mentally ill has a long unpleasant history, and classifying bigotry as a mental illness stretches the definition to the point of absurdity. So let's not go there, even if this is the tangent and derail thread.

If you want to ask about the origins and root causes of bigotry, please start a new thread.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
what constitutes a mental disorder is socially determined, by whatever criteria of "normalcy" has been established. Like every other disorder.

It's there in the name. "Dis-order." This word comes from a time in which people believed that there was a normative order in nature -- a way things should be, wired into the nature (ha) of nature itself. Ditto with "deformation."

This is not part of the modern scientific paradigm, in which everything is as perfectly ordered as everything else.

So saying so-and-so is or is not a disorder doesn't actually say anything other than say that it does or doesn't meet certain criteria that have been socially established.
 

IndyFront

Yokkiziikzekker
Author
So the entire US just surpassed Argentine Navy-level incompetence:

 

Top