Feminism

Users who are viewing this thread

this would be more convincing if you didn't immediately follow it up with a bunch of transphobic stereotypes and absurd generalisations.

i've gone ahead and removed them from your post for you. do not post them again.
Why is it so hard to talk with you people? It's like walking through a land mine. Thank God I didn't bring up statistics.

CCOFqNH.png
 
Because you ended your rant with "just live your life in a way that doesn't challenge my view of what is normal and acceptable behavior." That's not even a half-step away from "the help should be seen, but not heard." Nobody asked you to prove that you live a normal, fulfilling life before you could weigh in on the conversation. Statistically, there's a fair chance (~30%) that you're a smoker if you're an adult from Indonesia, but we all know the long-term health risks of smoking both on the smoker and those around them, so can you be trusted to make long-term health decisions in your own life? That's a ridiculous question for me to ask, and an obviously discriminatory criteria to impose on the validity of your opinion.

If you want to double down here, that's on you. Not a great hill to die on, I would think.
 
Inappropriate behavior (discrimination)
Because you ended your rant with "just live your life in a way that doesn't challenge my view of what is normal and acceptable behavior." That's not even a half-step away from "the help should be seen, but not heard."
I didn't say this though. You made that jump by yourself. In fact, if you had even the slightest faith that I'm not an inhumane monster, you'd realize that what I meant by "real proper work" includes actually researching this issue and thinking up real solutions to it, instead of just going with outrage culture like people are currently doing. Trans people are suffering, but "transphobic people" aren't the only reason why. The world is, lazily and conveniently, ignoring those other reasons.

Nobody asked you to prove that you live a normal, fulfilling life before you could weigh in on the conversation.
The question wasn't whether you could weigh in on the conversation or not. MadVader asked me how I think trans people could be accepted. I answered with the simple fact that if you want to be accepted, just show that you're an okay human being and your lifestyle is not dangerous to society. The reason people don't accept these things is that because they think they're dangerous. It's not pure stupidity either. There are legitimate, logical reasons behind it, but they're never heard. Because it's common these days to chalk disagreement as transphobic, stupid, and outdated. It's happening in this very thread with MadVader assigning labels and Antoine censoring me for "transphobia." I wasn't even saying those activities I mentioned are the majority. The discussion didn't even get to go that far. The mere mention of them was enough to censor me. It's as if they don't actually happen anywhere in the world whatsoever. Yeah right. It'd be like me going nuts over someone mentioning Islamic terrorism and insisting it's just Islamophobic crap.

And it's not like "show that you're an okay human being" is that hard. I've given an example with the homosexuals. We know they don't pose a danger to society (like people feared) because they've shown it. It's the same with other things. People avoid you because you're a muslim? Show them that you're just another human. Someone who can have fun, chill, and take a ****ing joke. Then those people won't discriminate against you anymore. In Indonesia we're used to this. We're a very diverse people. I have friends who are Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindu, atheists, bisexuals, warlocks (uncles), shamans (those few branches of family), and even the Chinese. They're just okay. I actually know my **** when I talk about diversity.

If you want to double down here, that's on you. Not a great hill to die on, I would think.
I don't mind dying here. It's good practice, standing my ground with this much censor on my bum.
 
The question wasn't whether you could weigh in on the conversation or not.
Literally correct, but it was an analogy. What you're saying is that trans people shouldn't be given the agency to control their own lives and participate fully in society until some other authority you respect (whatever qualifiers that may necessitate) comes along and tells you they have to be tolerated. I can still see the deleted portions of your post, and it is valuable to point out at this time that you specifically took issue with representation of trans people in media, pride parades, styles of dress, and some plot to "take away your free speech." With the exception of the last point (which is just conflating an expectation of politeness with censorship) these are all mundane activities which others often take for granted in their "normal" lives.

Show them that you're just another human.
Fun fact, all people are born human. It's a given, and not something that needs to be proven. It's also something you can't take from them, though here you are, saying that trans people need to pass some arbitrary and vague normality test before you decide to treat them like human beings.

You've clearly demonstrated that Monty's initial interpretation of your posts was correct. You can come back in a few days and tell us again how trans people aren't deserving of decency and respect until you're satisfied that they aren't animals.
 
