GUA Twitch

[fightinfrenchman]

Ah, well, good thing there's no words in your culture which are biased. That would be a real problem.

[Dolan]

I mean what do you need a -phobic label for? To project a certain social anathema on someone. To put them in "that negative camp" that needs to be villified.

It's a way of pathologising certain points of view that don't fit the mainstream agenda.

[fightinfrenchman]

Why can't everyone be nice and objective like you? People all have all these stupid biases, just be objective like good old Dolan

[Dolan]

Because being objective is hard. It means there's going to be people on both or all sides of every issue that will feel offended by what you say.
And most people would rather change their beliefs to win sympathy rather than be right and infamous.

People tend to gravitate in camps organised around commonly held beliefs. Once they decide their allegiance to that group, every argument that doesn't fit the positive, self-serving, narrative of their group will create cognitive dissonance in them. To deal with that, they will do anything to re-establish their peace of mind: denigrate the one who challenges their point of view, seek only evidence that supports their point of view while ignoring evidence that refutes their point of view, ask for group validation to feel like they're right if they're confirmed by their in-group peers, etc.

[gibson]

That's your understanding of what I'm saying. I am for an evidence-based approach, devoid of any spin.

You're really arguing for an evidence based approach devoid of spin, when the past few posts all you've been doing is spinning a negative agenda about trans people with 0 evidence that the people who you are talking about are actually trans? You are actually unbelievable how you think you're some prophet of the Truth when you are guilty of doing the exact thing you're criticizing people of.

Do you really believe that people who have a strong motivation to promote trans-positive agenda on Wikipedia are not trans or involved in any way? Why are you ignoring and skirting around the argument I made? Maybe because you don't have any counterargument, so better just hold my point of view to an impossible standard, you want me to track down their IPs, track down their physical addresses and bring statistical evidence that particular people writing on Wikipedia must be trans if they support trans points of view.

What happened to just using your brain and intuition? Do you really believe people spreading trans agenda on Wikipedia are black football players? Or Jewish rabis? It's called motive for a reason, even in a legal court.

So lets assume that you're correct and that your arguments are neutral and fact based and the edits are promoting scientifically incorrect views about trans people. You're argument is that it has to be a trans person, because only a trans person would promote something pro trans that's scientifically incorrect. So essentially what you're saying is that the only reason people would promote an incorrect point of view is if they have an ulterior motive to do so. Lets look at history. Aristotle believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo believed comets were an optical illusion and there was no way the moon could cause the earth's tides. Sir Issac Newton thought that he could turn metal into gold and died eating mercury. So one reason people might promote something that's scientifically incorrect is because they had faulty information, just like Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton. Another reason is because people just don't like to admit that their wrong, even when confronted with facts. Some people are just trolls. So to answer your question, even assuming that you were just posting neutral facts, there are plenty of other reasons why someone would promote a "trans agenda" besides the fact that they're trans. In fact you yourself have argued many times that white SJW's get offended for people from marginalized backgrounds more so than the people themselves. So I'm holding you to an impossible standard by asking for empirical evidence, so much for an evidence-based approach devoid of any spin. I guess circumstantial evidence is all we really need. And no, in a legal court you would get laughed out. Statistically there is a 1 percent chance the person who edited your posts was trans. That won't change no matter how many socially conservative groups you list off and ask if they were the ones doing the editing. Anyway, this whole discussion has made it even more clear that you are more interested in pushing your own agenda than intellectual honesty, so its not something I wish to continue. I didn't realize the waterfall of bad faith arguments and word salads you would resort to do defend a point that is impossible to prove, because of ego you are unwilling to admit you are wrong about this small, and not really relevant, point. It was both hilarious and sad when you said you're for an evidence-based approach, devoid of any spin, because I believe you genuinely believe that. Umeu would get a kick out of that.

[dietschlander]

Of course it's up to the individual to actually feel offended

One can't really choose how they feel. Even if I know that someone isn't actually homophobic, it still hurts me when I hear them use those terms in a negative way.

Im having the same problem with mis-using Jesus His name but Ive never gotton any reply on my complaints

[Dolan]

So essentially what you're saying is that the only reason people would promote an incorrect point of view is if they have an ulterior motive to do so.

Yes, the main reason (not necessarily the only one), but in most cases, the reason why people push biased narratives is because, surprise-surprise, they have a bias. Why would you try to distort facts and make them fit your narrative if not because you personally have a reason to do so?

