SwiftQuill

I'm not dismissing your bad experiences with the Right. You are the one dismissing the issues within the Left. I'm well aware there is a lot of toxicity in many conservative locations and spaces. I'm by no means defending the Right.

@Apparition of Jack I don't see Vaush talking about it. Or Destiny. Or Pakman. Or reddit. Even the old good subreddits like r/late stage capitalism stopped addressing the topic. Now it's all radical feminism, or intersectionality, or war on Palestine, or orange man bad. The topic of middle class is hardly brought up by the so called leftists. You have to admit that even if they didn't stop addressing it, it certainly has lost visibility/relevance in left wing spaces.

@Nemra I would need an entire thread to explain the abomination that is DEI in modern entertainment. Too long of a topic.

Wokies, not just US Wokies but in general, don't give a fuck about the middle class. They perceive the middle class as part of the privileged class. So instead of proposing ideas that benefit both the lower class and the middle class, they apply their focus on the 1% ethnic minority lesbian trans quadriplegic homeless drug addict immigrants. This is another win for the Right. At least the Right (whether it's BS or true) acts like it is in favor of the middle class and working class.

Hypothetically, I can imagine having a discussion with someone like Ben Shapiro, JP, or Dave Rubin. Say a 2 hour discussion. I can imagine myself explaining my views of things, on society and on politics. I can imagine they would disagree with me on most topics. But they would still try to somewhat steel man me or understand my position. If I were to do the same with Sam Seder, David Pakman, or Destiny? 0 chance. 2 minutes into the discussion they would bring up "white privilege" or "ethnocentrism" or "why are you against trans right?" These people are incapable of genuinely understanding the other side. These are the types who frame all of immigration topics as "racist vs non racist". These are people who perceive "transphobia" in those who opposed trans women in women's sports. They are incapable of either basic empathy skills or good faith dialogue. This is a perfect example. 0 ability to self reflect. 0 ability to address topics without bringing up "manosphere" and "toxic males" and "men want to dominate everyone" and treat people as anything besides the thing between your legs and color of your skin. You have no idea how relieved I am for not being American. At least my country isn't nearly as obsessed with identity politics and doesn't treat me as a villain for existing. If the Left wants to gain popularity, it needs to address issues within its ideology and stop shifting all of the blame to the 10% hyper maga Trumper right wing red pill lunatics.

@Daniel Balan maybe It's because I'm not American, so I don't deal with conservatives and they don't bother me so much. Last time I was insulted by a conservative for disliking a movie? Never happened. But I'm a racist sexist for criticizing star wars and marvel. Last time a conservative tried to censor or cancel a videogame I enjoy, my copium? Never happened. But the DEI and Sweet Baby Inc bullshit makes videogames ugly and woke on purpose. They get triggered if an anime girl in a videogame has boobies. Last time I was banned from a subreddit or Facebook group or censored online by a conservative? Never happened. But it always happens when I interact with Wokies. Last time a conservative in real life ever insulted me for no reason? Never happened. But I sure have been defamed and insulted by feminists and intersectionality people who love to demonize white people and men and put me as the blame for the world's issues. Last time I was watching the news and journalists were incredibly biased toward conservativism? I need to go out of my way for that to ever happen. But about 80-90% of journalists here sure are loyal to the woke religion. They are so woke they are incapable of discussing many topics in good faith, like immigration, without resorting to name calling racism and all of that shit. Am I triggered because I constantly get censored, because I want to enjoy good quality entertainment, and because journalists don't engage in politics in good faith? Maybe I'm "triggered". Maybe I'm alt right, far right, bigot sexist racist. But at least conservatives don't go out of their way to cancel me. And I don't have to walk on eggshells around conservatives afraid they will get offended by something trivial. Maybe I'm lucky and in my country "conservatives" are different from the US. But at this point I don't care. That attitude of "but the right wing is worse!" is such a bullshit attempt to dismiss genuine criticism that your ideology receives. I'm pro distribution of wealth. I'm pro immigration (but reasonably controlled). I'm pro freedom of speech. I'm pro gay marriage and gay people adopting. I'm pro choice. I'm pro green energies and to fight climate change. I'm for taxing the ultra rich. Politically, I would be a leftist or left of center. But society has shifted so much in recent years that most people I interact with both in person and online, they accuse me of being "far right". Sure, people like JP and Ben Shapiro like to weaponize language when they use terms like "communist" and "Marxist". But the Left is way worse. Because the Left is mainstream and it's range of weaponised words is much larger. So no I don't buy the "you're right wing and triggered by mere words" when that's peak hypocrisy coming from the leff. I have to walk on eggshells all the time, and people come to me saying I'm triggered by mere words? The same people who are deeply offended at a Final Fantasy npc who wears high heels? Beyond hypocritical.