Same with feminism. The original idea was appealing. Women shouldn't be treated like crap. Sure. Good. But now it has turned into a movement that insult men, call masculinity toxic, and push for female elitism. If they want people to agree with them, they should be appealing. Screaming and insulting those who disagree with you is not appealing.
I don't think many disagree with you: there are radical branches of feminism that are too absurd. But that's not what most feminist policies are about. You're dismissing feminism in general based on fringe phenomena. That is poor rationality.
What is your stance on equal representation of the sexes in areas like politics, religion, finance, and in management positions in society in general, like universities etc.? Are those not valid goals? Along with equal pay for equal work, not being forced to wear specific (religious) clothing and such.
 
I don't think many disagree with you: there are radical branches of feminism that are too absurd. But that's not what most feminist policies are about. You're dismissing feminism in general based on fringe phenomena. That is poor rationality.
That's what conservative propaganda looks like. Better ask him what he reads to inform his views. I'd say 9gag or similar.
 
It literally is. These movements want to change society so that it accepts their ideas and lifestyles.


There have been many atrocities in the history of mankind that are about forcing people to do something they don't want. Do you think the jews wanted to go to concentration camps? No. Fact is you can force a large number of people. Back then people used threats of violence. Nowadays people use laws and censorship.


This is ridiculously naive. There are countless people who disagree with the LGBT movement. They just can't voice it IRL because establishments will punish them for it. Your employers will fire you and people will call you a bigot without even bothering to hear your reasons. This is exactly what I meant with censorship. Go to the internet and you will see a lot of people disagreeing with LGBT anonymously.
I had held back on answering this out of courtesy towards you being muted, but given that that's a thing you seem to enjoy I am going to go ahead and answer now: concentration camps were an atrocity and did unspeakable damage, but also utterly failed at changing society, at least in the way that they intended.

And I don't doubt that there are people who "disagree with the LGBT movement" as you put it (disagree on what? On the right of LGBT people to have a free life? Cause that sure sounds like homophobia/transfobia to me). They are a minority. They can gather in whatever corners of the internet you like to go to and you might be able to see more of them gathered in one place. It doesn't change the fact that most of the rest of the world fundamentally disagrees with them. That was different say 50 years ago, and back then you would see employers fire people because of their gender identity and sexual orientation, and that's because at that time society was different. This was a change that happened over time because of changes in the complex dynamic system that the big blob of humans we live among is, and not because of any censorship or forced action from any particular power that be (in fact if anything powers that be tried to prevent that from happening, and failed - again because you can't force society to do what it doesn't want to do).
 
Inappropriate behavior (discrimination)
I had held back on answering this out of courtesy towards you being muted, but given that that's a thing you seem to enjoy I am going to go ahead and answer now: concentration camps were an atrocity and did unspeakable damage, but also utterly failed at changing society, at least in the way that they intended.

And I don't doubt that there are people who "disagree with the LGBT movement" as you put it (disagree on what? On the right of LGBT people to have a free life? Cause that sure sounds like homophobia/transfobia to me). They are a minority. They can gather in whatever corners of the internet you like to go to and you might be able to see more of them gathered in one place. It doesn't change the fact that most of the rest of the world fundamentally disagrees with them. That was different say 50 years ago, and back then you would see employers fire people because of their gender identity and sexual orientation, and that's because at that time society was different. This was a change that happened over time because of changes in the complex dynamic system that the big blob of humans we live among is, and not because of any censorship or forced action from any particular power that be (in fact if anything powers that be tried to prevent that from happening, and failed - again because you can't force society to do what it doesn't want to do).
Why does the authoritarian left think that censoring people makes them correct? I seem to recall only despots and genocidal maniacs censoring people throughout history.
That was different say 50 years ago, and back then you would see employers fire people because of their gender identity and sexual orientation
Those are made-up concepts and are not valid ways of looking at the world, or people. Back then people could also attain economic prosperity, birthrates were in the positive, and communities were high-trust, safe and friendly. None of those things are true today, and yes, your worldview being imposed through force and manipulation is one of the primary causes.
It doesn't change the fact that most of the rest of the world fundamentally disagrees with them.
Source required, because this is blatantly false leftist propaganda. How does the entirely of africa feel about gays? How about the entirety of the middle east? China? Indonesia? (All of asia for that matter) How about half of the USA? Lol. No, you're the minority opinion, and that's why you MUST impose your beliefs on people through strong-armed censorship and manipulation.
again because you can't force society to do what it doesn't want to do
Take notes, your worldview is currently losing global appeal at an exponential rate.
 
