If a person can be transgendered, shouldn't that mean people can also be "transracial" or "transage"?

[Muizer]

I'm sorry Paleologos, a lot of what you cite are not statistics but incidents, and you then leave it to me to discover whether the incidents have actually lead to criminal convictions in court. This is costing me way more time than I care to invest / think it is worth.

[paleologos]

That is hypocritical.
How would you like it to be arrested and dragged to a police station, have to hire lawyers, lose time from work only to not be convicted?
Would that be fine?

[Muizer]

That is hypocritical.

How so? Hypocrisy arises from double standards. Not sure what you're referring to. Have I been using this kind of spotty evidence myself?

How would you like it to be arrested and dragged to a police station, have to hire lawyers, lose time from work only to not be convicted?
Would that be fine?

The magnitude of your indignation does not compensate for the lack of quality and volume of evidence. Showing convictions might overcome that because as precedent they have an impact beyond the incident that triggered the case itself.

As for being the person that case happens to, I doubt many would enjoy being forced into that position (on the other hand, some revel in it), but that is how the system works.

[paleologos]

I brought forth enough evidence that the power of the state (aka institutional power) is being used to harass people for what they say, sometimes they are fined and sometimes they are imprisoned.
And your answer is that since you cannot find evidence that all of them were imprisoned we are not crab walking towards an Orwellian state and I am just fearmongering about it.
Well, first they came for those who know what a real woman is...

[Muizer]

I brought forth enough evidence that the power of the state (aka institutional power) is being used to harass people for what they say, sometimes they are fined and sometimes they are imprisoned.
And your answer is that since you cannot find evidence that all of them were imprisoned we are not crab walking towards an Orwellian state and I am just fearmongering about it.
Well, first they came for those who know what a real woman is...

It is you who is trying to prove something. Burden of proof is on you. But you're not delivering. You're now down to 'if it nearly happened to some randon somewhere in the world, doom is upon us all. What you have demonstrated so far is that you just do not like where the norms of common decency are headed. What you once thought was perfectly normal behaviour no longer is. Just like catcalls , wolf whistles and slapping women on the bum in passing are no longer 'just a bit of harmless fun'.

[Love Mountain]

I brought forth enough evidence that the power of the state (aka institutional power) is being used to harass people for what they say, sometimes they are fined and sometimes they are imprisoned.
And your answer is that since you cannot find evidence that all of them were imprisoned we are not crab walking towards an Orwellian state and I am just fearmongering about it.

Your hysteria does not seem justified, to put it mildly. Anyway, I do have concerns about Western democracies that align with yours, but you are missing the forest for the trees.

I'm not particularly concerned about trans... whatever ideology, but there is a real question whether the State should be able to freeze your bank account if you are protesting. Regardless of what the protest is about. Your real concerns should probably be in a different thread regarding Statism vs Anti-Statism or whatever.

Well, first they came for those who know what a real woman is...

Even Jordan Peterson conceded that he would have a transwoman a "she" or whatever pronouns the person requested on the basis of politeness, and I would have no issues with workplaces firing people who are not "polite".

But I do agree that parts of the "diversity" movement have become toxic and far detached from the ideals the ideology espouses. Instead of becoming an ideology of openness and acceptance, it is often used as a rather clumsy tool to enforce ideological adherence. In retrospect, I also find that the way it has spread itself using popular culture to be particularly insidious because of how this dynamic ends up working out.

I have zero issues with the general mesage of respecting all gender identities, of accepting different culture, and ideologies. I like that this message is so thoroughly parrotted by kids' movies, by t-shirts, by sports, and so on. I am okay with this indoctrination. What I am not okay with, is how this ideological framework is now used to essentially, to politically discriminate against people who are "anti-diversity". Far from being open, the diversity movement has become closed and co-opted by nefarious actors who are far less interested in diversity, than they are interested in using this framework for their own personal interest.

But again, that does not fit neatly into your argument about Statism. In my opinion, the problem is, as it always has been, individuals/institutions who exploit ideas for their personal benefit. I don't think this has much to do with trans-people at all.