Lets look at history. Aristotle believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo believed comets were an optical illusion and there was no way the moon could cause the earth's tides. Sir Issac Newton thought that he could turn metal into gold and died eating mercury. So one reason people might promote something that's scientifically incorrect is because they had faulty information, just like Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton. Another reason is because people just don't like to admit that their wrong, even when confronted with facts. Some people are just trolls. So to answer your question, even assuming that you were just posting neutral facts, there are plenty of other reasons why someone would promote a "trans agenda" besides the fact that they're trans. In fact you yourself have argued many times that white SJW's get offended for people from marginalized backgrounds more so than the people themselves. So I'm holding you to an impossible standard by asking for empirical evidence, so much for an evidence-based approach devoid of any spin. I guess circumstantial evidence is all we really need. And no, in a legal court you would get laughed out. Statistically there is a 1 percent chance the person who edited your posts was trans. That won't change no matter how many socially conservative groups you list off and ask if they were the ones doing the editing. Anyway, this whole discussion has made it even more clear that you are more interested in pushing your own agenda than intellectual honesty, so its not something I wish to continue. I didn't realize the waterfall of bad faith arguments and word salads you would resort to do defend a point that is impossible to prove, because of ego you are unwilling to admit you are wrong about this small, and not really relevant, point. It was both hilarious and sad when you said you're for an evidence-based approach, devoid of any spin, because I believe you genuinely believe that. Umeu would get a kick out of that.

Those were scientists or philosophers who investigated every thing on this planet that moves or has a shape and everything that doesn't. When your area of research/study is so vast, it's likely you are going to be wrong about many things. What we've noticed with modern science is that greater specialisation leads to more and better results. When science (and philosophy) were in their infancy, there was a lot of myth-based or plain amateurish speculation. That's why empirically we have more demonstrable results than they did back then. There are many reasons why those scientists had faulty beliefs centuries ago: lack of good methodology, lack of technology to test their hypothesis, lack of a body of accurate knowledge as a reference, produced by the previous two factors I mentioned. Occasionally they did stick with a theory that was faulty just because they had a bias, it was serving their argument somehow to not agree to a competing theory, made by someone else that they hated. There was some competition between Newton and Leibniz, for example.

But none of these people were simple Wikipedia editors, whose only purpose was to just mess around with information, trying to spread biased points of view to serve their political agenda. Aristotle and Newton were far too proud and genuinely interested in having valid knowledge to do such a thing. So, while I get the abstract argument you're making (people don't only support flawed points of view because of personal interest), I don't think it's a very relevant example. It's likely those greats also had occasionally engaged in such a thing, though, to promote their own pet theories. This can happen even with the greatest. Small-minded people, though, do the opposite: they're not genuinely interested in the science, their uppermost concern is with spreading a certain point of view that serves their agenda. Anything else is secondary. And this sort of social advocacy has been actually stifling real and good science, because they build pressure in the media and public opinion to scare researchers off from reaching certain conclusions or studying some subjects. There have been calls to stop giving scientists grants to do relevant research on these topics, just because advocates thought their results would lead to some outcomes in policy they would definitely not like.

[deleted_user]

I think Dolan is (edit: more than) a bit off his rocker but I also admit Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. All secondary information should be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to get at something, go to the primary source(s).

Father of VR Jaron Lanier has some interesting/compelling things to say about that. He makes a lot of sense.

[bittersalt123]

lol it sometimes looks like a contest about who knows more stuff rather than who's actually right

[Dolan]

I think Dolan is (edit: more than) a bit off his rocker

Says the guy who makes topics about suicide and who, in the early days of this forum, kept making accounts and deleting them because he wasn't getting enough attention.
Who are you to pass judgement on who's "off his rocker" and who isn't? You're not a good reference, considering your record.
Just because you're writing on a leftist hugbox that this forum is and you get lots of likes from similarly minded leftists and virtue-signallers here doesn't really make your points of view valid.

But since you can't address arguments, you resort to ad hominems and sympathy begging.

[deleted_user]

I think Dolan is (edit: more than) a bit off his rocker

Says the guy who makes topics about suicide and who, in the early days of this forum, kept making accounts and deleting them because he wasn't getting enough attention.
Who are you to pass judgement on who's "off his rocker" and who isn't? You're not a good reference, considering your record.
Just because you're writing on a leftist hugbox that this forum is and you get lots of likes from similarly minded leftists and virtue-signallers here doesn't really make your points of view valid.

But since you can't address arguments, you resort to ad hominems and sympathy begging.

Good points. We don't have to believe anything we say about each other, which is a very good thing for both of us.

[Cometk]

Good talk

[harcha]

Good (((talk)))

[Hazza54321]

I think Dolan is (edit: more than) a bit off his rocker

Says the guy who makes topics about suicide and who, in the early days of this forum, kept making accounts and deleting them because he wasn't getting enough attention.
Who are you to pass judgement on who's "off his rocker" and who isn't? You're not a good reference, considering your record.
Just because you're writing on a leftist hugbox that this forum is and you get lots of likes from similarly minded leftists and virtue-signallers here doesn't really make your points of view valid.