What is your stance on equal representation of the sexes in areas like politics, religion, finance, and in management positions in society in general, like universities etc.? Are those not valid goals?
What if not exactly 50% of women are actually not willing to go into a certain career?

Like, in a given year, there are 70 male applicants and 30 female applicants who pass the minimum requirements? What do you do then? Do you hire applicants who you know don't meet the competency requirements, or ones who passed but are not as good as other applicants, in order to meet your quotas?

What consequences could that have for a structural engineer, or a brain surgeon, or a project manager overseeing the drilling of oil in the ocean around delicate ecosystems?

As for religion it should be up to the individual religion what they want to do so long as they aren't involved in government and aren't hurting anyone.

I do support close to equal representation of the sexes in politics because the whole point of democracy is representation. But otherwise, competency should always be the number one factor and should never be pushed aside for equal representation. I also support blind hiring to ensure that neither sexism nor quota obscures the competency of a male or female candidate.
Along with equal pay for equal work, not being forced to wear specific (religious) clothing and such.
Very valid goals, and already mostly achieved in most Western countries. It is (generally) illegal to pay women less for the same work because they are women. For the most part women do get equal pay for equal type of work done, with one exception.

There is a gender earning gap, but there are also many things which mostly explain it, backed up by studies I've seen: women are more likely to be offered a job out of university, but less likely to take it. Women are less likely to ask for a payrise (!!!). Women are less likely to engage in high-risk, highly physically demanding, or highly undesirable jobs that offer better pay for the trouble, like sewer workers or bricklayers (90% of whom are male). Instead women have a 90% representation in more comfortable jobs like Human Resources, that are nicer than bricklaying and won't **** your back up in your 30s, but pay worse. Women are less likely to go for STEM courses at university, and more likely to go for arts courses (which have less high-earning jobs because a poetry graduate with a major in Beat poetry simply provides less fiscal value to society than an engineering studies graduate with a major in bridge-building). Women are less likely to work overtime.

The current goals of modern feminism do not seem to be addressing the root issues here for the gender earning gap. A lot of these problems are from choices women willingly make, not men, but men get shouted at anyway. And some of them are not even issues but the product of free choice. Science has shown us that men and women, taken as a whole, tend to have different brain structures as well as different bodies. This makes us tend towards different preferences in careers.

Women are simply better than men (and more trusted) on average at human-facing jobs like midwifery, or preschool teaching, too. We wouldn't want forced 50% male representation in those fields.

And if we don't have forced 50% representation for women in society's worst jobs like sewer cleaning, why should we have forced 50% representation in the best? If you want equality, true equality is not just giving one half guaranteed 50% access to the best of everything.

50/50 gender representation in every field is not a realistic or even necessarily desirable goal. If there are not as many women interested in being, say, moderators for Taleworlds forums as there are men, we should not be doing cartwheels to ensure that 50% of Taleworlds forum mods are women who don't care about that.

I think previous waves of feminism have achieved most of their very sensible goals, and the current wave of feminism is focusing on things which are much harder to justify.

Equality of opportunity should be provided. But equality of outcome should not be forced.
 
Last edited:
You need to actually test and observe how your plans work out before you push it into the mass. A clear example of family-structure-altering policy going wrong has already happened in China. The one-child policy resulted in a demographic crisis that's going to make life very difficult in a few years. Notice how long it took them to notice the destructive impact that this policy brings.

The Chinese aren't stupid, of course they knew there would be demographic issues down the line. They did it to solve a demographic crisis in the present. They weren't the first country in east asia to implement family limits either, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was the first, and a handful of other countries followed suit. It's silly to act as if nobody in the gigantic CPC bureaucracy ever noticed that imposing child limits would cause fewer children.

