I’m imagining a spectrum that runs from “Treatment” to “Encouragement” with “Enlightened Debate” in the middle. And then way off in a perpendicular direction is, “How about you stop spending so much time obsessing over other people genitals you fucking fascist creep?”
The enlightened middle drives me nuts.
Since I’m mentioned here, the implication that I said it was not problematic in general is yet another false one. We are talking here about opinions regard in the validity of specific positions – Nazism, anti-choice laws, trans people being by definition mentally ill – that are widely and correctly reviled as not worthy of consideration or serious debate by educated and informed people.
That anti-vaxxers aren’t allowed to spread their lies here and that commenters aren’t allowed to victim-blame here doesn’t make BB an “echo chamber”. It makes it a place with standards.
I would prefer a term different from “enlightened”, but it makes me question their sanity as well.
According to them, we should probably discuss if their condition is treatable. Personally, I do think so. Time is a great healer.
FTFY, in the spirit of the argument brought forth.
Seriously, we don’t want to go down that road. Not again. Last century was more than enough.
ETA: I’m not going to edit my wording, but I am going to explain my post. I apologize if I have hurt someone other than the intended target, which I consider the guys shouting “debate me or else you are an echo-chamber dwelling looser”.
My “FTFY” is a very evil snark. I deliberately put those words there to attack the allegedly discussable position that trans people would need treatment. What I did there is using the same kind of “argument”, doubting someone’s (mental) health and thus declaring them “abnormal”. I first attacked the “enlightened middle” (who, as I tried to point out, seem to like to discuss if human dignity is a self-evident value), insinuating that their position might be “a condition” (connotation, clearly: a medical one, e.g. a mental health issue).
I went on to change Gracchus wording, even more exaggerating. If you read their post, you see that they condemn Nazism. I used the terms “healthy and sane” here trying to show that those categories are in no way usable in a political debate. To be clear: if we argue that “sane people” and “healthy people” would support an opinion, we implicitly argue that any opposition are neither “sane” nor “healthy”. This is exactly what e.g. Nazis do. I thought my snark made this clear. I was wrong. One can e.g. simply read my edit as a statement exactly of that same kind. There might also be other ways my post can be understood which I don’t see at the moment. There would also have been ways to snark without harming someone. I didn’t, and I hope readers accept my apology.
I don’t think it’s possible to have a real debate if you’ve already conceded a very significant point simply to be able to speak.
There are certain rules that apply to playing devil’s advocate, the most important being that you state upfront that you are doing so. Add for good measure that you are not espousing your own beliefs, but are gaming possible responses by true believers. Doing it after the fact looks cowardly and insincere.
Hence my use of the scare quotes. There’s no substantive debate to be had with anti-choicers on the facts and empirical evidence, just resistance to the demands of religious fanatics who ignore such things. Unfortunately, it’s a fight we have to engage in, especially when the culpability-crazy Xtianists in Georgia, Alabama and Ohio are gearing up for their day in the Supreme Court.
I’d say “wishy-washy” or “naive”, but they’re not accurate, either. At the core of their JAQing off and their entreaties for us to give a fair hearing to long-discredited ideas (supposedly in the name of free speech) is really an attempt to preserve their own privilege, whether or not they’re blind to it.
So, for example, a male (usually a male Libertarian) might say: “hey, pro-lifers are Just Asking Questions* about whether a non-cognizant cluster of cells has the same rights as an adult woman. I don’t believe that, of course, but don’t they deserve to be heard so that we don’t create an echo chamber?” Generously assuming he might sincerely and foolishly believe this, the belief still wouldn’t be so deep if the stakes were as high for him as they were for said adult woman.
[* spoiler: they’re not. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is a fool or a liar.]
You’re right, ‘devil’s advocate’ was a very poor choice of words. I absolutely do believe in the points I’m arguing. What I’m attempting to do is illustrate that there are sometimes valid points to be made that don’t always fit neatly into a narrative. For example, even though I am pro-choice I recognize that a claim for the rights of an unborn fetus are (in my opinion) legitimate, even if it’s not enough to move me on the position at this time. I would also like to point out that I have not resorted to ad hominem as others have, and have attempted to be as respectful as possible.
Unfortunately I have no way to clarify this as I’m being told that I’ve reached the maximum number of posts allowed by a new user on the first day, even though my account is over 24 hours old.
Edit: This was the response I tried to post yesterday, but could not. Sorry for the confusion.
Please stop claiming that; damn near everything you’ve posted thus far shows the exact opposite.
I am absolutely pro-choice. I think the law that was passed in Georgia is unlawful, unconstitutional, and just all-around awful. I’m very worried that the SC will overturn R v W. At the end of the day I’m libertarian before anything else, and I don’t want more government telling me (or anyone else) what they can and cannot do.
I find it odd that people can’t seem to understand that it’s entirely possible to believe in nuanced positions. I think you weigh the facts and decide from there, but just because you come down on one side over the other doesn’t mean the other facts cease to exist.