[paleologos]

It is you who is trying to prove something.

Not trying, more like succeeded but no amount of evidence will move one from what gives them a sense of righteousness.

Burden of proof is on you.

I have shouldered it just fine.

But you're not delivering.

Let's agree to disagree.

You're now down to 'if it nearly happened to some randon somewhere in the world, doom is upon us all.

It's happening to more and more, eventually they will come for you.

What you have demonstrated so far is that you just do not like where the norms of common decency are headed.

Strawmanship right here.
What you call norms of common decency is the perfidious alibi that the priests of the new religion of wokism are putting forth to consolidate their newfound power.

What you once thought was perfectly normal behaviour no longer is. Just like catcalls , wolf whistles and slapping women on the bum in passing are no longer 'just a bit of harmless fun'.

Nowhere more than here do you demonstrate strawmanship more blatantly and more shamelessly and that's saying something.



@Love Mountain:
I never claimed that it is bad to fire people for being toxic to their fellow workers.
Where did you get that idea?
Which part of my posts specifically?

The links I posted are about people who had brushes with the heavy arm of the state for things they posted in social media, not for being provocative to their fellow workers.

Your hysteria does not seem justified, to put it mildly.

I suppose it's your turn to say "Everything is fine" but the rest of your post is telling a different story.

Anyway, I do have concerns about Western democracies that align with yours...

That's the story.

...but you are missing the forest for the trees.

If a couple of trees in the forest catch fire, call me hysterical, but I think I should be worried about the forest.

I'm not particularly concerned about trans... whatever ideology, but there is a real question whether the State should be able to freeze your bank account if you are protesting. Regardless of what the protest is about. Your real concerns should probably be in a different thread regarding Statism vs Anti-Statism or whatever.

Perhaps, but before you lay blame on me for derailing the thread perhaps you should first read the chain of posts and back-and-forth and then decide how the thread came to this.

Even Jordan Peterson conceded that he would have a transwoman a "she" or whatever pronouns the person requested on the basis of politeness, and I would have no issues with workplaces firing people who are not "polite".

I'm right there with you, deliberately farming an unpleasant work environment is bad for productivity and reason for dismissal.
But if you complaint to your boss for something a coworker posted on social media, a coworker that is otherwise a perfect gentleman (or gentlewoman) then the toxicity is with you.

But I do agree that parts of the "diversity" movement have become toxic and far detached from the ideals the ideology espouses. Instead of becoming an ideology of openness and acceptance, it is often used as a rather clumsy tool to enforce ideological adherence. In retrospect, I also find that the way it has spread itself using popular culture to be particularly insidious because of how this dynamic ends up working out.

I totally endorse this part.

I have zero issues with the general mesage of respecting all gender identities, of accepting different culture, and ideologies.

I totally endorse this part.
But there are a couple of caveats:
Who defines what "respect" is?
Who decides what "respect" looks like?

I like that this message is so thoroughly parrotted by kids' movies, by t-shirts, by sports, and so on. I am okay with this indoctrination.

Now you are loosing me again.
Indoctrination is always bad.
In any case, children are not just learning to be "respectful".
They are learning that "respect" is saying things they don't believe in order to not be excluded.

What I am not okay with, is how this ideological framework is now used to essentially, to politically discriminate against people who are "anti-diversity". Far from being open, the diversity movement has become closed and co-opted by nefarious actors who are far less interested in diversity, than they are interested in using this framework for their own personal interest.

Thank you!

But again, that does not fit neatly into your argument about Statism.

Just wait, it'll come to you.
Or you can watch Arrested for a Meme - Harry Miller.

In my opinion, the problem is, as it always has been, individuals/institutions who exploit ideas for their personal benefit. I don't think this has much to do with trans-people at all.

I totally endorse this part.

[Love Mountain]

N
@Love Mountain:
I never claimed that it is bad to fire people for being toxic to their fellow workers.
Where did you get that idea?
Which part of my posts specifically?