It's the same with the lgbt movement. The reason you have American-style lgbt organizations in basically every country on earth is because they work. "Native" feminist and civil rights movements are slow to act because they work within the culture they came from. There has been an islamic feminist movement for about 200 years that has achieved very little. This approach is not going to resolve the inherent contradiction between traditionalism and sexual minoritied, at least not in the near future. On the other hand the manic anti-traditionalist energy that the lgbt movement produces, in part because Its precieved as a kind of invading external force even by sexual minorities themselves, forces traditional society to do something about it. Sometimes the answer is just more explicit repression like Iran, but in some cases it results in a kind of synthesis or response that makes the traditional society more resilient, like in Japan or South America. As painful as this process is, it's probably the only way family structures will make it out of modernity intact.

Women are simply better than men (and more trusted) on average at human-facing jobs like midwifery, or preschool teaching, too. We wouldn't want forced 50% male representation in those fields.

I've worked in schools for years and honestly women aren't inherently better at teaching. A lot of men are definitely scared or discouraged from even applying, but recruiters are always actively looking for men because kids tend to listen to them more than women, for a number of reasons. As a man I have had a much easier time getting job offers than women.

Most jobhunting nowadays is mediated by recruitment agencies, and they specifically look for men or women depending on the job. It's their decisions, conscious or otherwise, that often determine who gets what job. I've had recruiters straight up tell me that they want me as an athletic black male because kids are more likely to listen to me, something you could never ever get away with during the application process, but they decide based on the interview.

This stuff is the result of social norms, not biology. Women are not inherently better at looking after children, in fact in a lot of countries male teachers are the norm. And here in China about 1 in 4 builders I see are female.
 
I wonder where destructo rama lama ding dong gets his info that he can be so certain he's correct.

Women view less jobs than men, but were 30% more likely to be hired for jobs they applied for.

Women also asked for 85-92% less salaries than men did for the same role.


Women are less likely to choose STEM careers, and get this: the more free and equal a society is, the less likely women are to choose STEM careers.

Experts have attempted to explain this by saying women are more likely to choose STEM careers in countries that are oppressive to women because it provides the most obvious path to better conditions. In other words, given a choice, women would actually prefer not to be working higher-earning STEM careers.

And that means that in a society where women's actual choices are prioritised over some dumb 50% ratio for its own sake, then women are going to be earning less.


Women are asking less for payrises! This is a very important reason for the gender earnings gap! Don't ask, don't get! (This article was written by a woman, BTW).

"In their book, Women Don’t Ask, Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever outline dozens of studies that demonstrate women’s reluctance to negotiate. For example, a survey of masters’ students entering new jobs indicated that female students were likely to take the first offer of pay, while male students were eight times more likely to attempt negotiating a higher starting salary."

This is a real problem, but feminism pointing the finger of blame at men for choosing to pay women less is not accurately targeting the source of the issue.

Any employer, man or woman, is not going to give an employee an unplanned payrise or higher starting payrate they don't ask for, whether they are male or female.
 
@five bucks pretty sure that @Lord Brutus was not talking about you, but rather about our friend who got himself banned by going on a slightly deranged rant : )

On the points that you're raising, for what is worth I don't think anyone thinks that the work force should be exactly split in half. Equal opportunity means just that, people should have the same opportunities. From a practical point of view, I can tell you how it works in my field (I work in STEM in academia, where diversity is a point that a lot of people at least seem to care about... although I often feel that it has more to do with performance than substance).

When we are looking for someone to hire, the selection is based on their competence in their scholarship/fit with the position we are trying to fill first of all, and second (close second) in terms of culture fit (as in we will not hire someone who comes across as an insufferable person if we can chose someone who is close in professional competences but is good at interacting with other people). Considerations on gender, ethnicity etc. only come into play after this, and are more used as a tie breaker between people who are about the same in the other factors.

Is it perfect? No it's not. Getting a job offer ultimately is about the people who interview you liking you, and we are all people and have all our personal biases. Which incidentally tend to be similar if we are all coming from the same background, so it is a lot more difficult to add diversity to an environment that has none. Additionally, a lot of the discrimination happens before people get to the point where they can start applying to jobs, so starting to level the playing field here is a little... Late. However, the situation today is a lot better than it was back in the golden days that DestructoRama seems to be longing for, when people would look at a woman and be unable imagine her being nothing more than a housewife.

