hey! a friend of mine has a trans daughter in girl scouts who needs to sell 238 more boxes to reach her goal

let’s help her get there and show a trans kid a little love 🤗

https://digitalcookie.girlscouts.org/scout/wyatt480994

we're seeing baloney levels at about 88%

(88%) ■■■■■■■■□□

I think what really makes me avoidant of engaging with this stuff is just how infuriatingly stupid his arguments are. It's a most unenjoyable feeling.

Like... they're couched in intellectual language which makes them sound plausible and informed... but if you just look at the logic, they're so obviously wrong -- and how does he not see that? Or does he see it, and he's just hoping I (and his audience) won't?

For a long time I think maybe I believed the latter, on some level, but I'm increasingly leaning towards the idea that the point is not to arrive at true conclusions, but to come up with surface-believable arguments to support what he and his audience want to believe.

(...much akin to @riley's description of TPUSA)

@riley I don't know if he has a book, but he certainly seems to be well-practiced at diversionary tactics.

@riley Practicing and exercising, yeah... that's my impression too. Truth-in-Advertising Self-Description: "We are an institution dedicated to researching how to get people to support our agenda by promoting false beliefs (with specialties in (a) coming up with false beliefs that support our agenda, and (b) working out how best to get people to believe those things."

Maybe this is a fight worth diving into? If I actually take the time to dismantle the arguments in his book, then either of the following could happen:

1. He addresses the counterarguments within the book, and corrects his conclusions as necessary. (Unlikely, but then I would have done my bit to stop a tiny piece of the BS Flood before it escaped into the wild.)
2. He publishes the book with no significant changes -- and then I can post (on Issuepedia) my counterarguments, drawing attention to the fact that he had the chance to correct his arguments before publication but chose not to.

...and also I would add: "Yes, that's the mainstream position -- which means the burden of proof is on you to establish that there's reason to disbelieve it. You can't just proceed from the premise that it's wrong and then build additional arguments on top (unless those arguments are clearly framed as hypothetical)."

Taking them in reverse order, because I haven't replied to the first one yet. (Context: I used an LLM to do a fact-check of his post, and summarized the key issues before linking to the full analysis.)

His Reply the Second

AI usually gives the mainstream position on any issue.

I got this in answer to "what is systemic racism?":

• Systemic racism exists when rules and institutions are formally race-neutralbut their combined effects consistently disadvantage one racial group and advantage another

No one has to be overtly racist for this to happen.
No mention of the possibility of endogenous race differences.

My reply to that:

• It is true that no individual has to be overtly racist for this to happen, but that is not evidence that systemic racism doesn't exist. (Nor is it evidence that there are no individuals who are racist.)

• Also, unfair prejudice can exist whether or not a group is statistically inferior in some way, and statistical inferiority can exist whether this hypothetical inferiority is endogenous or circumstantial.

• So, what is your larger point?

Thing I wish I had added: Being mainstream doesn't make it wrong. (...and I'm saying this as someone who has spent a lifetime having to fight against inaccurate and harmful mainstream ideas.)

(...and now he has replied to that with the argument that "endogenous differences" are a simpler explanation than systemic racism, and he wants me to read the book. I replied that the sun being pulled around the sky by white horses is a simpler explanation than orbital mechanics.)

His Reply the First

Hi W: Didn't know you were interested in these issues. I think that systemic racism is simply a label for set of social disparities that have largely non-racial causes. I make the case at some length in a book that should be coming out this year. File attached.

Really? After a decade of lunchtime discussions, and all the times I've done in-depth analyses of his posts, he didn't know this?

(I guess I'm glad he's not in office.)

@davbram I'm thinking in the larger sense -- they've already been wrecking society and the environment for 4+ decades now. The situation with the state-sponsorerd terrorists in our cities is just the Jenga tower finally starting to collapse.

@georgetakei

@davbram It's just, like... how are we even the same species. >.< ...or more relevantly: how can we protect ourselves from them when they come from among us?

@georgetakei

@wdlindsy Seems like we're starting to trace the social rift(s) closer to their source(s)...

@BigShellEvent It depends, I think, on what you mean by "grow out of". I know I'm a lot less reactive to his BS than I used to be, for example.

@hellomiakoda It me, actually -- I feel like I've been anticipating this moment in history at least since Dubya, and aware of US society's on-again off-again love affair with brutality and authoritarianism since middle school... and I've never really had the option of completely hiding from it, so being prepared to fight it has pretty much always been the only option.

@Lana

@SistaWendy I totally feel that. o.o

@hellomiakoda We have the advantage of being less easily distinguishable by sight.

Note how many of the "dangerous criminal illegal immigrants" are US-born citizens with no criminal record -- it's all about who makes a good target when the priority is being seen punishing a Them.

Once they run out of not-Us-looking brown people, of course, they probably will start looking for anyone who might surface-plausibly be described as "really a man" in the wrong place or wearing the wrong thing.

Eventually they'll work their way down to "anyone not wearing [enough] fash fashion accessories".

Noem as much as said "papers, please" was going to be policy. They admire that crap. Eventually they'll all turn each other in and the whole thing will implode; the question is what we'll be left with, by the time that happens.

...sorry, that was probably rather depressing. I'm getting too used to coexisting with Dark Thoughts. :blobcat_thisisfine:

@Lana

tfw you wrote a calm response to a political post by your 88-yo right-wing father this morning and now he has responded and suddenly you experience anxiety about going to look at it (more because of the subtle gaslighting likely to be present than because of any material danger) >.<

I mean, I'm sure we've all had this exact experience at one time or another. :spiral_eyes:

@ceejbot It does indeed take a little while to build those calluses up. :-/

(I my own self am way out of practice and have probably grown foolishly uncallus...)

@texel

@wdlindsy "Every accusation is a confession."

It's Girl Scout cookie season, so here is a list of trans Girl Scouts you can buy from!

The list is long (yay!), but I'd recommend reading the bios and finding someone to support who hasn't already met their goal so we can help as many of them meet their goals as possible.

If you're overwhelmed by the list, this is my second year supporting Elvie and they're only at about 25% of their goal right now so I’m sure they'd appreciate your support!

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/2026-trans-girl-scouts-to-order-cookies

tired: The Loneliness of Command
wired: The Loneliness of Command-Line Construction by Means of Trying to Comprehend the Frickin' Manpage