I am specifically referring to Jordan Peterson's famous interview where he stated that he is against compelled speech, but would have no problems calling someone with their requested pronouns. I don't disagree with the principle of that statement in general. Eve nif his comments regarding Canadian Bill C-16 were wrong. That bill did not compel speech.

The links I posted are about people who had brushes with the heavy arm of the state for things they posted in social media, not for being provocative to their fellow workers.

The issue with your examples is that often times they involve the State in a very tangential way and are anecdotal in nature. Horrific misuse of State power will always happen, this is why due process is so important. In short, I don't see a relationship between the State and "Diversity" yet. Currently, the miltiariztion of "Diversity" to punish non-adherents and non-zealots.

I suppose it's your turn to say "Everything is fine" but the rest of your post is telling a different story.

It's not. My point is that you are trying to draw a relationship between Diversity as an ideology, and its level of institutional power in the State. It doesn't have significant power there yet. Not in a way that... well, for example, in the way that the Israel lobby wields power in US Congress. I am not trying to be anti-semitic here, for further reference I suggest the excelent book by Meashimer and Walt. Just trying to make this clear so that people aren't trying to accuse me of anti-Semitism. I am very much pro-Israel's right to exist.

Perhaps, but before you lay blame on me for derailing the thread perhaps you should first read the chain of posts and back-and-forth and then decide how the thread came to this.

I'm not accusing you of derailing the thread. Not trying to mini-mod at the moment.

In my opinion, the conversation simply should be re-started in a different thread with a clearer thesis for the purpose of improving discussion. That's all. As it is, the conversation has ping-ponged quite a bit involving a number of different topics, isntead of being focused on a specific one.

I'm right there with you, deliberately farming an unpleasant work environment is bad for productivity and reason for dismissal.
But if you complaint to your boss for something a coworker posted on social media, a coworker that is otherwise a perfect gentleman (or gentlewoman) then the toxicity is with you.

Well, workplace drama is nothing new.

In my opinion an analagous situation that's otherwise politics free, is infidelity. Let's say I was very cordial with you at work, but it so happens that I slept with your wife and you found out. The resulting emotional friction impacts the workplace. Who should be fired?

In my opinion, the worker who is less valuable to the company.

In the modern world, the person who was most politically incorrect would probably suffer the termination. I think that's wrong, but this is not government-sanctioned. The quesiton is then, should private enterprise be allowed to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation? In my opinion, yes. However, when it comes to public employers, my opinion is no. If a teacher turns out to be a Nazi, he should be fired because of the backlash from parents, not because it is illegal to think that Hitler was right.

[/B]Who defines what "respect" is?
Who decides what "respect" looks like?

Your employer, and if is being ridiculous, you should be able to sue him for wrongful termination and get a neutral third party to arbitrate whether your employer was reasonable in firing you.

Now you are loosing me again.
Indoctrination is always bad.
In any case, children are not just learning to be "respectful".
They are learning that "respect" is saying things they don't believe in order to not be excluded.

I disagree.

Indoctrination is absolutely necessary for any political entity to maintain cultural homogeneity. This will inevitably involve political indoctrination.

Now I realize that words like "indoctrination", "propaganda", and so on have a very bad association, but I believe that these tools are crucial for any State to maintain long-term stability. Is Germany wrong to indoctrinate its citizens on the evils of Fascism? No, some would argue it's crucial in order for it to never repeat its past. Just as United States indocrtinates all of its immigrants who aspire to citizenship, to accept America's version of history, of important values, and behaviors expected. Why, you even have to takes a test to prove that you've successfully understood this political education!

I don't think there is anything insidious about this. I am proud of my cultural heritage. I am certain most people are proud of at least some aspect of their cultural inheritance. It is natural and it is a unifying force.

[Muizer]

What you call norms of common decency is the perfidious alibi that the priests of the new religion of wokism are putting forth to consolidate their newfound power.

It is the way public discourse is going, yes. And that is the only thing that has ever determined what is considered "common decency". The society we consider 'decent' is the result of 'them' first coming for the bigots, then for the racists, then for the misogynist ......... All of a sudden that doesn't seem so scary anymore.