By the way, if a woman wants to be a housewife there's nothing wrong with that. Also nothing wrong with a man wanting to be a househusband. The point is that it should be a choice rather than something that they are forced into.

Edit: you might also find this quote from the paper that is being described in the Atlantic interesting.

Our current findings agree with those of previous studies in that sex differences in mathematics and science performance vary strongly between countries, although we also believe that the link between measures of gender equality and these educational gaps (e.g., as demonstrated by Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010; Guiso, Monte, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2008; Hyde & Mertz, 2009; Reilly, 2012) can be difficult to determine and is not always found (Ellison & Swanson, 2010; for an in-depth discussion, see Stoet & Geary, 2015). We believe that one factor contributing to these mixed results is the focus on sex differences in absolute performance, as contrasted with sex differences in academic strengths and associated attitudes. As we have shown, if absolute performance, interest, joy, and selfefficacy alone were the basis for choosing a STEM career, we would expect to see more women entering STEM career paths than do so (Fig. 5). It should be noted that there are careers that are not STEM by definition, although they often require STEM skills. For example, university programs related to health and health care (e.g., nursing and medicine) have a majority of women. This may partially explain why even fewer women than we estimated pursue a college degree in STEM fields despite obvious STEM ability and interest.

TLDR: things are a lot more complicated and nuanced than they seem at first glance. They always are.
 
Last edited:
Alright. Thanks to Orion's gross misinterpretation of my arguments, I will make my stance very clear by presenting them in easy-to-read bullet points:
  • Trans people are obviously humans. They just have gender dysphoria. It's such an obvious fact that I didn't feel the need to mention that, but here we are.
  • Trans people are just like other people. They don't need to, and shouldn't, make their gender dysphoria their entire identity.
  • Trans people should, and already are, just live their lives instead of focusing on their gender dysphoria.
  • This method has already been proven effective to make various minority groups (homosexuals, muslims, black people) accepted by groups that originally refused them.
  • Gender dysphoria is a real condition that makes trans people suffer, and they need actual, proper research and effective treatments to cope with that condition.
  • The LGBT movement is not the same as LGBT people.
  • The LGBT movement is chalking the suffering from gender dysphoria to mistreatment from transphobic people, putting attention away from what's truly important.
  • The aggressiveness with which the LGBT movement is "promoting" LGBT lifestyles actually makes people hate trans people.

I will also bold some words to make sure the mods don't misinterpret my arguments again.

What is your stance on equal representation of the sexes in areas like politics, religion, finance, and in management positions in society in general, like universities etc.? Are those not valid goals? Along with equal pay for equal work, not being forced to wear specific (religious) clothing and such.
I think that idea is rather outdated and obsolete. As five bucks has pointed out, that goal is pretty much already accomplished in the western world. Right now people should be evaluating the current progress and deal with whatever is still lacking in society. Remaining to insist on equal representation will take your attention away from focusing on the real issues. As it turns out, people aren't absolutely equal, and they don't have to be. It's okay to be different. Women and men have some differences, but that's not a problem. It's only a problem when someone decides to act badly upon differences. These are very case-by-case and thus need proper work to solve, instead of just shoving it up as misogyny etc. There are other factors that need to be looked at, like economic pressure and general lack of moral. That's why I think the feminism movement is outdated and obsolete, at least in the western world.

I had held back on answering this out of courtesy towards you being muted, but given that that's a thing you seem to enjoy I am going to go ahead and answer now: concentration camps were an atrocity and did unspeakable damage, but also utterly failed at changing society, at least in the way that they intended.
Thank you for the courtesy. I really appreciate it. I hope you don't take offense to this as I really couldn't find a better way to put it, but the holocaust did change the German society during the period it was happening. The thing is, WW2 was an even bigger event that, with force, changed that society yet again. You're conveniently leaving out that period during the holocaust to fit your argument, but I know that's not because your intention is bad or anything like that. I will address the reason why along with the following:

And I don't doubt that there are people who "disagree with the LGBT movement" as you put it (disagree on what? On the right of LGBT people to have a free life? Cause that sure sounds like homophobia/transphobia to me)
@Adorno @Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James
Keep in mind that the LGBT movement is not the same as the LGBT people, and neither is feminism the same as women, or the CCP = the Chinese people. Criticizing the movement or ideology doesn't mean you hate the people. That is the trap of obsessing over an ideology. It makes you biased and jump to conclusions when someone disagree with your ideology. It's a dangerous thing. No movement/idea is perfect, and you're bound to find flaws in it, and people who disagree with it. If you're obsessed with your ideology, your line of thinking is no longer on how to improve life. It's about us vs them, causing outrage and hatred that prevent real discussions and advancement in humanity.

Continuing that, people disagreeing with the LGBT movement. Remember, the movement. The act of promoting the LGBT lifestyles, not the people. I can't go into details because it will get me muted again, but you can see the outrage around this movement, from both sides. People don't like that. DestructoRama brought up a good point about nations. In Indonesia at the very least, we really don't like what we see going on in the US around this subject. We don't want those problems to spread here. We already have other problems to deal with like the economy. Again, no offense intended, but I suggest you to talk more with people from other countries openly and respectfully to hear why they disagree with this movement, because I can't speak my mind freely here.

The Chinese aren't stupid, of course they knew there would be demographic issues down the line. They did it to solve a demographic crisis in the present. They weren't the first country in east asia to implement family limits either, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was the first, and a handful of other countries followed suit. It's silly to act as if nobody in the gigantic CPC bureaucracy ever noticed that imposing child limits would cause fewer children.
The Chinese people aren't stupid, yes, but that decision was. Reproduction is such a vital thing in a society, and they were in too much hurry and rush to solve their past population issue, which was also caused by another stupid decision by the way. The rest of the people, including the lower ranking members of the CCP, couldn't resist the atrocities because it's a brutal regime, not because they're stupid. The CCP is very reactionary in making policies, and their various failures are good examples of my point about why you shouldn't rush certain things.

It's the same with the lgbt movement. The reason you have American-style lgbt organizations in basically every country on earth is because they work. "Native" feminist and civil rights movements are slow to act because they work within the culture they came from. There has been an islamic feminist movement for about 200 years that has achieved very little.
I wouldn't say they work. More like they're very persistent. The reason those native movements fail is because they're doing it wrong. They're trying to push a different idea but limit themselves with the existing tradition, instead of trying to understand the tradition and use it in the direction that they want. In Islam for example, you can push for feminism by saying that Islam actually tells men to treat women kindly and respectfully. Many Muslims don't actually know Islam enough to understand these. Religion can be interpreted for good and bad. Teach them the good. If you want an ancient example of this, is how religious myths blended with local myths to ease assimilation. Different religion was a much more radical and sudden change, but people made it work. Granted sometimes it's by war, but the lone priests and monks travelling around did it without fighting.


In case I get muted again or even banned, I'll end this post by saying that I stand corrected. None of the insults and censors thrown at me has convinced me that my ideas are wrong. This treatment only proved my points.
 
What if not exactly 50% of women are actually not willing to go into a certain career?

I think previous waves of feminism have achieved most of their very sensible goals, and the current wave of feminism is focusing on things which are much harder to justify.
I'm not concerned about careers/jobs in general. It doesn't matter that most carpenters are men and most nurses are women.
That doesn't affect the democratic balance (power structures).
It's about roughly equal representation in areas that shape society (where the power lies).
In politics here in Denmark a bit more than 30% are women (and in parliament it's about 44%). About 50 years ago it was 10-15%.
That's because people - many women - have worked towards shifting that balance, and the work is still being done.
None of that has been through quotas. There is constantly work to be done.

Religion is very much a political factor and determines where people stand politically.*
Supporting a religion where women are systematically kept out of positions of influence is anti-democratic and only enforces misogynist views (that many religions are filled with).

About equal pay: my views are very different and it's going to be too long a discussion (about trade/labour unions and laws ensuring openness on salaries and preventing unequal pay for the same work through rules and regulations - not personal negotiations).