@Jacob Morres don't use Trump as a reference for anything. Even for republican standards, even for right wing standards, he's an abomination, an anomaly. And make sure to distinguish "right wing" from "MAGA lunatic right wing". People have gained this hatred of anything that is right of center, because they think Trump. It's a fallacy of association. The right wing candidate I voted for you'd consider him really soft. He just cares about controlling immigration and lowering taxes a bit. And he has a PhD in Political Science, unlike Trump who is laughably uneducated.

It also depends if by "The Left" you mean the superset of left wing (wokeness + progressivism + economic left + democratic party) or if you mean specifically US political Left. And also if you want to know why people leave the left, I suggest listening to someone who has left the left, as opposed to some who made his career into persuading people to become leftists.

It depends on what you mean by "The Left". If you mean cultural Left, like the Star Wars director calling her own fan base "racists", of the billionaire Taylor Swift saying "men have it easy in life", or identity politics BS being shoved down my throat in videogames and Hollywood, yeah you only need 2 braincells to understand why people are against that shit. But if we're talking politics, like why people vote for that party instead of another one, it's mostly about marketing in my opinion. Believe it or not I am a leftist. Economically, socially, and I care about the environment and all that. But recently we had government elections in my country, and I voted for a right wing party. I can't trust left wing party who talks about teaching gender ideology in primary schools and female representation in the IT world, when basic shit doesn't work. Hospitals don't work. Roads don't work. Schools don't work (lack teachers). At least right wing political parties promise economic growth, stability. So it also depends on the state of your country.

You posted in this thread with 0 interested in intelligent discussion or contributing anything meaningful. 1. I'm not right wing I never said I was right wing. Not here, nor in any other thread. Because I don't identify as right wing. 2. You didn't read the original post The original post says nothing about religion or Christianity or tradition or anything like that. I specifically said that the word faith in this context is a psychological condition. And I said words like hope and confidence can be synonyms. I didn't advocate for the religious type of faith. At no point did I advocate for any religious ideology. 3. Idealized past utopia? I never said anything about an idealized past or an utopian image of society. I don't hold such a view. My guess is you projected unto me a weird regressive conservative idea of "the good ol days". This reddit type of interaction of "I'm going to own that antiwoke idiot!" doesn't interest me. I can engage in a good faith discussion with anyone but I don't waste my time with low IQ comments. And if by not wasting my time with such responses you think I'm "triggered" then you're free to think like that, if it lets you sleep well at night.

In my opinion we're in a period of paradigm lock. Because academia is woke and is too afraid of publishing studies that come across as "transphobic". It is possible in the future there will be so much evidence that scholars and scientists will stop being afraid, and will stop canceling and firing one another, and grow a pair and address this issue once and for all. So no I didn't name drop Kuhn for the sake of it. And I've already explained by mentioning Kuhn I was mostly referring to externalism. People who use science as source of information and over rely on studies tend to not understand the concept of externalism in science. That's my point. And if you keep insisting that I was wrong for mentioning Kuhn, that's fine. Replace Kuhn with externalism. John Oliver doesn't understand externalism.

@Carl-Richard I wrote a decent summary of why I perceive that video as a low perspective. All of my arguments are focused on substance. I've actually gone more in depth describing the issues with the example I gave, in this thread, than many other people who posted other examples. On Kuhn, I think it is important for people who engage in debates about science to know the basics. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, this is introductory stuff in the topic. And if people skip philosophy of science... and then engage in debates on science, they risk believing in wrong assumptions. You think my mention of Kuhn is too much or wrong, that's fine. I'm not going to insist on that issue.

@Carl-Richard I think being educated about philosophy of science would help. But I'm not going to insist on citations and philosophers and all of that. I've made my position clear on why I think the video is low perspective.