[paleologos]

The society we consider 'decent' is the result of 'them' first coming for the bigots, then for the racists, then for the misogynist .........
All of a sudden that doesn't seem so scary anymore.

Until their definition of who is a bigot, a racist, or a misogynist creeps away from what you are comfortable with and then they come for you.
By that time there is no one left to speak for you.

[Muizer]

Until their definition of who is a bigot, a racist, or a misogynist creeps away from what you are comfortable with and then they come for you.
By that time there is no one left to speak for you.

So far I've avoided becoming that cranky old man who believes everything used to be better. As long as I manage that I'll be fine.

[paleologos]

So far I've avoided becoming that cranky old man who believes everything used to be better.

You have avoided the "old" part.

As long as I manage that I'll be fine.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And by the way this post reads awfully like:
"As long as I am one of those who come for other people, I'll be fine".

[Lord Thesaurian]

Until their definition of who is a bigot, a racist, or a misogynist creeps away from what you are comfortable with and then they come for you.
By that time there is no one left to speak for you.

I don’t think the liberal/left establishment has the kind of plan this reference alludes to, and that’s partly what makes the ideological revolution that has taken over the West and the Anglosphere in particular so toxic. I would say the scorpion and the frog is a better comparison than the Nazis.

It is the way public discourse is going, yes. And that is the only thing that has ever determined what is considered "common decency". The society we consider 'decent' is the result of 'them' first coming for the bigots, then for the racists, then for the misogynist ......... All of a sudden that doesn't seem so scary anymore.

This is a great example of how the ideology in question operates. It is very similar to a religion in the way it creates and enforces moral group identity. The premise is always to present the latest ideological demand as a moral and social imperative a priori, thus deflecting and reversing the onus to justify itself. And we’ve only been able to see how powerful that tactic is as perpetual lib left revolution becomes the establishment standard. Instead of “Here’s why ‘X’ism is a question of human progress, just like slavery or voting rights,” it’s always “If you’re not on board with ‘X’ism, you’re a Neanderthal afraid of human progress.” and “If you don’t support ‘X’ism, you’re exactly the kind of person who would have opposed the abolition of slavery or voting rights for women. Humble thyself and repent!” It’s not necessary to substantiate the accusation, because the accused is automatically guilty until such time as he can confess his sin and beg forgiveness and absolution from the Church of Perpetual Revolution.

We’ve also seen how the toxicity of this ideology destroys everything it touches, and that’s where the tendency to make the “first they came for them” reference comes from. Just look at the nonsensical conversation we are having. “If X, then Y?” The answer is of course, yes, but to admit it exposes the absurd premise we are required to embrace. The contradiction gives the movement its irrational power built on faith and the rational self-destructiveness of its inherent purity spiral.

Because the social hierarchy has been inverted, the elite is no longer the oldest or most successful group, but instead, whoever can convince people they are the most aggrieved and therefore the moral and social elite. For example, traditional Christian phobia of sexual impropriety has been inverted to the point that every sexual fetish becomes a social identity group with rights and interests. Once fornication and adultery is normalized, fornicators and adulterers are no longer an oppressed minority, the societal ills which result from rampant fornication and adultery are blamed on the vanquished Christian elite, and the cycle repeats. Fornication is now too normalized to convince anyone fornicators are being marginalized, so various sexual fetishes unearthed by sexual liberation become the new aggrieved elite. Homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. More recently, pedophilia/transageism, transracialism, etc.

I don’t think this happened because the first guy to be shunned by polite society for cheating on his pious spouse devised a plan to destroy all morals so he can feel more comfortable and accepted. It’s more like a petulant child acting out just to get back at his traditionalist parents, over and over, forever, as a personal coping mechanism. I think the ideology that has become the liberal establishment utterly relies on this nonsense to reinforce its group identity and its power. As Muizer said, any reservations are a mark of personal failure, inflexibility, bigotry, etc. The trans-whatever teen whose teacher referred to them “incorrectly” is as much a victim of a sinful and unjust world as the slave who was beaten and worked to death in 1840. If I don’t think so, if I don’t work as hard to punish that teacher and celebrate that student as I would to free a slave, I’m part of the problem and might as well be a slaveowner myself. I am the sinner in need of reeducation/redemption.