Examples?
“I’m pro-choice for now, but because [the science is still out | the benefits of choice are not proven] I’m willing to consider that the Xitianists who are Just Asking Questions may have legitimate claims” != “I’m pro-choice.” Especially since the science is not “still out” and the benefits of reproductive choice have been proven.
Treatment is a red flag word for gender issues due to its long history of meaning involuntary treatment.
Homosexuality as a mental illness was dropped from the DSM in the sixties, and yet the crapulent conversion therapy business is still going where it hasn’t been outlawed.
I think we’ve made it taboo to even discuss some topics, like “do trans people have a mental illness that should be treated rather than encouraged”.
Probably because reparative therapy has a proven negative outcome for all LGBT people, and encouragement in trans youth drops a 40% attempted suicide rate to close to that of the cis population.
It also might be because the anti-trans activists had to falsify data to get the result they want.
No sources because I am busy right now.
Thank you for not freaking out and also for providing me with that data. It might surprise some folks on here to know that the circles I generally populate are very liberal. However one community I’ve never really had any insight into is the trans community. I have very real questions, but it is surprisingly difficult to have a frank discussion about it (and no, I don’t lead with “well, perhaps you’re just mentally ill”).
Even trying to Google information about it leads to biased sources on one side or the other. It’s tough to find pure, unbiased research because even though trans people aren’t new, social awareness in our society seems to be.
Re-read what you wrote; they’re your words.
And unlike my other fellow mutants in good faith, I have no patience for your derailment tactics and fallacious logic; nor do I have any inclination to attempt to enlighten you, when it’s pretty apparent that dominating the conversation has been your goal this entire time.
Let it suffice to say that from your own statements, you don’t sound like any ally or advocate of anyone who is actually marginalized or persecuted; instead, you sound like a Niemöller clone, just waiting to happen.
No one here is “freaking out;” you just seem highly disingenuous and you are being called out on it.
Around the time Trump won the election or shortly thereafter (if I recall correctly) someone who had supported Trump made a speech in which they suggested that people of Jewish heritage or faith were not people. This led to CNN having a panel discussion about whether they really were people. Of course everyone at the table agreed that you are a person regardless of your ancestry or faith. But it was unnerving that the discussion was even happening.
Let’s take what you just said about abortion and rephrase it on that issue. If someone were to say:
Even though I am against antisemitism I recognize that a claim that Jews are not really humans is (in my opinion) legitimate, even if it’s not enough to move me on the position at this time.
I think you’d probably agree with us that someone who said that would be pretty Nazi-adjacent. I wouldn’t invite a Nazi for dinner and I also wouldn’t invite that hypothetical person. It’s not only awful and offensive to hold the position that Jews aren’t people, it’s awful to debate that position, it’s awful to imagine there could be anything valid in that position.
Obviously you don’t see the pro-punishing-women-for-pregnancies-that-don’t-come-to-term position as being so downright awful and oppressive. You don’t think that’s a good analogy, I guarantee you most of the people here see that analogy.
If you are into understanding other people’s reasonable positions, you have to understand that complete rejection of anti-abortion as a monstrosity is itself a reasonable position. Laws that punish women for abortion aren’t an expression of opinion about when life begins, they are oppression of women.
Okay, these are interesting points. I’m going to re-read this a few times and consider a response. I’m running out of responses as a new user (I don’t really understand how this works, and it’s terribly frustrating) so it may not happen.
Still, thank you for taking the time to write this.
Edit for response:
So you’re right that I don’t quite agree with that analogy. I don’t think that saying Jewish people don’t exist is the same as saying that a fetus may have human rights, but IMO that’s not the important takeaway from this.
The fact is you can’t stop abortion without oppressing women. On that I 100% agree. I think I’ve failed at something I generally try to do when considering a topic that’s outside of my ability to experience, and that’s try to honestly place myself in that place using whatever analogue is at my disposal.
So when you say this…
…and I try to imagine myself as a libertarian woman instead of a libertarian man when considering this topic, I realize I wouldn’t be nearly as cavalier about advocating for the rights of a fetus if I were a woman. The idea that a man could pass a law that so intimately affects my free personhood would be appalling. Sickening.
So, I think I should apologize for that. In my zeal to defend all points of view I wasn’t honest about how my sex gave me a natural buffer against taking a firm stand against anti-abortion laws. I’ll try to do better in the future.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
Can we please not throw those dealing with mental illnesses under the bus like this.
Well said.
Since the concept seems difficult for some here to grasp, I’ll note for their benefit that the house where you’re having this dinner party also serves as a metaphor for this community.
Those of us who are empathetic as a matter of course, at least, in a way the community rules try to further encourage.
That is so not what people who say that “people of Jewish heritage or faith are not people” means. It means that they believe that Jewish people are subhuman.