* https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/324410/religious-group-voting-2020-election.aspx
 
The Chinese people aren't stupid, yes, but that decision was. Reproduction is such a vital thing in a society, and they were in too much hurry and rush to solve their past population issue, which was also caused by another stupid decision by the way. The rest of the people, including the lower ranking members of the CCP, couldn't resist the atrocities because it's a brutal regime, not because they're stupid. The CCP is very reactionary in making policies, and their various failures are good examples of my point about why you shouldn't rush certain things.

I have heard this exact line from practically every western journalist who gets their information (ultimately) from US counterintelligence, and it's just not accurate. The CPC seems to pingpong between different policies almost at random, and to journalists living in western democracies where 2 policies get enacted every 10 years, it can seem like one rushed failure after another. But the CPC is like every other Communist state in history, they have a stage-based ideology that demands they work out what the next stage of economic development is and then try to force their way through it, or intentionally induce its conditions, with deliberate policy. This often does lead to internal turmoil which can often seem apocalyptic at times, but it also creates the fastest economic growth in human history. The average wage in China is higher than anything I could hope for in London, the cost of living is far lower, and extreme poverty has been almost completely eradicated. All of the East Asian countries that followed this Singapore model had unbelievable results, but China is the most extreme example because it was initially so poor and has such a large population.

Basically the CPC are accelerationists.

Speaking of accelerationists:

I wouldn't say they work. More like they're very persistent. The reason those native movements fail is because they're doing it wrong. They're trying to push a different idea but limit themselves with the existing tradition, instead of trying to understand the tradition and use it in the direction that they want. In Islam for example, you can push for feminism by saying that Islam actually tells men to treat women kindly and respectfully.

That is actually what most Islamic feminists start from, and it's not got them a lot of progress.
I respect Islamic feminists a great deal, and their approach of working within Islam is what makes most immediate sense to me, but to put it bluntly their cause is essentially hopeless. They were powerless throughout the 20th century, the entire Ulema could just ignore them because they were never a popular or well funded movement. And nowadays they're a sideshow to the main confrontation between western Feminist and LGBT movements vs Islamic Fundamentalism.

As brilliant as these Islamic Feminist scholars are, they are never going to change Islamic Fundamentalism and its army of wannabe Imam Incels who mostly use Islam as a status symbol. This is especially difficult because of how open the Quran and Hadith are to interpretation. A scholar could bring up 10,000 quotes with watertight Isnad that prove that headscarves are not compulsory, but then any imam could just get one quote from a sexist Abu Hurairah hadith in rebuttal and never think about it again.
 
Alright. Thanks to Orion's gross misinterpretation of my arguments, I will make my stance very clear by presenting them in easy-to-read bullet points:
  • Trans people are obviously humans. They just have gender dysphoria. It's such an obvious fact that I didn't feel the need to mention that, but here we are.
You really don't see why the bits below come across as you saying that they are not "normal"?
Can trans people be normal and cool? Show it then. Just be normal.
And it's not like "show that you're an okay human being" is that hard.
This comes across as you saying that trans people are not normal and not okay human beings. By the way, men and women who are comfortable with the gender they were assigned at birth can and are hated and discriminated against. The only reason why it might be a bit easier for them than it is for trans people is that their differences are more difficult to see if they are trying to hide them.

  • Trans people are just like other people. They don't need to, and shouldn't, make their gender dysphoria their entire identity.
  • Trans people should, and already are, just live their lives instead of focusing on their gender dysphoria.
This to me is like saying to a man that they should try wearing a skirt or a bra sometimes because their not doing so is making other people uncomfortable. What are you actually trying to say here? What specific actions do you have a problem with? If you are referring to the elements that were removed by Monty in your previous comments, those are not a thing. That just does not happen. So I guess problem solved?

  • This method has already been proven effective to make various minority groups (homosexuals, muslims, black people) accepted by groups that originally refused them.
Where? How? You are saying (or at least come across as saying) that people should hide who they are to be accepted by other groups that hate them.

