You directly insinuated that their transition was resultant of playing into the hype. If that wasn't the implication and their transition would have happened anyway, then they didn't get fucked by the hype, did they?
As you and I both see, this is incontrovertibly what you did. So hop right off pretending anything else regarding that one. It is what it is.
2. Of fucking _course_ they don't state that's going to happen as if an outright fact. It isn't one; it's a possibility. The check-ups are parallel to the information that they make women review before having abortions so as to further ensure their certainty. It's about making sure they have access to all the relevant information and that their mind is sound and unwavering before a major decision.
Of course they don't tell women, "You are going to have nightmares about this for years and experience deep regret."
They give them information that augments their ability to predict whether or not this will be a possibility for them.
3. See the last point.
4. I actually feel secondhand embarrassment for you on this one. Imagine missing the point _this_ hard; the fact that the half-century study mostly details an earlier period is absolutely priceless in regards to my point. It was 2% back when it was okay to hate gays and people hated transgender people even more. It was 2% when people didn't even know the term "transgender" and they erroneously called them all "transvestites" if not simply "trannies". It was 2% when the general public perception of them was as sex-crazed, drug-addicted prostitutes with a high possibility of being into things like kids and animals as well. But you're right; they probably regret it a lot more now that they're called heroes for having the bravery to be themselves. Your logic totally checks out.
By the way, 1970-2010 is 40 years, not 50 years.
"Heuheuheu me smat"
Hey, you said it, not me.
As for COVID-19, yeah; you lost the game there. I agree. You handled that L with grace though.
5. "The difference between me and you is that I don't need a crowd to applaud me for my positions."
You're pretty narcissistic if you think we have anything remotely resembling crowds currently investing enough time to read these exchanges. I often have my doubts that even _you_ read this stuff. I can't help that the few people who occasionally do usually agree with me. It's a side effect of usually being obviously correct in these cases, which is itself a side effect of taking up very simple, sorted issues rather than ones more deserving of thorough discussion.
Either way, I'm quite unsure what the point there was other than diversion. There's scarcely anything "performative" about elucidating the blatant hypocrisy inherent to simultaneously asserting that there exists some detestable mechanism by which trans people are victimized whilst victim-shaming and belittling them. I'm sure anyone can pull that off; my services aren't required.
To be honest, "5" is so incoherent that I'm not entirely sure if you're actually this dense or if you simply didn't even understand what I was saying (or misread it). Forget skirts. They were never a central point, just a random detail thrown into your hypothetical mockery, an embellishment. My point was that you're having the nerve to demonize something purportedly victimizing trans people while mocking them for being purportedly victimized. It's like relentlessly demonizing the companies that fly skydivers up for dives due to the unnecessary deaths and also making jokes at dead skydivers' expense. If I bring parachutes up as something you might say while doing so, that's not the point. You kind of lose the right to feign outrage and concern in such situations. That's the point. You're left with only your transphobia rendered transparent and no tangible aura of concern for them. Of course, as you've said before, your opinion of trans people is as follows: "Fuck 'em."
Yeah; I indeed got you on Q too. A good defense against that one would be not believing obvious bullshit. I'm glad you're taking these Ls so smoothly though.
In all seriousness, you need to work on your inferiority issues. I'm just talking with you. I never said I read a lot. You constantly say these things yourself. Does something about me give off the vibe that I read a lot? I never said that I'm so smart. Why is it that I apparently have reason to think so that needs refuting? Is it you who thinks I seem smart or at least have obvious grounds to suspect that I might be? Apparently I'm also performative. You seem to be the only who thinks I'm pulling off quite the performance.
It's as if I talk with you but you talk only to some idealized version of me who is apparently formidably well-versed and making debate an artform, putting on such a performance that crowds cheer me on wildly while they look upon you disapprovingly. The whole thing infuriates you and fosters a bitterness within you.
I admit these exchanges are rather one-sided but that has little to do with me or you, or any capabilities we might have, and it has everything to do with the fact that you've suffered the misfortune of being on the demonstrably wrong side every time. I assure you that if we were to debate regarding the sum of two and two and I were tasked with maintaining the contention that five is the answer, I wouldn't do very well either. It wouldn't mean that I was stupid; I'd simply be in a nearly impossible position. That's all. Just consider changing or debating regarding things without obvious answers instead and the outcomes will be more varied.