This is why we will not see the end of this madness until we’ve reached peak clown world, by which point it’s unclear whether any part of what most of us would recognize as western civilization will remain. The nature of the purity spiral doesn’t even guarantee a civilization of any particular kind will remain, as no societal norms which currently exist could hope to survive it indefinitely. The appropriate historical reference point is not Stalin’s paranoid, reactive purges, but Mao’s cultural revolution.

[paleologos]

I don’t think the liberal/left establishment has the kind of plan this reference alludes to...

Perhaps, but they do have a plan.
The plan is power, gleefully vindictive power.

It is clear in this quote:

The society we consider 'decent' is the result of 'them' first coming for the bigots, then for the racists, then for the misogynist .........
All of a sudden that doesn't seem so scary anymore.

So, who decides who is a bigot, a racist, a misogynist?
Mishkin and Muizer?

It is less clear in this quote:

Edit: Nah, I can not. When hundreds of thousands of people are suffering because they do not have access to treatment, said treatment is very slow (and I guess usually very expensive) and the society that surrounds them is formed basically by ignorant retrogrades, saying that four idiots with an academic degree talking nonsense or a lady harassed on Twitter are the victims of "All this" (the woke conspiracy) seems laughable to me. And mentioning Elon Musk as a defender of freedom of expression/defender of the oppressed... Seriously, wtf.

Here mishkin implies that castration is a "treatment" that should be administered promptly on demand and disregards any objections by the medical community.
The "Nah, I can not." part means "I cannot empathize with the dissenters because they are "ignorant retrogrades", so as far as I am concerned they are fair game".

Also:

Tell me how the last infant terrible is suffering by spouting nonsense against the trans community.
I give exactly zero fs.

The implication here is "I decide whose suffering matters and I give exactly zero fs about other people's suffering".

And there is this quote:

I will just continue reading your posts to see if you say anything harmful against the trans community or against the rules of this site.

Like I said, gleefully vindictive power.

...and that’s partly what makes the ideological revolution that has taken over the West and the Anglosphere in particular so toxic.

Well, it is toxic alright.

I would say the scorpion and the frog is a better comparison than the Nazis.

The scorpion and the frog tale is about the frog's dilemma of whether to base the decision to ferry the scorpion on the scorpion's promise and common sense, or on the scorpion's nature.
The tale cautions us that no matter the circumstances one is always likely to revert to their true selves.

I am not comfortable with accepting that the cultural revolutionaries have it in their nature to be gleefully unempathetic to people of different worldviews.
Though habit is known to become second nature.

Nazis wanted to eliminate people of different races, to make more "room for themselves".
How much room? As much as they would be able to grab. Nazis would not be permanently appeased or satiated.

The cultural revolutionaries want to eliminate different worldviews to make more room for the policies that in their view will make the world a "better place".
I cannot deny that self aggrandizement as champions of victims is also a motive.

Yet one needs to keep in mind that if all grievances are redressed then activism will no longer be needed.
Do we really expect the professional activists to roll over and change vocation?
Or do we expect them to invent a new grievance, a new victim group?

One is always likely to revert to their true selves.
Professional activists will not be permanently appeased or satiated.
Ergo, it seems to me that both analogies are applicable in the issue at hand.

This is a great example of how the ideology in question operates. It is very similar to a religion in the way it creates and enforces moral group identity. The premise is always to present the latest ideological demand as a moral and social imperative a priori, thus deflecting and reversing the onus to justify itself. And we’ve only been able to see how powerful that tactic is as perpetual lib left revolution becomes the establishment standard. Instead of “Here’s why ‘X’ism is a question of human progress, just like slavery or voting rights,” it’s always “If you’re not on board with ‘X’ism, you’re a Neanderthal afraid of human progress.” and “If you don’t support ‘X’ism, you’re exactly the kind of person who would have opposed the abolition of slavery or voting rights for women. Humble thyself and repent!” It’s not necessary to substantiate the accusation, because the accused is automatically guilty until such time as he can confess his sin and beg forgiveness and absolution from the Church of Perpetual Revolution.