But there are some issues. 1. Being trans can be a disadvantage The whole hormone treatment stuff can indeed diminish your capacity. So you can't use "men" as the standard. 2. I don't think anyone would accept that I can't imagine a trans person, going into the field, knowing "Ok I have to run extra X meters compared to these folks around me, for me to win". I don't think any trans person would willingly tolerate that. And if they lost, they wouldn't perceive it as a loss. Likewise with cisgender women. Even if the trans person wins, the cisgender woman would have still reached the end flag earlier, it probably wouldn't feel as either a "true defeat" or as a "true win". If I were to run against someone with a disability, and I were given a handicap (having to run extra meters), just hypothetically, I don't think it would feel right. I'm not trying to be a devils advocate, nor am I saying I have a solution. But I don't think that would work.

How would you calculate that handicap? And how would we make sure that it's not unfair against trans women? I think that would only create even more contention and make things more complicated. I just think it would be easier to create a new category for them. Same with bathrooms. Men's bathrooms, women's bathrooms? "Other/non binary" bathrooms. Without going super crazy with "trans mtf disabled ethnic minority autistic gender fluid" bathrooms. Just "other".

@Carl-Richard here's a sample of the various issues in the video. 1. Reversal of the burden of proof If you wish to implement changes to a system, it's on YOU to prove that it's better than the current system. "Duuh but the burden of proof is on the positive claim, and the positive claim is that trans women have an advantage" Wrong. It's not so simple. The burden of proof doesn't work like that all the times. Otherwise you could implement changes to systems all the time and demand OTHERS to give you evidence why such changes are harmful. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim OR in certain cases the person who wants to change the system. 2. Disingenuous framing "I'm going to make fun of these silly stupid right wing transphobes!" The discussion of trans women in women's sports is legitimate. This isn't a "alt right far right MAGA" idiot's point. This is a point many centrists agree with. Many people who are apolitical (as myself) agree that it seems unfair for a trans woman to compete with cis women. If you bring up the "silly right wingers" BS it's disingenuous. It means you're being loyal to the "trans rights movement" and not taking the topic with intellectual integrity. Don't think about this as a left vs right issue. Don't think about it as a "trans rights" issue. Because that type of framing distorts reality. 3. Scientism Dismissing the tons of evidence out there, statistics, that show trans women do have an advantage over cis women. Focusing on double blind peer review papers from Harvard as opposed to available data out there. Various terrible assumptions about how science works (assuming there is an unlimited number of studies on any given topic, and a lot of data on any given topic). Forgetting to question why there is a lack of studies on this topic. Could it be... because trans women would rather NOT partake in these studies, because it would harm their careers? Not understanding how samples work, how research works. The scientific claims and reasoning in the video, it's painful. If Leo gets triggered by stage orange science, I get triggered by stage green WOKE pseudoscience. 4. Strawmans everywhere "It's not true that every individual woman is weaker than every individual man." No one makes this argument. Complete red herring and not a point worth bringing up. No one in history has ever believed this. Why did we invent men's sports and women's sports to begin with? Even back in the day, people knew that generally speaking, men tend to have an advantage. And it's a guarantee that if we separate these two categories, both men and women's competence are represented equally. It's exhausting that I have to explain this. 5. Ad hominems/Genetic fallacies everywhere? "Why are right wingers so obsessed with female sports?" Attacking the person, not the argument. 6. There are certain sports in which men don't necessarily have an advantage over women In the entire video, this is the only point that isn't completely wrong. Sure I can imagine that in archery perhaps men don't have an advantage over women. Still, that doesn't mean you SHOULD end those categories. The only factor here isn't "if you have an advantage then let's create a category". It's not just that. I think the concept of representation also matters. If we split female archery from male archery, that does guarantee both demographics are represented. And just because it's not obvious, it is possible that men would have a slight advantage over women. Such as due to better spatial vision skills. Such that you would get a result where 80% of men end up taking all the archery prizes. So no, I'm still unconvinced just because no advantage is obvious, that you SHOULD put trans women in women's sports. This is a very very short version of my complaints of the video. I could write 50 pages worth of material on why this 40 minute video is wrong.

Very low IQ response.

@Carl-Richard literally the entire video. The premises, the conclusion, the wrong assumptions, the bad application of science. It constitutes fractal wrongness.