1. Rhetoric straight out the gate, yet again. You're claiming that I stated the reason they transitioned was due to "hype", I never referred to Trans people transitioning for popularity. I'm not going to bother continuing with this point as it is evidently clear you're just throwing shit at the wall now to hope something sticks and I can't be bothered getting caught in that retarded game.
2. "Of fucking _course_ they don't state that's going to happen"
Then don't fucking try to slip in vagaries to imply that they do. Cunt rag.
3.
4. The fact that you took a study on a group of people from a time where you describe it as taboo to be such a person and don't understand that you can't use that study to compare it to a time where that very same group of people get instant value in society merely for existing and how that could potentially change the findings of a similar recreated study done after the popularity of that group boomed is hilarious. Again I've let you pivot entirely because it might be the case that the vast majority of Trans people don't regret their decision but it is still a completely reasonable to point out that people like you will encourage people to transition but won't tell them about the massive hit to their love life that would follow, and we know that it's followed because there is now a trend growing where Trans people are lacking in a love life that a lot of them are trying to shame people into sleeping with them with the idea that not wanting to be sexually active with a trans person is in itself bigoted. Then we could mix in that transgender people umpteen times more likely to be autistic, which I wonder if that would influence anything regarding this topic when a bunch of autistic people have large groups telling them what is the best course of action is for their identity to solve their problems.
Also, yeah, 1970-2010 isn't 50 years, dropped the ball there looking at different studies and pairing it with my point that it's different in 2020. Kudos.
5. "I'm right, the people say so, you narcissist!" Lol ok. I need a coffee, I feel like there's a lot of preaching coming up.
"Forget the skirts!". I'm not interested enough to hold you to it.
This next bit is just a repeat at throwing more shit against the wall for the point #1. I never vilified Trans people at all, I vilified people like you and did so bluntly without tact, which was my intention. The rest is just preaching but I'm just not interested, dude.
Aw, shit. Tbf I'm an understanding Q Anon, I think Hillary just likes a Pizza topping more closer to home.
Awww, noooooo. You've dedicated a whole paragraph towards talking about how smart you are. Fucking end me.
Holy fuck. These representations are hilarious. How me insulting your intelligence can somehow have you conclude it as me actually fawning over your "formidable, well-versed art"? is just a great example of my impression of you being valid. You're just more of the same.
Like, dude, we've been through enough discussions to know you're trash at this. From the, "Ad hom and Red Herring" shit where you fell into using the very fallacies you lied about me using and then tried to claim it was a "master plan" just to avoid accountability.
Or when you posted studies to claim conservatives are just dumb compared to liberals and then when I read them it was referring to "social conservatives" so then you had the audacity to pretend that you weren't talking about conservatives in general but a specific set of conservatives that you didn't even mention until I corrected you.
Now you're trying to use a 50 year study to prove your point yet I have to explain to you why it can't be used because the culture around the topic has drastically changed, and you even admit so to a degree but think because it would change in your favour we should just assume the prior one is accurate.
So in Summary:
- You accept my position that there has been a drastic change in the culture regarding the topic but you think outdated data can be used.
- You admit that the 2 year evaluation to refute my position doesn't actually include the problem my position is about.
- You abandoned your skirt analogy after my criticism of it.
- You somehow think that I consider your rhetoric well made even though I've been insulting you for it.
Like at what point do I take you seriously after these experiences with you, my dude?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you just imply that anybody that disagrees with you isn't a Q follower? Oooft. Now if you excuse me I have tea plans with Hitler and Satan.
Yes. I disagree with rational people sometimes as well.
I'm just curious. Do you or do you not think there's some substance to be found in Q? If you do, why not just say it? There's nothing to be ashamed of if it's substantial after all.
And don't fucking lie to me like that again, young man; I _am_ Satan and Hitler is shuffling cards less than six feet away from me because we don't give a _fuck_ about social distancing in this bitch.
Wow. Did you just imply Q Anon people can be rational? Wow.
I'm just curious why you think I haven't noticed you changing the subject and trying to compensate in this completely irrelevant topic, especially a disingenuous one because we both know that regardless of what I say you will still try to give the impression that I believe in Q Anon shit. Bait and switch, S.W, bait and switch. You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are to subtly make such a play.