That part I approve and endorse.

We’ve also seen how the toxicity of this ideology destroys everything it touches, and that’s where the tendency to make the “first they came for them” reference comes from. Just look at the nonsensical conversation we are having. “If X, then Y?” The answer is of course, yes, but to admit it exposes the absurd premise we are required to embrace. The contradiction gives the movement its irrational power built on faith and the rational self-destructiveness of its inherent purity spiral.

That part I approve and endorse.

Because the social hierarchy has been inverted, the elite is no longer the oldest or most successful group, but instead, whoever can convince people they are the most aggrieved and therefore the moral and social elite. For example, traditional Christian phobia of sexual impropriety has been inverted to the point that every sexual fetish becomes a social identity group with rights and interests. Once fornication and adultery is normalized, fornicators and adulterers are no longer an oppressed minority, the societal ills which result from rampant fornication and adultery are blamed on the vanquished Christian elite, and the cycle repeats. Fornication is now too normalized to convince anyone fornicators are being marginalized, so various sexual fetishes unearthed by sexual liberation become the new aggrieved elite. Homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. More recently, pedophilia/transageism, transracialism, etc.

That part I approve and endorse.

I don’t think this happened because the first guy to be shunned by polite society for cheating on his pious spouse devised a plan to destroy all morals so he can feel more comfortable and accepted. It’s more like a petulant child acting out just to get back at his traditionalist parents, over and over, forever, as a personal coping mechanism. I think the ideology that has become the liberal establishment utterly relies on this nonsense to reinforce its group identity and its power. As Muizer said, any reservations are a mark of personal failure, inflexibility, bigotry, etc. The trans-whatever teen whose teacher referred to them “incorrectly” is as much a victim of a sinful and unjust world as the slave who was beaten and worked to death in 1840. If I don’t think so, if I don’t work as hard to punish that teacher and celebrate that student as I would to free a slave, I’m part of the problem and might as well be a slaveowner myself. I am the sinner in need of reeducation/redemption.

I have something to add here.
The more famous/successful you are, the more profusely you will be demanded to grovel for forgiveness lest your penitence is seen as insincere.
Everybody enjoy seeing the mighty fall.

This is why we will not see the end of this madness until we’ve reached peak clown world, by which point it’s unclear whether any part of what most of us would recognize as western civilization will remain. The nature of the purity spiral doesn’t even guarantee a civilization of any particular kind will remain, as no societal norms which currently exist could hope to survive it indefinitely. The appropriate historical reference point is not Stalin’s paranoid, reactive purges, but Mao’s cultural revolution.

And this is also why we should not confine ourselves to trying to persuade the fence sitters that our view of things is correct.
We should also be trying to persuade them that our view of the cultural revolutionaries is also correct.

[Muizer]

This is a great example of how the ideology in question operates. It is very similar to a religion in the way it creates and enforces moral group identity. The premise is always to present the latest ideological demand as a moral and social imperative a priori, thus deflecting and reversing the onus to justify itself.

It is definitely true that just because a development is new does not make it good. But that is not what I said or implied. Nor did I say or imply that new ideas need no justification. I explicitly said that change happens through public discourse, and providing justifications is part of that.


I'll add this though. As far as I can tell there's definitely radicalization happening at both extremes of the spectrum. On the progressive side, that does involve people trying to campaign in ways that are very loud and get very personal . In other words, attempts to cancel people who don't live up to sometimes quite radical ideals. As scary as that may be if you think yourself a potential target I don't think that means those radical ideas are, or are bound to become, mainstream. It seems in politics, for instance, parties well to the right of those ideas are gaining and leftist parties struggle. That's because they are making the same mistake you guys make, in thinking that the majority must be where the voices are loudest. They really aren't. There are lots of people with progressive sympathies who abhor the practice of cancelling conservatives (let alone arresting them) and who will (and already do) end up shifting their allegiance if it goes to far.