But since you can't address arguments, you resort to ad hominems and sympathy begging.

Youre off your rocker mate

[XeeleeFlower]

Of course it's up to the individual to actually feel offended

One can't really choose how they feel. Even if I know that someone isn't actually homophobic, it still hurts me when I hear them use those terms in a negative way.

Im having the same problem with mis-using Jesus His name but Ive never gotton any reply on my complaints

While one could argue that there is a difference between taking offense regarding something that one has chosen vs taking an offense due to an inherent biological trait, I'm not going to do that here. Your complaints have been addressed several times actually. While I think it's a silly complaint, I, personally, did always try to watch what I said when you were around. Just as I watch what I say around my religious family. That being said, I do not believe in banning people who, according to you, misuse the name of the deity you have chosen to believe in. If they continually did it just to spite you, then that would be different, but no one did or has. I also don't believe in banning people who use words I don't like. I simply will mute the stream, close out of it, read less of their posts, etc. I have told you this and have suggested you do the same.

With regards to the growing as a person posts, I do agree that adversity does change a person and makes them grow. That growth can be either positive for them or negative. Something you overlooked, my dear @Dolan is that an individual who shows empathy to others is also growing as a person. Let's say you use the word gay to describe something negative. You have a friend, an acquaintance, or even just a stranger tell you that it's hurtful to not only them, but also others. What you do with this knowledge will dictate how you grow. Do you ignore it? Place the onus on them? Shift responsibility elsewhere? Or do you tap into empathy and attempt to understand? Try to refrain from using that word? One choice is individualistic, the other more communal. Whichever way you "choose" is the way that you want to grow. You do not even need to agree with said person, but by choosing to limit yourself around them, you are showing respect and thus growing. Sure, you can argue that they shouldn't try to limit your choice of words, but they aren't. They're just telling you that something is hurtful. I don't agree with individuals who attempt to police what others say and I recognize that is a thing, but I'm not talking about those types of people here.

Forgive this mess, it's morning. But I hope I made myself clear.

[Dolan]

They're just telling you that something is hurtful.

But why should a word that describes someone's identity be hurtful? Do you feel hurt if someone says: "that's so hetero, omg"?
Or if someone says: "fucking PR 19 players"?

[fightinfrenchman]

I think something we can all learn from this thread is that we should be able to "dislike" people's posts.

[XeeleeFlower]

Heterosexuals aren't ostracized, persecuted, etc. so it is less likely that people would take offense to that. But sure, if someone was using the term "hetero" to describe something negative, then I could see how that could be hurtful to some people.

[Dolan]

Also, if you agree that adversity can be a driver for self-growth, then sparing someone that adversity (through empathy) will also deprive them of opportunities for growth.

Of course, there needs to be some measure in everything, I'm not arguing in the absolute for lack of any empathy at all, or for pushing adversity to the max, no matter the effects. But, just saying, that there are some policies that are distorting society right now and not improving it. And this Twitch incident is a small side effect of such dynamics.

[Snuden]

(no homo)

[fightinfrenchman]

Also, if you agree that adversity can be a driver for self-growth, then sparing someone that adversity (through empathy) will also deprive them of opportunities for growth.

Do you realize that this logic would justify committing crimes against people? Like it's okay to steal from people because the experience of losing their shit will help them grow

[Dolan]

Heterosexuals aren't ostracized, persecuted, etc. so it is less likely that people would take offense to that. But sure, if someone was using the term "hetero" to describe something negative, then I could see how that could be hurtful to some people.

Idk I think I can imagine a situation in which I'd be living in a society that is majoritarily homosexual and if someone called me a "hetero" pejoratively, I don't think I'd feel offended. I think this sensitivity to offense doesn't come just from minority stress, as you're implying, but primarily from the nature of this identity. There has been some brain research which pointed out that gays tend to have an over-reactive amygdala, a brain region that is also involved in giving you anxiety.

[Dolan]

Also, if you agree that adversity can be a driver for self-growth, then sparing someone that adversity (through empathy) will also deprive them of opportunities for growth.

Do you realize that this logic would justify committing crimes against people? Like it's okay to steal from people because the experience of losing their shit will help them grow

Of course, there needs to be some measure in everything, I'm not arguing in the absolute for lack of any empathy at all, or for pushing adversity to the max, no matter the effects.

[Goodspeed]

Not that I've read any of it, but I'm wondering what you think is untrue about this article @Dolan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_diffe ... psychology

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

I remember the days when this thread was about the reaction to GUA's twitch channel.....