  • Gender dysphoria is a real condition that makes trans people suffer, and they need actual, proper research and effective treatments to cope with that condition.
There is actual, proper research and effective treatments. The treatment is gender affirming care. We know this since the 90s, and researchers double and triple checked the research because non specialists had a hard time accepting it. There is an overwhelming consensus on this, to a point that is really, really difficult to obtain on a research topic in general, and is unheard of in the medical field. I am happy to provide you the papers, but it is a decent amount of work to do so and I am not going to do it unless you are genuinely interested in it and open to accepting what I am giving you : )

  • The LGBT movement is not the same as LGBT people.
Sure, the movement is made of people but clearly they are two different linguistical concepts.

  • The LGBT movement is chalking the suffering from gender dysphoria to mistreatment from transphobic people, putting attention away from what's truly important.
This is not true. At least from what I am seeing here, the LGBT movement is trying to get trans people what they need to live a happy life. I am also unclear on what you mean when you talk about "what's truly important". What is truly important in life? Gender dysphoria is associated to depression and high suicide rates if it is not treated appropriately. The treatment involves for the most part just letting people express themselves as who they truly are (and it's different from individual to individual, which is why I said gender affirming care and not just, say, surgery). I am sure I am simplifying here and there's people more knowledgeable than me on the topic that can chime in if needed.

  • The aggressiveness with which the LGBT movement is "promoting" LGBT lifestyles actually makes people hate trans people.
I don't see this aggressiveness. Again, what are you talking about specifically?

Thank you for the courtesy. I really appreciate it. I hope you don't take offense to this as I really couldn't find a better way to put it, but the holocaust did change the German society during the period it was happening. The thing is, WW2 was an even bigger event that, with force, changed that society yet again. You're conveniently leaving out that period during the holocaust to fit your argument, but I know that's not because your intention is bad or anything like that. I will address the reason why along with the following:
Yes, I am simplifying things because this is bar talk. I would however like to point out that German society did not change as much as you think, because Hitler had a lot of support from Germans. They kind of liked what he was doing, just like Italians liked what Mussolini did. Both rode to power on sentiments that were already there. And I really did not leave the holocaust period out, I am just saying that it failed to generate the change that they were looking for. Because the rest of the world had a bigger pull than just Germany, and the rest of the world wanted something different than Germany did. Again, I am oversimplifying here, not all Germans wanted that and not all the rest of the world was opposed to them (in fact many Americans kind of liked what was happening). Things are nuanced and complicated, but the bottom line is that society is a big blob of humans that collectively goes where it wants to go (in a very non linear and sometimes difficult to predict way).

@Adorno @Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James
Keep in mind that the LGBT movement is not the same as the LGBT people, and neither is feminism the same as women, or the CCP = the Chinese people. Criticizing the movement or ideology doesn't mean you hate the people. That is the trap of obsessing over an ideology. It makes you biased and jump to conclusions when someone disagree with your ideology. It's a dangerous thing. No movement/idea is perfect, and you're bound to find flaws in it, and people who disagree with it. If you're obsessed with your ideology, your line of thinking is no longer on how to improve life. It's about us vs them, causing outrage and hatred that prevent real discussions and advancement in humanity.

"Us vs them" is exactly the problem, so I am glad we agree on that at least. Again, I don't see where you see the ideological part in LGBT people wanting to live their life in peace.

Continuing that, people disagreeing with the LGBT movement. Remember, the movement. The act of promoting the LGBT lifestyles, not the people. I can't go into details because it will get me muted again, but you can see the outrage around this movement, from both sides. People don't like that. DestructoRama brought up a good point about nations. In Indonesia at the very least, we really don't like what we see going on in the US around this subject. We don't want those problems to spread here. We already have other problems to deal with like the economy. Again, no offense intended, but I suggest you to talk more with people from other countries openly and respectfully to hear why they disagree with this movement, because I can't speak my mind freely here.
I definitely agree with you that we should all talk more to people from other countries. It's part of why I like this forum. But once more, I don't understand what you are talking about here:

we really don't like what we see going on in the US around this subject

DestructoRama is, I am quite sure, fully immersed in an alternative reality echo chamber where she gets constantly told that LGBT people are deep frying children in pizza or some other nonsense. If that is what you are talking about, you are being duped by people who make money off it. They are, to put in a different way

causing outrage and hatred that prevent real discussions and advancement in humanity.

Hope this helps.
 
Back
Top Bottom