[paleologos]

It is definitely true that just because a development is new does not make it good.

I am pleasantly surprised.

But that is not what I said or implied.
Nor did I say or imply that new ideas need no justification.

You have given your support to people who behave as if their ideas are self evident.
The "self evident" part places the treadings of such people on the realm of the religious.

I explicitly said that change happens through public discourse...

Is that so?

Presume that I am 100% "hurtful".
Presume that I am 100% recalcitrant.
Presume that I am 100% wrong.

What is appropriate punishment for posting such beliefs in social media?

Have a straight discourse about that.

...and providing justifications is part of that.

If only we lived in such a civilized world...

I'll add this though. As far as I can tell there's definitely radicalization happening at both extremes of the spectrum.

And you would be lauded to acknowledge that radicalization on the left half of the spectrum is proactive but on the right half it is reactive.
Is this a nuance?

On the progressive side, that does involve people trying to campaign in ways that are very loud and get very personal. In other words, attempts to cancel people who don't live up to sometimes quite radical ideals.

And how many people would be rubbed the wrong way by this?

As scary as that may be if you think yourself a potential target I don't think that means those radical ideas are, or are bound to become, mainstream.

The people who have been rubbed the wrong way, and that includes me, believe that you are underestimating the Abilene paradox.

It seems in politics, for instance, parties well to the right of those ideas are gaining and leftist parties struggle.
That's because they are making the same mistake you guys make, in thinking that the majority must be where the voices are loudest.
They really aren't.

No mistake on our part, not on this one, that's not even our thought.
Legacy media are notorious for purposely employing and exploiting the tendency of people to not be the ones who would rock the boat or spoil the good mood.
They are actually counting on the Abilene Paradox to farm the perception that their lines are boosted.
That's why they were met with very little resistance as they were making their first legislative gains.

As a matter of fact, in the UK they made politically and institutionally significant gains outside of the legislature, in the form of the College of Policing and their policies.
Making a registry of people whose "thinking needs to be checked"?
And I am expected not to draw a parallel line between that and the Gauleiter demanding the Rabi to hand over the registry of the synagogue members.
The line is drawn.

There are lots of people with progressive sympathies who abhor the practice of cancelling conservatives (let alone arresting them) and who will (and already do) end up shifting their allegiance if it goes to far.

See how easy it was to draw a picture of me?
I am a conservative with progressive sympathies who used to vote for progressive parties but no more.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Perhaps, but they do have a plan.
The plan is power, gleefully vindictive power.

It is clear in this quote:

To the extent all interest groups seek power and influence, sure. But just as the scorpion didn’t plan to kill the frog, and indeed planned not to, I don’t think the leftist movements of yesteryear planned for a day when we would be seriously discussing whether making stuff up about race and age is as silly as making stuff up about gender, let alone prompted by current events in society at large. It is, rather, a product of the nature of these movements, amplified by their position in the establishment.

I am not comfortable with accepting that the cultural revolutionaries have it in their nature to be gleefully unempathetic to people of different worldviews.
Though habit is known to become second nature.

The comparison was intended to convey that the themes we are discussing are the nature of the beast that is the lib left establishment, rather than a particular conspiracy. To wit, the promise of liberation and equality for all is not a ruse in and of itself. That’s precisely why equating trans-Xism with the end of racial segregation is not only effective but necessary for credibility.

It is definitely true that just because a development is new does not make it good. But that is not what I said or implied. Nor did I say or imply that new ideas need no justification. I explicitly said that change happens through public discourse, and providing justifications is part of that.

The reference to public discourse implied the direction of the latter is itself justification, reason being that direction produced good outcomes in the past. To the extent public discourse creates common decency, I don’t think the current discussion is any more organic than the more repressive curiosities of the Victorian era, handed down from a class of elites trying to distinguish themselves from the masses. On the subject of top down influence over what is considered virtue and vice in the public discourse, we can discuss luxury beliefs as an example, if you’re interested. But that is why I disagree with the notion the subject of this thread is the consequence of open consensus building around the public interest. It is, rather, the result of an ideological purity spiral driven by and inherent to the nature of the lib left establishment.