Ah, so you're telling me you play the cards Hitler deals you. I can believe it. Also, we live in a society.
"Did you just imply Q Anon people can be rational?"
I feel like you meant "can't".
If so, 100%. I absolutely just implied that, at least that they can't while still a part of that. Perhaps they can break out later but they're currently mentally ill.
If you meant "can", no. I absolutely did not imply that.
No. If you fully denounce Q I will take your word for it, at least at this point.
"You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are--"
Fuck. That's not good at all. I already don't even _think_ I'm very intelligent at all. In fact, I suspect humans in current form will never achieve our goal of unifying gravity with quantum mechanics because we simply aren't even close to sufficiently intelligent. Yet we speak of when it will finally happen. 100 years? 200 years? The thought that humans being the most intelligent species on the planet just happens to coincide with being sufficiently intelligent to fully mathematically understand the entire universe is one hell of a foolish assumption. I feel that chimps too likely believe they can understand everything with enough time. We aren't much further along.
All that expressed, with this new information from you I now feel like a self-aware ugly person just hearing that claim that we're all five times uglier than we think of our appearance in the mirror. Horrible news indeed.
I do at least feel perhaps slightly more intelligent than the average bear when debating regarding things like dark matter versus MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) as the explanation for the apparent disparity between observed galactic mass and the actual gravitational behavior thereof, but that's because I have to push myself and it's really difficult material. I don't feel particularly challenged by things like determining the sum of two and two, whether or not it's hypocritical to act outraged at alleged trans victimizers only to make fun of trans people, and simply reading numbers on simple graphs.
That's more like a UFC champion beating up a little kid on the playground; there's something wrong with you if it's an ego boost, if things _that_ simple make you feel intelligent. Rather, unlike assaulting children, this is just something that socially has to be done, albeit begrudgingly.
No. I don't play cards that Hitler deals me; he's just the dealer in the casino I'm running in Hell. The house always wins.
Broke up with cis wife
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
1. "You got fucked by the woke crowd, bro."
You directly insinuated that their transition was resultant of playing into the hype. If that wasn't the implication and their transition would have happened anyway, then they didn't get fucked by the hype, did they?
As you and I both see, this is incontrovertibly what you did. So hop right off pretending anything else regarding that one. It is what it is.
2. Of fucking _course_ they don't state that's going to happen as if an outright fact. It isn't one; it's a possibility. The check-ups are parallel to the information that they make women review before having abortions so as to further ensure their certainty. It's about making sure they have access to all the relevant information and that their mind is sound and unwavering before a major decision.
Of course they don't tell women, "You are going to have nightmares about this for years and experience deep regret."
They give them information that augments their ability to predict whether or not this will be a possibility for them.
3. See the last point.
4. I actually feel secondhand embarrassment for you on this one. Imagine missing the point _this_ hard; the fact that the half-century study mostly details an earlier period is absolutely priceless in regards to my point. It was 2% back when it was okay to hate gays and people hated transgender people even more. It was 2% when people didn't even know the term "transgender" and they erroneously called them all "transvestites" if not simply "trannies". It was 2% when the general public perception of them was as sex-crazed, drug-addicted prostitutes with a high possibility of being into things like kids and animals as well. But you're right; they probably regret it a lot more now that they're called heroes for having the bravery to be themselves. Your logic totally checks out.
By the way, 1970-2010 is 40 years, not 50 years.
"Heuheuheu me smat"
Hey, you said it, not me.
As for COVID-19, yeah; you lost the game there. I agree. You handled that L with grace though.
5. "The difference between me and you is that I don't need a crowd to applaud me for my positions."
You're pretty narcissistic if you think we have anything remotely resembling crowds currently investing enough time to read these exchanges. I often have my doubts that even _you_ read this stuff. I can't help that the few people who occasionally do usually agree with me. It's a side effect of usually being obviously correct in these cases, which is itself a side effect of taking up very simple, sorted issues rather than ones more deserving of thorough discussion.