Scientific paradigm lock. Externalism as a major component of the scientific endeavor. The video assumes (as most leftists assume) that science is without its epistemological biases and political biases. When in reality it's very political. Of course Kuhn doesn't get too deep into the Scientific Revolutions but still the video portrays science as this hyper sanitized unbiased activity which it clearly isn't. This isn't debatable by the way. It's been demonstrated historically and repeatedly. I like to call this Applied Scientism*tm. The utilitarian way people use science as a weapon, and demanding strong double blind peer review citations from Harvard's DEI Wokeology department. And any independent critical thought, any independent research is poo pooed as an emotional reaction. This is similar to Professor Dave's video attacking the other philosopher "No, science isn't dogma". Miscaracterizing the idea of externalism in science. Science reaches what's called the Normal Stage in its evolution. And even with anomalies scientists will emotionally fight to keep the status quo. Under the pretense of some bullshit excuse in the scientific methodology. It's been years since I read Kuhn so forgive me if I'm not explaining it too well. But the argument stands regardless. Anyway this video is really low perspective. Regardless of your take on the trans issue. Surely one can defend trans women beating the crap out of cis women, but not like this. Also the "there's many studies on this topic but all of them have small samples"... So? Clearly this guy has never done any academic research. You can conduct research with small samples. And you can conduct meta studies by comparing the results of various studies. The sample size isn't "just 1". The size is that, times as many studies there are out there. If there are 20 studies of sample size 1, that's a decent sample. Sure it's not 30. But with even small samples you can conduct horizontal studies, by comparing various metrics among few individuals as opposed to few metrics among a lot of individuals. I've studied philosophy of science, I've spoken with college professors, I've done scientific research myself. The things I'm saying aren't mere opinion or "antiwoke bias". It's facts.

I'm glad to hear your situation has improved. Sincerely. I don't know, I just feel life is 90% randomness. Only about 10% is within your control. I struggled to understand and accept this for a very long time. I've essentially given up on trying to manipulate the external world. Now, I mostly focus on myself. I do what makes me happy, I follow my life purpose, and there's that. Every now and then I listen to shit like this: Part of me wants to believe it. That if I change my mindset, that will literally change things. But I don't believe that's how it works. So much shit is outside your influence. I've been so blackpilled by life. In many domains. I used to have a more spiritual perspective on things. But nowadays I see everything in the most nihilistic and materialistic way possible. Because that's the model that can only explain my reality. I'm not a victim, though. I'm what Leo would consider at "Fighter" stage in that regard.

Not sure I buy that. Sounds too good to be true. Like the Law of Attraction stuff that Rhonda Byrne teaches.

@Hojo Are you saying karma is a psychological phenomenon? Or do you mean it's a metaphysical phenomenon like in Hinduism? If it's psychological, then Trump will never receive karma. I saw him in the Dr Phil interview saying "I never worry about things that bother me because I try not to think about it and I'm always busy with something else". He's not the type of person who feels worry, or regret, or guilt, or any of those normal things. I suppose that's a benefit to being a malignant narcissist. If anything his only negative emotion is anger. I do sometimes wonder if the Hindu version of karma could exist. It would explain some things. The idea that you pay in this life for the sins of your past life, it's quite retarded, morally, but it would make sense as to why certain people experience a lot of injustices in this life. Undeserving of them. Maybe Trump accumulated a lot of good karma in a past life and he's foolishly wasting it all in this one.

No such thing as karma. Reality doesn't care about morality. It's completely amoral and there's no such reward or punishment mechanism. Where is Putin's karma? Where is Kim Jong Uns karma? Their karma is to live comfortable lives full of power and essentially 0 retribution. If karma were a thing society would look very different.

Woke pseudoscientific ideological dogmatic scientifically illiterate hasn't ever read Thomas Kuhn or done any research virtue signaling scientism. We're way past the "a bit too biased to the left" and we've reached full on woke psyop. You see, I'm like the Thanos of this forum. I'm here to establish balance (in the discourse). And like Thanos, I'm an unappreciated hero.

I'm very much against materialism. Honestly I wouldn't even know what to do with 1M, much less 1B. I would probably buy a slightly bigger house, closer to the city. I would start traveling, a couple of times a year. And I would buy decent clothes, and a moderate car. Lastly I would pay big cash to publish my novels. I'm the least greedy, least materialistic person I know in this regard.