It seems in politics, for instance, parties well to the right of those ideas are gaining and leftist parties struggle. That's because they are making the same mistake you guys make, in thinking that the majority must be where the voices are loudest. They really aren't. There are lots of people with progressive sympathies who abhor the practice of cancelling conservatives (let alone arresting them) and who will (and already do) end up shifting their allegiance if it goes to far.

I’m sure it varies by country and my context is very American, but I’ll avoid discussing political parties in detail to keep this thread out of the Mudpit. I agree the majority of people are probably not on board with this nonsense, but it doesn’t really matter in the context of what’s driving things. Power comes from the top, the lib left has a near monopoly on that institutional power in the Anglosphere. If anything, widespread opposition feeds into the narrative that the current discussion is as much a part of the struggle for social progress as ending slavery or segregation.

A third of US employers require formal training in the sort of nonsense we are discussing, dubbed “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiatives. At my job, there’s entire departments dedicated to it. The US military has dedicated millions of dollars and man hours to it at a time when resources are stretched and we are lagging behind our biggest rival on the eve of great power conflict. More than 3 million American children go to school in districts where parents are formally prohibited from being notified when their child decides to pursue what we are discussing. Most Americans are afraid to share their political views in public, with the exception of self-identified “strong liberals.”

The reality is bound to validate the concerns of “strong conservatives.” It’s not an equivalent phenomenon, because the conservative rebellion against the liberal establishment has no comparable power or influence, as indicated by the fact “strong conservatives” are considered extremists and the greatest national security threat since the Civil War by the current US government and by polite society, to say the least. Being an American conservative today is a bit like being an American socialist in 1950. Just because socialism is/was considered extremist doesn’t mean it was an equal to the establishment ideology at the time.

[Muizer]

The people who have been rubbed the wrong way, and that includes me, believe that you are underestimating the Abilene paradox.

I doubt it. It used to be quite strong when people were cowed by political correctness, but socially conservative populists have blown the lid right off it over the past decades.

[Cyclops]

So this thread has mutated from trolling trans people to defensive breast beating. Have we had a "Tommy Robinson is innocent" video yet?

Twitter and other on line media has been slowly regulated as other media forms were. If you take a look at pamphlets from 16th century Europe its pretty much printed 4chan. There's bigotry, racism, ant-semitism, literal witch-hunts, weird sex conspiracy rumours and black magic ("Observations on Prince Rupert's White Dog Called Boy"). There was a golden age for pamphlets, then a golden age for newspapers, and radio, and TV and then internet...but none of them were that golden.

Regulation always feels like the Leviathan putting its tentacles in your ears, and naturally favours the elite. Not sure why people prefer punching down on trans people instead of up at the media owners like Musk or Murdoch. I tried to find out who owns CNN, its Warner, who are owned by AT&T who are owned by Black Rock, and Vanguard who seem to be owned by each other. I guess its "the elite", people with enough sense to stay more anonymous than our more sociopathic overlords.

If we're fighting about some poor trans person we're less likely to have time to Google who profits from the clickbait. Maybe over-regulation is the tactic to force infighting? Or maybe victimising black sheep does the job just as well?

[paleologos]

I doubt it. It used to be quite strong when people were cowed by political correctness, but socially conservative populists have blown the lid right off it over the past decades.

In the US context, conservative "populists" have the ear of conservatively predisposed citizens but not liberals.
When I was talking about the Abilene paradox I was not referring to the conservatively predisposed.
I was referring to the "soft" liberals not turning their backs on the "hard" liberals due to presuming that ideas peddled by the hard liberals are the ideas one MUST subscribe to in order to be any kind of liberal.

I am not sure to what degree you guys will find this pertinent but this conversation has brought to memory a film called "Get Out".
Maybe subconsciously I feel the film is an allegory about working class liberals being ideologically "captured" by virtue signalling elite liberals only to be used a vehicles for the self aggrandizement of the latter.
In spite of the film being categorized as a psychological horror film I couldn't help finding comical qualities in it.