Either way, I'm quite unsure what the point there was other than diversion. There's scarcely anything "performative" about elucidating the blatant hypocrisy inherent to simultaneously asserting that there exists some detestable mechanism by which trans people are victimized whilst victim-shaming and belittling them. I'm sure anyone can pull that off; my services aren't required.
To be honest, "5" is so incoherent that I'm not entirely sure if you're actually this dense or if you simply didn't even understand what I was saying (or misread it). Forget skirts. They were never a central point, just a random detail thrown into your hypothetical mockery, an embellishment. My point was that you're having the nerve to demonize something purportedly victimizing trans people while mocking them for being purportedly victimized. It's like relentlessly demonizing the companies that fly skydivers up for dives due to the unnecessary deaths and also making jokes at dead skydivers' expense. If I bring parachutes up as something you might say while doing so, that's not the point. You kind of lose the right to feign outrage and concern in such situations. That's the point. You're left with only your transphobia rendered transparent and no tangible aura of concern for them. Of course, as you've said before, your opinion of trans people is as follows: "Fuck 'em."
Yeah; I indeed got you on Q too. A good defense against that one would be not believing obvious bullshit. I'm glad you're taking these Ls so smoothly though.
In all seriousness, you need to work on your inferiority issues. I'm just talking with you. I never said I read a lot. You constantly say these things yourself. Does something about me give off the vibe that I read a lot? I never said that I'm so smart. Why is it that I apparently have reason to think so that needs refuting? Is it you who thinks I seem smart or at least have obvious grounds to suspect that I might be? Apparently I'm also performative. You seem to be the only who thinks I'm pulling off quite the performance.
It's as if I talk with you but you talk only to some idealized version of me who is apparently formidably well-versed and making debate an artform, putting on such a performance that crowds cheer me on wildly while they look upon you disapprovingly. The whole thing infuriates you and fosters a bitterness within you.
I admit these exchanges are rather one-sided but that has little to do with me or you, or any capabilities we might have, and it has everything to do with the fact that you've suffered the misfortune of being on the demonstrably wrong side every time. I assure you that if we were to debate regarding the sum of two and two and I were tasked with maintaining the contention that five is the answer, I wouldn't do very well either. It wouldn't mean that I was stupid; I'd simply be in a nearly impossible position. That's all. Just consider changing or debating regarding things without obvious answers instead and the outcomes will be more varied.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
1. Rhetoric straight out the gate, yet again. You're claiming that I stated the reason they transitioned was due to "hype", I never referred to Trans people transitioning for popularity. I'm not going to bother continuing with this point as it is evidently clear you're just throwing shit at the wall now to hope something sticks and I can't be bothered getting caught in that retarded game.
2. "Of fucking _course_ they don't state that's going to happen"
Then don't fucking try to slip in vagaries to imply that they do. Cunt rag.
3.
4. The fact that you took a study on a group of people from a time where you describe it as taboo to be such a person and don't understand that you can't use that study to compare it to a time where that very same group of people get instant value in society merely for existing and how that could potentially change the findings of a similar recreated study done after the popularity of that group boomed is hilarious. Again I've let you pivot entirely because it might be the case that the vast majority of Trans people don't regret their decision but it is still a completely reasonable to point out that people like you will encourage people to transition but won't tell them about the massive hit to their love life that would follow, and we know that it's followed because there is now a trend growing where Trans people are lacking in a love life that a lot of them are trying to shame people into sleeping with them with the idea that not wanting to be sexually active with a trans person is in itself bigoted. Then we could mix in that transgender people umpteen times more likely to be autistic, which I wonder if that would influence anything regarding this topic when a bunch of autistic people have large groups telling them what is the best course of action is for their identity to solve their problems.
Also, yeah, 1970-2010 isn't 50 years, dropped the ball there looking at different studies and pairing it with my point that it's different in 2020. Kudos.
5. "I'm right, the people say so, you narcissist!" Lol ok. I need a coffee, I feel like there's a lot of preaching coming up.
"Forget the skirts!". I'm not interested enough to hold you to it.
This next bit is just a repeat at throwing more shit against the wall for the point #1. I never vilified Trans people at all, I vilified people like you and did so bluntly without tact, which was my intention. The rest is just preaching but I'm just not interested, dude.
Aw, shit. Tbf I'm an understanding Q Anon, I think Hillary just likes a Pizza topping more closer to home.
Awww, noooooo. You've dedicated a whole paragraph towards talking about how smart you are. Fucking end me.
Holy fuck. These representations are hilarious. How me insulting your intelligence can somehow have you conclude it as me actually fawning over your "formidable, well-versed art"? is just a great example of my impression of you being valid. You're just more of the same.
Like, dude, we've been through enough discussions to know you're trash at this. From the, "Ad hom and Red Herring" shit where you fell into using the very fallacies you lied about me using and then tried to claim it was a "master plan" just to avoid accountability.
Or when you posted studies to claim conservatives are just dumb compared to liberals and then when I read them it was referring to "social conservatives" so then you had the audacity to pretend that you weren't talking about conservatives in general but a specific set of conservatives that you didn't even mention until I corrected you.
Now you're trying to use a 50 year study to prove your point yet I have to explain to you why it can't be used because the culture around the topic has drastically changed, and you even admit so to a degree but think because it would change in your favour we should just assume the prior one is accurate.
So in Summary:
- You accept my position that there has been a drastic change in the culture regarding the topic but you think outdated data can be used.
- You admit that the 2 year evaluation to refute my position doesn't actually include the problem my position is about.
- You abandoned your skirt analogy after my criticism of it.
- You somehow think that I consider your rhetoric well made even though I've been insulting you for it.
Like at what point do I take you seriously after these experiences with you, my dude?
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hold on. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you just admit you're a Q follower? This comes first for me.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you just imply that anybody that disagrees with you isn't a Q follower? Oooft. Now if you excuse me I have tea plans with Hitler and Satan.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes. I disagree with rational people sometimes as well.
I'm just curious. Do you or do you not think there's some substance to be found in Q? If you do, why not just say it? There's nothing to be ashamed of if it's substantial after all.
And don't fucking lie to me like that again, young man; I _am_ Satan and Hitler is shuffling cards less than six feet away from me because we don't give a _fuck_ about social distancing in this bitch.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Wow. Did you just imply Q Anon people can be rational? Wow.
I'm just curious why you think I haven't noticed you changing the subject and trying to compensate in this completely irrelevant topic, especially a disingenuous one because we both know that regardless of what I say you will still try to give the impression that I believe in Q Anon shit. Bait and switch, S.W, bait and switch. You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are to subtly make such a play.
Ah, so you're telling me you play the cards Hitler deals you. I can believe it. Also, we live in a society.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
"Did you just imply Q Anon people can be rational?"
I feel like you meant "can't".
If so, 100%. I absolutely just implied that, at least that they can't while still a part of that. Perhaps they can break out later but they're currently mentally ill.
If you meant "can", no. I absolutely did not imply that.
No. If you fully denounce Q I will take your word for it, at least at this point.
"You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are--"
Fuck. That's not good at all. I already don't even _think_ I'm very intelligent at all. In fact, I suspect humans in current form will never achieve our goal of unifying gravity with quantum mechanics because we simply aren't even close to sufficiently intelligent. Yet we speak of when it will finally happen. 100 years? 200 years? The thought that humans being the most intelligent species on the planet just happens to coincide with being sufficiently intelligent to fully mathematically understand the entire universe is one hell of a foolish assumption. I feel that chimps too likely believe they can understand everything with enough time. We aren't much further along.
All that expressed, with this new information from you I now feel like a self-aware ugly person just hearing that claim that we're all five times uglier than we think of our appearance in the mirror. Horrible news indeed.
I do at least feel perhaps slightly more intelligent than the average bear when debating regarding things like dark matter versus MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) as the explanation for the apparent disparity between observed galactic mass and the actual gravitational behavior thereof, but that's because I have to push myself and it's really difficult material. I don't feel particularly challenged by things like determining the sum of two and two, whether or not it's hypocritical to act outraged at alleged trans victimizers only to make fun of trans people, and simply reading numbers on simple graphs.
That's more like a UFC champion beating up a little kid on the playground; there's something wrong with you if it's an ego boost, if things _that_ simple make you feel intelligent. Rather, unlike assaulting children, this is just something that socially has to be done, albeit begrudgingly.
No. I don't play cards that Hitler deals me; he's just the dealer in the casino I'm running in Hell. The house always wins.